Halliburton gets $ 7 billion Reconstruction Contract in Iraq without tenders

Dick Cheny, US Vice President

WASHINGTON, 12 April 2003 — The ugly face of American politicians unholy nexus with big business is resurfacing in new forms. The Pentagon’s controversial decision to give an exclusive no-bid contract to a Halliburton Co. subsidiary for emergency oil-field services in Iraq could be worth as much as $7 billion over the next two years,. An interesting report by Mark Fineman in LA Times said that such large contracts should have been put out to open, competitive bidding. Halliburton is an energy company in which the senior US Defense officials have private interest. The revelation adds credibility to the argument that the US led war on Iraq is more of a colonial and economic invasion for the sake of American oil companies controlled by the big business and politicians. This controversy is coming out immediately after the war in Iraq is almost over.

“I was surprised about the size of the contract and the fact that they’re not going to have competitive bidding,’’ the report quoted Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif..,“I didn’t know we were talking about a contract of this magnitude.’’ The $7 billion ceiling was revealed in a letter to Waxman from Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, the commanding general of the Army Corps of Engineers. Flowers called the amount a “worst-case damage’’ estimate from oil and gas fires in the war-torn country, the LA Times report said.

The report added that Flowers said in a letter dated April 8 that the Houston-based energy giant and its subcontractors were authorized to spend $50.3 million in the first month alone. The report added that in a March 26 letter seeking more information on the deal from Flowers, Waxman expressed concern that the contract was awarded in secret and could range into the “tens of millions’’ of dollars. In public statements, the Army Corps has downplayed the size of the dea, it said.

“This is not going to be a huge dollar contract — if nothing changes from today,’’ Lt. Gen. Gene Pawlik, an Army Corps spokesman, said last week. In fact, only eight oil and gas wells and pipelines have been set ablaze to date. All but one fire have been extinguished either by subcontractors or by Kuwaiti Oil Co. firefighters, the newspaper added.

But in a written response to Flowers on Thursday, Waxman questioned the decision to set the ceiling so high before officials had an idea of what the scope of the work would be. “Why did the Army Corps issue a two-year, $7 billion contract to perform work that is intended to be short-term and limited in nature?’’ he asked. “It may be the case that the administration had valid reasons for granting a sole-source contract for emergency work during armed hostilities. It is harder to understand, however, what the rationale would be for a sole-source contract that has a multi-year duration and a multibillion-dollar price tag. Yet this appears to be the type of contract that was awarded.’’ LA Times said, adding that the Flowers’ office did not return calls for comment.

Separately, Waxman and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., have called for an investigation into whether Halliburton and its subsidiary received favored treatment in the awarding of the contract.

The L A Times report revealed that US Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s chief executive for five years before he resigned in August 2000 to be George W. Bush’s running mate. Halliburton and the Army Corps have both repeatedly denied any favoritism stemming from Cheney’s former role in the company. The contract was awarded to Halliburton’s Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary March 8 and disclosed publicly March 24. Kellogg Brown & Root was selected because, under a separate Army logistics contract, it already had developed contingency plans for repairing and operating Iraq’s oil infrastructure, Flowers said in the letter.

The military wanted firefighters and disaster specialists in Kuwait “in advance of possibly imminent hostilities,’’ Flowers said. “Under the circumstances, no other contractor could satisfy mission requirements in the time available.’’

In addition to fighting oil and gas well fires, the contract specifies that KBR would respond to oil spills and provide life-support facilities and services to contractors and government employees on the project, among other tasks.

Although the full contract remains classified, Flowers said in his letter that KBR could earn a profit of as much as 7 percent greater than the costs reimbursed by the army — a profit of $490 million, if the contract ran to its maximum. In disclosing the $7 billion “ceiling cost,’’ Flowers stated: “The actual value of the contract will depend on the cost of the orders placed under it. It is impossible to predict how much damage there will be and what work will be required in the near term.’’ The figure was derived from “an estimate of worst-case damage,’’ he said.

Flowers stressed that the contract was strictly for emergency oil-field services. “There will be ample opportunity for competition of the overall requirements to support the restoration of Iraq’s oil infrastructure,’’ he added.

More than two weeks before the war began, Kellogg Brown & Root sent to Kuwait teams of firefighters from Houston-based Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc. That company has a strategic alliance with Halliburton, giving it the inside track on such work when Kellogg Brown & Root is the prime contractor.

Also under scrutiny is the bidding process for the civilian contracts being issued by the Agency for International Development for the reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure. It, too, was done in secret during the run-up to war, and the agency invited only American companies with security clearances and a track record of working with the AID to bid on eight contracts that total $1.7 billion.

On Thursday, three senators introduced a bill that would require the AID and other federal agencies to publicly justify any closed bidding process for Iraqi reconstruction work.

“The pattern of closed-door bargaining for massive contracts is a distinct departure from the way that government contracts have traditionally been awarded,’’ said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who sponsored the bill with Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

Added Clinton: “It would be unfortunate if, in our effort to set an example of open government and democratic principles abroad, we undermined those principles here at home.’’AID Administrator Andrew Natsios and other agency officials have said they resorted to the streamlined, classified bidding process because of national security and time constraints.Under the agency’s normal “full and open’’ competitive bidding process, it can take up to six months to award a contract. The expedited process takes as little as two months, the report said.