There is an RFP process. It's just currently geared to exclude some companies, particularly non-US companies.
-Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:57 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Halliburton out of the running > > > If they are the best then I agree with this. I dunno why there couldn't > still be an rfp though... but if that is the case the question > then becomes > why all the secrecy about the payments to Cheney. Assuming they are > innocent for a moment, the extreme secrecy of tnis administration works > against this country's (and its own) best interestes. > > Dana > > > Jerry Johnson writes: > > > In response to Tim's saying that a subsidiary of Haliburton is > the best at that kind of work, and he has seen them in the field, > I withdraw my qualified objections. > > > > If they are the best (and I take Tim's word for it) then, > regardless of appearances and the cost, they should be doing the work. > > > > Mea culpa. > > Jerry Johnson > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/31/03 09:28AM >>> > > Well, no. If you mean me, I never talked about the rebuilding. > > > > I was specifically talking about the money awarded for support > in the field. > > > > There are already civilians on the ground running the ports, > controlling the captured oil fields, running water pipes from > Kuwait, and putting out the oil head fires. They ain't there for free. > > > > The money was awarded using existing open ended never ending > (no top dollar amount) support contracts. > > > > No bid. Really no controls. > > > > Not that there is _necessarily_ anything wrong with that, but > as someone here said last week, I don't like even the appearance > of impropriety in my elected (and appointed) officials. > > > > Jerry Johnson > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/29/03 11:05AM >>> > > 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
