Expert For Clinton Ridiculed Accusations on Halliburton

Procurement Expert For President Clinton Ridiculed Accusations That Bush Administration Was Rewarding Halliburton

Steven Kelman Has Called Allegations That The Government Has Rewarded Halliburton “Somewhere Between Highly Improbable And Utterly Absurd.” “One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn’t regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd. … Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits -- and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform. … As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $ 34 million on revenue of $ 900 million -- a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder.” (Steven Kelman, “No ‘Cronyism’ In Iraq,” The Washington Post, 11/6/03)

and you will find that their revenue has increased 80% in the past year. Your story is dated from November. I would imagine start up costs were terrific.

<http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=LettersToTheEditor&File=111300.htm>

The American Federation of Government Employees does not love this man.

That Steve Kelman should toe the contractor line comes as no surprise (“TRAC should be derailed,” November 6). After all, he testified in 1998 in favor of the infamous Freedom From Government Competition Act, which would have competed 1.4 million federal employee jobs over five years under a manifestly pro-contractor system, and given contractors—and only contractors—the right to use the courts to force agencies to take work away from federal employees. In fact, that legislation was so extreme it was rejected by the most pro-contractor Administration in the nation’s history as well as Congressional Republicans and Democrats.
-snip-

I find Mr. Kelman’s ferocious opposition to public-private competition to be very troubling. He actually insists that it would be “insane” to ensure that agencies demonstrate through public-private competition that contracting out is better for taxpayers before incurring billion dollar bills. Nothing sums up better the pork-barrel, “if-it’s-good-for-contractors-it’s-good-for-America” philosophy that animates so much of “acquisition reform.” As mentioned earlier, Mr. Kelman testified in support of the Freedom From Government Competition Act which would have competed 1.4 million federal employee jobs in just five years. Moreover, thanks to contractors-turned-policymakers in the Pentagon, DoD has embarked on a ruinous campaign to compete 230,000 federal employee jobs over five years--an effort which has been and continues to be, by all objective accounts, a money-loser. (That competition quota notwithstanding, most work at DoD is still contracted out without any public-private competition.) Mr. Kelman says he finds A-76 a “troubling procedure”. However, we have heard nary a peep of protest from Mr. Kelman about DoD’s completely unprecedented reliance on A-76. Here’s why: Steve Kelman doesn’t object to public-private competition or A-76 when federal employee jobs are at stake. A-76 competitions are only “insane” when contractors are finally put to the test. This inconsistency suggests bias.


-snip-

The funny thing about this is that it appears on the RNC web site. My guess is this is the only time that a Clinton official is quoted as doing anything good. Thanks for the further info on Mr Kelman.

You know things must be tough over at the RNC when they are using Clinton people to make their point. Looks like they miss having a real President too.

contracts to destroy bridges and schools
contracts to rebuild bridges and schools

You are quoting a 6 month old story - lots can change in that amount of time.

If Government contracts are so lousy then why does it seem like companies are jumping out of their chairs to get them?

Boy. I wish I were so poverty stricken.

meant for Afghanistan went to contractors to prepare for Iraq?

My guess: BUNCHES AND BUNCHES

And that doesn't count the $BILLIONS they are raking off right now?

And why are our troops starting on their 14th month of MRE's?

The point is that if we hadn't rushed to war, there wouldn't BE any Iraq war contracts.

Nobody is disputing that Halliburton is more experienced and possibly better equiped to handle these contracts.

The question is, did we need a war at all, and therefore the contracts?

Hmmmmm???????