Winds of Change.NET: Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory.

Formal Affiliations
  • Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
  • Euston Democratic Progressive Manifesto
  • Real Democracy for Iran!
  • Support Denamrk
  • Million Voices for Darfur
  • milblogs
Syndication
 Subscribe in a reader

Guest Blog: Halliburton & Defense Contracting, Part 3/3

| 9 Comments | 2 TrackBacks
Third and last in this popular series about an arcane subject, from a guest blogger with experience on both sides of the military contracting table. I'd like to thank Robin for taking the time to offer us her expertise on this important subject at a timely moment. Halliburton, Part 3/3 by Robin Burk Welcome to the 3rd and last installment of our special report on Halliburton and defense contracting. Complaints about Halliburton's role in the reconstruction of Iraq took on new focus recently with claims they overcharged for fuel. This installment looks at that controversy, and tries to make sense of it in light of the "Military Contracting 101" crash course you've received from the previous 2 installments [Part I | Part II].
THE CONTROVERSY As Democrats and some in the Pentagon criticized the company publicly, Halliburton defended its prices, noting that the Army insisted on issuing short-term orders only, which prevented Halliburton's Kellog Brown & Root subsidiary from negotiating more favorable terms. The company also stated that it had saved the government money by proposing that fuel be purchased from Turkey rather than Kuwait for delivery to northern Iraq. The Pentagon's comptroller agreed that it did not appear the company was trying to cheat the US government, noting that an "antiquated" accounting system and the complexity of billing at headquarters for work done in Iraq might also be problems. However, Democratic criticism of Halliburton continued, as presidential hopeful Joe Lieberman announced that an internal Halliburton audit raised questions about the price charged by the Kuwaitis for the fuel they delivered under a subcontract issued by KBR, a claim the company denied. Halliburton went on the offensive Monday, claiming the US pressured it to buy more expensive fuel from Kuwait as a political favor to the Kuwaitis. Defenders of the company also note that Gen. Sanchez originally requested rapid delivery of fuel from Kuwait because of an uprising in Basra due to lack of gas and cooking fuel. As additional fuel was delivered to other cities, the Kuwaiti subcontractor continued to demand surcharges due to the danger of attacks by insurgents. What's going on in all these claims and counterclaims? How did Halliburton get a huge uncompeted contract in Iraq anyway? Isn't this obviously the result of Vice Pres. Cheney steering profits to his cronies at the expense of the US taxpayer? LONG AGO IN AN ADMINISTRATION FAR, FAR AWAY Halliburton is one of the largest engineering and energy services companies in the world. Its Kellog, Brown & Root subsidiary started as the BrownShipbuilding Co. in Houston in 1942 and they continue to be managing owners of the Devonport Royal Dockyards in the UK, where British surface combat ships and nuclear submarines are refueled and refitted. KBR provides a wide range of other naval and air defence services to the UK. In addition to their expertise in oil and gas drilling, mining and power generation, KBR's government operations group provides a broad array of facilities, logistics and emergency response services to federal, state and local governments in the US. KBR is responsible for security upgrades to US embassies, consulates and annexes worldwide. They also have extensive experience in managing disaster response around the world. However, the springboard for their contract in Iraq lies in the Clinton administration's decision to outsource military base logistics services. In 1992 KBR won an open competition to provide the service support for overseas troops. This contract, called the Logcap, is awarded every few years. KBR won the it in 1992, lost in 1997, and won it again in 2001. Under the deal, KBR builds bases, supplies water, operates laundries and performs thousands of other tasks. In an Op Ed in the New York Times (full text here), David Brooks writes that: bq. "Though the G.A.O. has found that KBR sometimes overcharges, in general the company has an outstanding reputation among the panoply of auditing agencies that monitor these contracts." Logcap is an umbrella contract which allows DOD to procure a wide range of services, but when conflicts emerge there are sometimes unforseen but urgent needs. In the Federal Acquisition Regulations Congress specifically establishes circumstances and mechanisms for awarding contracts without competitive bid when a clear case can be made that this is in the best interests of the government. The Clinton Administration issued a temporary non-bid contract to Halliburton during the Balkans conflict under these FAR provisions. The Bush administration did the same thing in the runup to the invasion of Iraq. In particular, the Pentagon was deeply concerned about the likelihood that Iraq's oil wells would be set on fire or otherwise sabotaged, as was done in Kuwait by Iraqi armed forces during Gulf I. That was a major environmental disaster for Kuwait in addition to an economic blow. Pentagon planners were determined to prevent a repeat this time around. Under Logcap, Halliburton was asked to plan a disaster management approach to capping oil well fires and to dealing with other forseeable attacks on the oil infrastructure. KBR was well suited to do this planning - some would say uniquely suited for the task. They are one of only a handful of companies world wide who combine the necessary engineering, oil field, construction, emergency response and project management skills in one organization. As the current Logcap contractor, they were certain to have a presence in Iraq even before major combat operations would die down. Moreover, KBR could potentially mobilize people who not only had the requisite technical and managerial skills but who also held security clearances - among KBR's government clients is the Defense Intelligence Agency as well as the State Dept. Equally important for success, KBR had approved labor and general & administrative rates already audited by DOD. As we saw in Part 2 of this series, establishing and approving these rates is a complex, time-consuming activity. Leveraging existing approved rates made it possible to arrange critical support quickly and ensured that these portions of any service charges would be fair and advantageous to the Government. As with any cost plus contract, direct materials and sub-contractor charges would have to be approved on a task by task basis. Logcap's Statement of Work allowed the government to direct KBR to plan emergency oil field services for Iraq under the existing umbrella contract. Executing that plan, however, was outside of Logcap's terms. It was for this reason that KBR was awarded a short-term non-competitive contract last Spring. The terms of the contract called for KBR's allowable burdened costs (remember those?) to be reimbursed along with a very small profit margin (1% according to a company spokeswoman). However, other advantages might accrue to the company: they will have a presence in Iraq and -- assuming they are seen to do a good job -- would have an advantage in future competitive bids there. The Defense Contract Auditing Agency would, as usual, keep an eye on the one area of costs open to discussion, namely the direct materials costs and any subcontractor costs incurred when KBR undertook tasks as a result of this contract. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER Doing business with the United States government is a cumbersome process designed to prevent abuses while still advancing the best interests of the country. To achieve that balance, Congress has written and regularly modifies the FAR and the DFARS in order to provide government contracting officials a variety of mechanisms for for procuring goods and services at a fair cost to the taxpayer. The process includes substantial oversight at all phases, pre- and post-contract award. One such mechanism is the ability to award a broad contract allowing agencies to procure a certain range of services without having to draw up a full acquisition package and run a competition each time. Such an Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity contract establishes the labor and overhead rates a federal agency will pay for approved services. Task or bid orders still must be issued under the auspices of such a contract for actual work to be performed and there is a maxiumum ceiling on the total value of services and goods that can be procured. The announced value of such a contract may be very high, but until actual task orders are issued the contractor is not guaranteed any particular level of work. The mechanisms of defense contracting can be clumsy. They aim at cost-effective compromise rather than the nth degree of bargain-hunting. It is not in the best interests of the US taxpayer, for instance, to spend $5 to avoid being overcharged $1. We want real competition for contracts where that will bring the best value, but it would be foolish to ignore those cases where an incumbent contractor's expertise and resources offer the most likely way to achieve urgent and important results. To quote David Brooks' NYT Op Ed once more: bq. "The fact is that unlike the Congressional pork barrel machine, the federal procurement system is a highly structured process, which is largely insulated from crass political pressures ... The lesson of this Halliburton business is that some parts of our government really do make their decisions on the merits." I haven't the faintest idea whether or not the rates paid for the Army's preferred Kuwaiti fuel subcontractor were appropriate. But I am pretty sure that the DCAA will make a reasonable and honest evaluation of them. If they decide to disallow some portion of those charges, KBR may end up taking a loss on that portion of their work. That will signal other contractors not to overcharge. But abuses can go both ways: if capable companies believe the government is being unfair to KBR, we will all be the worse for it. KBR contractor and sub-contractor personnel have died while supporting the reconstruction of Iraq. That's a fact worth keeping in mind when we read about disputed materials charges on a temporary sole source contract.

2 TrackBacks

Tracked: December 23, 2003 9:43 PM
Excerpt: Robin Burk tries to bring a bit of fact and reality into the discussion about Halliburton's contracts in Iraq and around the world. Many questions have been raised about Halliburton's massive contract for services in Iraq. Is it a prime example of cron...
Tracked: December 30, 2003 4:35 AM
Halliburton Myths Debunked from Jay Reding.com
Excerpt: Much political hay has been made about supposed overcharges by Halliburton during the war with Iraq. Now even The New...

9 Comments

Winds has dealt with this contracting out military logisitics political issue before.

See:

Contracting Out Military Logistics
http://windsofchange.net/archives/003665.html

Excellent series.
I spent two decades in the AF working with various contracting activities to buy goods and services for AF special ops. Our greatest problem was always procurement lead time: it took to long to award the contract and then produce and deliver the item or service. This was especially true for special ops when something might crop up overnight forcing you to send a special airplane with special people in it almost any place on the globe. If they neeed something, it seems rather inadequate to have to later tell their widows that we didn't have enough admin time to get them a radar warning reciever or special IR counter measures. So you had to find a multi-talented, deep-pocketed contractor who could be on call 24/7 to provide unique goods and services. For our purposes, there were probably not more than 2 or 3 contractors in the world who could perform this mission. And often they had no way of knowing the potential cost of something they would have to buy for us - so the contract instrument would have to be flexible. A real problem became getting contractors to bid. many weren't interested because of the multiple challenges, cost uncertainties, gov. rules, etc.

When I hear whiners crying about Halliburton, I know they don't know their asses froma hole in the ground. Its a difficult, imperfect business at best.

Thanks again for the good info.

Bravo. This series should be required reading for anyone pronouncing strong views on the Halliburton question in Iraq. Except in a very few cases, this would have the effect of shutting them up, at least if they're fairly intelligent and fair-minded.

I have had discussions with several people in which I delivered a condensed version of this series to provide some context. Like the author, I have no idea as to the merits of the case of KBR and Kuwaiti fuel. However, having had years of experience dealing with fairly similar federal contracting (humanitarian and logistics activities in conflict zones), I know that it is nearly certain that this, like other contractor disputes, will be handled under established procedures.

Ignorance and demagoguery in the case of Halliburton are of a piece with the cheap and usually misinformed criticism of other parts of the Iraq operation. Unfortunately those areas aren't so readily illuminated by reference to established -- and disappointingly dull and apolitical -- government procedures.

Some worthwhile additional info is available here
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2003/corpnws_121803.jsp

the Q&As (page down) are very good.
Guyjean

Let's recap; David Brooks said, "yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda..."

What Ms. Burk and the ubiquitous Brooks ignore, or miss, is how Halliburton/KBR got the LOGCAP contract. More importantly, they both ignore how LOGCAP came about. And how did LOGCAP come to be utilized to cover what is essentially most of the services provided in Iraq?

If we answer those questions, we begin to understand why Halliburton--a energy services firm--thought it quite the prudent move to recruit a former SecDef to take over the helm.

Frankly, the whole issue concerning price-gouging POL importation into Iraq is a symptom, a sideshow, a smokescreen. Ms. Burk has written many words about cost accounting, DFARs, G&A, pre-approved rates, etc.--it is what magicians and illusionists term "misdirection."

'Look at my hand as I wave it floridly with great sweeping gestures; pay no attention to what my other hand is doing in my vest pocket.'

To use a sports analogy, there all kinds of rules regulating the play in the NFL. And sometimes the refs catch players violating these rules. But on every single down, at least one player (usually several--ask any offensive lineman) are violating the rules. It's a fact of the game. the NFL doesn't want to see flags on every down; plus, many players have perfected disguising such violations. Usually only the real flagrant penalties get called.

It's no different in DoD contracting.

But it's not about how Halliburton/KBR are breaking the rules. It's about how they got into the game.

JadeGold,

There really isn't any issue about how Halliburton got in the game. They bid on a proposal drawn up by DOD; went through a source slection process (well before Iraq) and were deemed the overall best bidder - based on price, performance etc. The whole purpose of doing a contract of this nature is to be able to respond quickly to contingency situations. If you have any knowledge of the contracting process, you know admin lead times, for a complicated contract, can easily run over a year. And then it takes time for the selected contractor to gear up. The terrorists and dictators of the world don't sit on the sidelines and twirl their thumbs while we take a couple of years to get a contractor in place.
I know part of your agenda is to get Bush no matter what, but I have been there, done it many times and know you are really wrong on this.

Dugger: Again, you're playing the Acquisition 101 card by pretending all contracting efforts are in strict accordance with the FARs. You're also erroneously suggesting that LOGCAP was the only quick-turnaround vehicle for acquiring supplies/services.

The federal Government--and DoD, in particular--maintain literally thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of contractual vehicles which exist for the sole purpose of obtaining goods/services on a rapid-response basis.

Believe it or not, DoD has actually considered the possibility of a major war or national emergency prior to Junior's Iraqi misadventure, so let's not pretend the urgency of obtaining contractor support is a new idea.

They bid on a proposal drawn up by DOD;

Again, I know the answer to this question but who created LOGCAP? And who drew up the proposal?

went through a source slection process (well before Iraq) and were deemed the overall best bidder - based on price, performance etc.

See above. You stated that you've 'done this many times.' I'll take you at your word; have you, in your vast experience, ever encountered a contract that was 'wired?' Have you ever seen a procurement whose selection criteria was developed to favor--or even single out--one specific bidder?

I realize that the above current subject theme does not greatly emphasize the matter of 'security clearance' status, but this matter is mentioned a couple of times and actually is an important component concept inherent in most of the comments. For those who have interest in matters concerning security clearances, the following information is presented. In the past couple of years, a short, psychological-type 'test' has appeared; it is titled as the Personnel Security Standards Psychological Questionnaire (PSSPQ). The PSSPQ was developed, based upon research involving a couple decades, by a quite seasoned psychologist who, in the past few years, retired from federal service while being the Chief Research Psychologist in the USA's largest intelligence agency. Information regarding the PSSPQ, its developmental history, and its current availability can be found at: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~lastone2/psspq.html

I Have worked for Halliburton/KBR for twenty two months,in Iraq. I served as a Fuel Specialist. Let us not forget those civilian patriots who gave their life to support their country in a time of need.
Yes war is a dirty job. It takes people with special talents to accomplish our Countries objectivs. All politics a side KBR had the resources necessary to fulfill the standards of client service for LOGCAP III.

Leave a comment

Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:

*This* puts text in bold.

_This_ puts text in italics.

bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.

To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.




Recent Comments
  • TM Lutas: Jobs' formula was simple enough. Passionately care about your users, read more
  • sabinesgreenp.myopenid.com: Just seeing the green community in action makes me confident read more
  • Glen Wishard: Jobs was on the losing end of competition many times, read more
  • Chris M: Thanks for the great post, Joe ... linked it on read more
  • Joe Katzman: Collect them all! Though the French would be upset about read more
  • Glen Wishard: Now all the Saudis need is a division's worth of read more
  • mark buehner: Its one thing to accept the Iranians as an ally read more
  • J Aguilar: Saudis were around here (Spain) a year ago trying the read more
  • Fred: Good point, brutality didn't work terribly well for the Russians read more
  • mark buehner: Certainly plausible but there are plenty of examples of that read more
  • Fred: They have no need to project power but have the read more
  • mark buehner: Good stuff here. The only caveat is that a nuclear read more
  • Ian C.: OK... Here's the problem. Perceived relevance. When it was 'Weapons read more
  • Marcus Vitruvius: Chris, If there were some way to do all these read more
  • Chris M: Marcus Vitruvius, I'm surprised by your comments. You're quite right, read more
The Winds Crew
Town Founder: Left-Hand Man: Other Winds Marshals
  • 'AMac', aka. Marshal Festus (AMac@...)
  • Robin "Straight Shooter" Burk
  • 'Cicero', aka. The Quiet Man (cicero@...)
  • David Blue (david.blue@...)
  • 'Lewy14', aka. Marshal Leroy (lewy14@...)
  • 'Nortius Maximus', aka. Big Tuna (nortius.maximus@...)
Other Regulars Semi-Active: Posting Affiliates Emeritus:
Winds Blogroll
Author Archives
Categories
Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en