Credibility issues
So, after Halliburton is accused of overcharging millions of dollars to the government, you’d expect some discretion in dealing with them? You’d be wrong. Instead, we give them another $222M no-bid contract.
Oh my!
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 18th, 2003 at 3:39 pm
Firstly, wasn’t it a subsidiary who was only accused of not shopping around enough? The charges were a pass-through cost and Halliburton made no more than if they had gotten the gasoline delivered for $0.05/gallon.
Second, what is wrong with awarding them other contracts?
December 18th, 2003 at 3:42 pm
The appearance of impropriety, i.e., credibility issues.
December 18th, 2003 at 3:51 pm
I suspect it is more the appearance of UFOs issue on the part of the DeanBots and CPUSA.
December 18th, 2003 at 6:56 pm
Guy:
So if the Clinton administration gave lucrative no-bid contracts to Whitewater Investments, Inc., you would have no problem with this?
December 18th, 2003 at 10:24 pm
The term ‘lucrative no-bid contract’ is an oxymoron. No-bid contracts are make minimal profits and are audited six ways from Sunday with government bean-counters scrutinizing everything you do.