Define legitimate?

 

Legitimate in that the military will, from time to time, use no-bid contracts for situations when they need to have some support or infrastructure work attended to in a timeframe that does not allow for the typical bidding process.

I'm not saying that they should be used often...that Iraq was necessarily an appropriate time to utilize that type of contract or whether, given their past ethical and legal violations, KBR (division of Halliburton) was the appropriate organization to get the contract. I'm simply saying that such contracts DO make sense and CAN be handled ethically.

 

OK - I thought you were implying this no-bid was legitimate. I realize there are times when a no-bid is useful.

I've heard that KBR is the only company suited for the work on the time frame, but it seems fishy. Seems like there was plenty of time to open up portions of the contract (particularly the oil services portion) to other companies.

 

Well, to be fair, this contract isn't wholely illegitimate. KBR is, without any doubt in my mind, the most technically competent company in the world to do this sort of work. Unfortunately, their business practices are...well...less than above board from time to time.

If the military needed one company to do the entire scope of work, then KBR was the logical choice. However, like you, I think portions of it could have been opened up.

 

And, for the record, I have actually worked with KBR in the past. Have done due diligence when I was evaluating them for the contract and they truly ARE technically the most capable company I have found in the world. The contract I was working on was an international contract and we were taking bids from any company around the world that could meet our requirements.

 

KBR is very good at what they do. Too bad they're run by questionable people.

 

 

I wouldn't say that they should NOT have gotten the contract. Perhaps the terms should have been arbitrated more carefully by an arms length party.

 

James as always (except when you're being a goofball) you hit on a great point. I make no defense on the points you raise... you are correct. I was really going on the idea that if weath was not accumulated by the 1% there would be enough so the masses would not starve.

I cannot fathom the weath that would be needed to distribute world wide the energy gluttony seen in the developed countries.

You've opened up a can of wonderful new worms into this dialogue.

 

Well, if resources were more evenly distributed... most of us wouldn't have multiple cars, etc, and the US/Europe/Japan/et al wouldn't have such an overwhelming amount of the consumption.

You do make a very valid point - look at the affect China's burgeoning development is having on crude oil prices.