But it proves that there was a bid process, which some on this list disputed. And any sub-contracts would be awarded by the contract winner, not the government.
My point here is that many people jump to conclusions without getting all the facts first. At 03:55 PM 3/29/2003 +0000, you wrote: >"Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a >sub-contractor role.....Halliburton has won one Iraq-related job. The >company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit this week was awarded a contract by the >U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency >repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure. Halliburton wouldn't speculate about >the deal's monetary value. " > >Still I suppose it's good they are nto going to get the whole enchilada... > > >Nick McClure writes: > > > http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/28/news/companies/Halliburton/index.htm > > > > Halliburton is out of the running for the main contract to rebuild Iraq. > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
