PDA

View Full Version : OT - Iraq Contract: Halliburton Admits Faulty Pricing


NoMyths
03-12-2004, 02:42 PM
Full text: Iraq Contract: Halliburton Admits Faulty Pricing (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/12/halliburton.iraq.ap/index.html)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pentagon auditors found a Halliburton Co. subsidiary gave faulty cost estimates on a $2.7 billion contract to serve American troops in Iraq and Kuwait, and company officials acknowledged making mistakes, Defense Department documents show.

The estimate problems included a failure to tell contract managers that Halliburton had terminated two subcontracts for feeding troops, which affected costs on $1 billion worth of that work, the Defense Contract Audit Agency found.

Halliburton also did not tell contract managers it had already awarded subcontracts worth $141.5 million for work it said would cost $208.8 million, the auditors found.

William F. Daneke, a manager for Halliburton subsidiary KBR, wrote to the DCAA December 4 to acknowledge the company did not give current, accurate and complete cost data in its October 7 spending proposal.

"There are many excuses and reasons available -- but -- in the end, KBR did not include the most current data in our proposal," Daneke wrote.

The pricing issue is just one of several problems with Halliburton contracts in Iraq. Both the Pentagon and Justice Department have launched criminal investigations of the company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Halliburton's problems include:

*An alleged kickback scheme that prompted Halliburton to fire two workers and reimburse the Pentagon $6.3 million.

*Possible overcharging for food services which Halliburton reimbursed the Defense Department for nearly $30 million. Halliburton has set aside $141 million to pay other possible reimbursements.

*A separate DCAA audit which accused KBR of overcharging by $61 million for gasoline delivered to serve the civilian market in Iraq last year. Halliburton has said the charges were proper.

Democratic critics say Halliburton is an example of war profiteering by companies friendly to the Bush administration. Company and administration officials say politics had nothing to do with Halliburton's contracts in Iraq.

Cheney's office says he severed relations with Halliburton when he ran for vice president in 2000.

Halliburton is aggressively defending itself, running a series of television ads saying its critics are politically motivated.

In a conference call with Wall Street analysts Friday morning, Halliburton executives repeated their complaints and said they were confident the investigations would exonerate Halliburton.

"I don't expect that we're going to get fined. We haven't done anything wrong," said Bert Cornelison, Halliburton's executive vice president and general counsel.

One of those critics, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, first disclosed the cost estimate problems in a memo to colleagues Wednesday.

Halliburton criticized Waxman on Thursday, issuing a news release calling the congressman's memo incomplete and misleading. In the conference call, Cornelison complained that Waxman could say anything about the company because of his protection against being sued for libel as a congressman.

But the KBR letter released by the Pentagon contradicts one of Halliburton's arguments.

Quoting KBR President Randy Harl, the Halliburton statement said: "A closer examination of KBR's response to the DCAA audit would show that KBR disclosed that vendors were terminated by KBR for default. Without all of the facts, it is inappropriate to criticize KBR."

Daneke's letter, however, admits KBR did not tell the Pentagon about the terminated subcontracts until after DCAA challenged the company's October submission.

The Halliburton officials on the conference call did not address the discrepancy and did not take questions from reporters.

The DCAA audit found a $67.3 million difference in what KBR agreed to pay its subcontractors and what it tried to charge the government. Daneke's letter said more current figures showed that discrepancy was actually $37 million.

Daneke told the auditors that the problems were not a systematic failure by KBR.

"This was a unique situation due to the significant cost, amount of data and volume of effort" in the proposal, Daneke wrote.

The Pentagon auditors disagreed. Other problems included KBR's overstating the numbers of troops it expected to feed.

At one site, for example, KBR told the military it planned to feed 4,800 troops. Auditors found that KBR's subcontract called for feeding 3,800 troops, however. The discrepancy at that site alone would account for $6.4 million extra for KBR, the auditors wrote.

In another example, KBR asked the military for $43.3 million to feed troops at a site labeled C-3. The company's subcontract for the same site was only $12.8 million, however, the auditors wrote. That's a difference of $33.5 million.

BishopMVP
03-12-2004, 02:56 PM
Halliburton's problems include:

*An alleged kickback scheme that prompted Halliburton to fire two workers and reimburse the Pentagon $6.3 million.

*Possible overcharging for food services which Halliburton reimbursed the Defense Department for nearly $30 million. Halliburton has set aside $141 million to pay other possible reimbursements.

*A separate DCAA audit which accused KBR of overcharging by $61 million for gasoline delivered to serve the civilian market in Iraq last year. Halliburton has said the charges were proper.So in the three instances previously brought up, Halliburton fired workers and reimbursed the government in the first two and currently is taking the loss on the third one. Yet the headline and lede are what they are. Biased reporting at its finest.

In another example, KBR asked the military for $43.3 million to feed troops at a site labeled C-3. The company's subcontract for the same site was only $12.8 million, however, the auditors wrote. That's a difference of $33.5 million.That doesn't help the authors cause ;)

Sharpieman
03-13-2004, 04:15 AM
BishopMVP, you failed to mention that Halliburton admited they made "mistakes" in the first place. Although, I admit this article is a little misleading, you can't escape the fact the Halliburton and KBR have done some pretty suspect things that have cost the government millions.

Flasch186
03-13-2004, 07:56 AM
BishopMVP, you can't escape the fact the Halliburton and KBR have done some pretty suspect things that have cost the government millions.

Oh yes he can, dont underestimate what a partisan person can and will believe. Im in the same boat as him just on the other side and Ill discount things that say "Bush is great, the most honest pres. we've ever had." I find the dialogue fun though.

Dutch
03-13-2004, 10:41 AM
I understand the partisan issue because Cheney was involved with Halliburton. It seems a little weird. But if your friend owns an auto-repair shop and you have auto trouble, you don't just go to a random auto-repair shop to get your car fixed. You take it to someone you know can do a good job on your car. Your friend may not be the best choice, but you know he'll do a good job for you.

Now, with overcharging, this is a contract. You make certain arrangements in advance on how much money is going to be spent. There are obviously checks and audits put into this contract, by the government, to verify pre-war estimates are stacking up in post-war payments. Halliburton said it would cost x ammount of dollars, but it was determined that it was only y ammount of dollars. Halliburton has set aside money it received to pay off post-war inaccuracies. Seems like everything is legit. The mere mention of "Halliburton" in this instance sure seems to be meant to raise (people skeptical of the Bush Adminsitration's) blood pressure.

Glengoyne
03-13-2004, 01:30 PM
The awarding of the contract to KBR is a red herring. All but the most partisan folks can look at the facts and circumstances surrounding the event, and conclude there was nothing wrong with it. Halliburton/KBR have in the above cases admitted to, sometimes prior to outside audits, the errors or problems in billing. The only exception to that is the fuel delivery issue. I imagine that lots of companies face issues with their billings to the government on a project this size. That is why the Defense Department has the audit agency in the first place. The American people will not be overcharged one cent.

KBR is very good at providing a service that the Defense Department doesn't want to do itself. The whole thing will work itself out, pretty much the same way all of the previous KBR contracts have. Not to mention the contracts that have been issued to KBR's relatively few competitors.

Bush and company have done any number of things wrong, all of them worthy of criticism. This isn't one of them.

Vegas Vic
03-13-2004, 01:50 PM
http://www.mediamouse.org/static/images/cheney_card.jpg

yabanci
03-13-2004, 02:02 PM
that card is great.

BishopMVP
03-13-2004, 06:44 PM
BishopMVP, you failed to mention that Halliburton admited they made "mistakes" in the first place. Although, I admit this article is a little misleading, you can't escape the fact the Halliburton and KBR have done some pretty suspect things that have cost the government millions.
They made mistakes, acknowledged them and reimbursed the government. I fail to see how this is an indictment against the Bush white house and every time it is brought up it just makes the anti-Bush crowd look like they are grasping at straws. Like Glengoyne said "Bush and company have done any number of things wrong, all of them worthy of criticism. This isn't one of them."

Bubba Wheels
03-13-2004, 09:11 PM
Democrats just make themselves less and less credible. Always finding greed and corruption on the side of the Republicans and missing it all over the place tenfold on their own turf. How many Cheney-Haliburton bashes can even tell you what Global Crossing is or was all about? (Hint, before it went bellyup, it made DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe something like $15,000,000 on an $18,000 investment.) And many of us are still trying to find out how a life-time government worker like Bill Clinton can have become a multi-millionaire when no salary he had ever topped the $250,000 a year he made as President?