the thing that occurs to me is, that in a normal bid process there are sealed bids, the winner is announced, period. None of this, we have eliminated one of the bids. If it had been eliminated for competitive reasons they would be announcing that the contract was awarded to someone else doncha think? Not that I am an expert on federal procurement, so yeah, I could be wrong, and just have a suspicious mind.
I also don't know Halibuton's standing in the field; possibly not accepting a bid from them would be like, oh, an rfp for a large-scale WAN that says neither Novell or Cisco products can be used. I cheerfully admit my ignorance. I just think their participation in the process, coupled with payments of an unknown structure to the vice-president of the United States, who has been known to urge the declaration of war, very much smells of at least apparent misconduct, and I hope the matter is thoroughly aired. FWIW, if an independent investigation finds no impropriety, then I will be the first to say I was wrong -- not that Dick Cheney gives a hoot either way what my opinion is... Nick McClure writes: > Well, if Halliburton's bid was rejected and there are two other bids that > are still in the running, then it does prove there was a bid process. > > What is suspicious, a company that can do the types of things that need to > be done in Iraq, submits a bid to do them. I bet the would have submitted a > bid if Cheney hadn't been VP and were still in the same situation. > > At 04:45 PM 3/29/2003 +0000, you wrote: > >no, it doesn't prove it though it would fit the facts. As would someone > >saying well we better watch what we try to get away with. I haven't lept to > >any conclusions, personally, just think it's suspicious as hell... > > > >Dana > > > >Nick McClure writes: > > > > > 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
