Was Halliburton given no-bid contracts in Bosnia?

[King Coal]

A right-wing co-worker told me that. I have never heard that before. Buellar? Anyone?

[NewJeffCT]

1. not sure, but

If I recall, somebody on here recently posted that the bidding process was fast-tracked due to necessity, but they were not no-bid contracts. However, this poster did not offer irrefutable proof (i.e., a link to an old news article)

[chelsea0011]

2. Maybe so.........but that's not the point

Halliburton is the big player when it comes to this type of work and thus gets privlages like no other company. But Iraq was an illegal war created by the former CO of Halliburton. This was a for-profit war in which only connected companies with Bush/Cheney ties would get the greater of the benefits. And it's only begginning. Halliburton and Oil interests are salivating. And it doesn't matter about stability in Iraq...they will reap enormous $$$$$$$$$$$ no matter what happens.

[Bandit]

3. To do what?

What would Halliburton be doing in Bosnia? I would venture a No because I have never heard of any No-Bid Contract being given out during Clinton's time in office. I'm sure we would have heard about it 24 hours a day seven days a week for year after year if it happened.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. New book: "The Halliburton Agenda"

excerpt in The Guardian yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1266233,00.html

The story behind America's "super contract" begins in 1992, when the department of defence, then headed by Dick Cheney, was impressed with the work Halliburton did during its time in Kuwait. Sensing the need to bolster its forces in the event of further conflicts of a similar nature, the Pentagon asked private contractors to bid on a $3.9m contract to write a report on how a private firm could provide logistical support to the army in the case of further military action.
...
Thirty-seven companies tendered for the contract; KBR won it. The company was paid another $5m later that year to extend the plan to other locations and add detail.

The KBR report, which remains classified to this day, convinced Cheney that it was indeed possible to create one umbrella contract and award it to a single firm. The contract became known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap) and has been called "the mother of all service contracts". It has been used in every American deployment since its award in 1992 - at a cost of several billion dollars (and counting). The lucky recipient of the first, five-year Logcap contract was the very same company hired to draw up the plan in the first place: KBR.
...
The army's growing dependency on the company hit home when, in 1997, KBR lost the Logcap contract in a competitive rebid to rival Dyncorp. The army found it impossible to remove Brown & Root from their work in the Balkans - by far the most lucrative part of the contract - and so carved out the work in that theatre to keep it with KBR. In 2001, the company won the Logcap contract again, this time for twice the normal term length: 10 years.

So: Halliburton wins the contract to write the government guide on outsourcing to private companies; and then successfully wins the first contract (surprise, surprise), both under Dick Cheney and the Republicans.

Under Clinton and the Democrats, Halliburton lose the next 'whole military' bid - but are so thoroughly entrenched in the Balkans that it's better for them to continue there (hmm, guess that outsourcing process wasn't written so well after all - we better get back to the company who wrote it and tell them they don't know what they're talking about. Hey, wait a minute - haven't we seen you guys somewhere before???)

Under Cheney and the Republicans, Halliburton win not one, but two - yes, count them, corruption fans, two - Logcap contracts. Which is handy, because you never know who might be in power by the time 2006 rolls around. Can't have those Democrats awarding contracts to someone else, can we ...

[King Coal]

5. Thanks for all of the replies.

I do appreciate your time and opinions.