Tiassa
03-07-04, 03:56 AM
U.S. Army cancels Iraqi supply contract; questions loom over bidding
"When we looked at the statement of work, we saw that there were some ambiguities in there."
- Unnamed U.S. Army official
In a March 5, 2004 press release (http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=5727), the U.S. Army announced its termination for convenience of a contract with Nour, USA, to equip the New Iraqi Army. Additionally, the Army plans to schedule "a complete re-solicitation."
An unnamed U.S. Army official told Reuters that an examination of the statement of work revealed "that there were some ambiguities in there." The official also rejected the idea that political considerations played a factor in the CPA's original awarding of the contract to Nour.
The "ambiguities" are described as as a huge spread in competing bids, which apparently indicates that the competing suppliers were not operating with similar understandings of the contract requirements. The Coalition Provisional Authority said last month that its choice of Nour reflected the price of the offer; at $327m, the winning offer came in significantly below the $560m offer proposed by Bumar.
Losing companies claim Nour's bid was unrealistically low, and alleged that the company does not have the experience to fulfill the contract.
Protests have been filed with the General Accounting Office of the US Congress by five companies:
• Bumar (Poland)
• Cemex Global (Jordan)
• Port Services Limited Dade Sky Trading Company (Georgia, USA)
• Raytheon Technical Services Company (USA)
• General Dynamics Ordinance and Tactical Systems (USA)
Additionally, the Bush administration may face tough questions regarding the Nour contract, as the company's chairman, Houda Farouki, is said to be a close friend of Ahmed Chalabi.
Comment:
It seems to be getting harder and harder to think of the phrase, "good faith," without cracking a sardonic grin. We might pause to wonder what the limit is. Even if we presume that the President and his administration are beyond reproach, that the appearance of cronyism is merely that, the appearance of cronyism, I'm sure Mr. Bush and Co. (LLP) would appreciate it if their well-intended friends who happen to coincidentally be the best people for the job at the best price, could give him a break and not screw things up.
This isn't a huge deal in and of itself. After all, the issues--whatever they actually are--have been recognized and the contract canceled. Neither the taxpayers nor the Iraqis have lost anything special by the problems. So while we can certainly say, "Well enough," and move on to the next issue, we should also take a moment to ask ourselves why it is this administration simply cannot seem to avoid making a mess of things.
Halliburton, its subsidiaries, poor prewar planning, poor prewar intelligence, unsatisfactory regional presumptions, missions "accomplished," and now ... this, among other things. Any one issue might, by itself, be no cause for concern.
But a pattern seems to suggest itself here. After all, the short list of issues pertains merely to one war. There's also Afghanistan and the War on Terror, and we can't forget Bush's economic and educational messes here at home.
So far, the homophobic dog and pony show seems to be working. By shifting public focus, the Bushy Rovers have managed to neutralize some of the media feeding frenzy that should be taking place. How many more glancing blows can the pugilistic president take before people realize he doesn't know how to box? And this is Arbusto; his footwork can only get so fancy before he trips over his own feet. After all, he can't walk and chew a pretzel at the same time.
• U.S. Army Public Affairs. "Army Terminates Contract to Equip New Iraqi Army." March 5, 2004. See http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=5727
• Pleming, Sue. "U.S. Reviews All Bids for Big Iraq Army Contract." Reuters, March 3, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28568-2004Mar3.html
• Reuters. "U.S. cancels Iraq contract after questions raised." March 5, 2004. See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4461467/
• Nour, USA: See http://www.nourusa.com/
"When we looked at the statement of work, we saw that there were some ambiguities in there."
- Unnamed U.S. Army official
In a March 5, 2004 press release (http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=5727), the U.S. Army announced its termination for convenience of a contract with Nour, USA, to equip the New Iraqi Army. Additionally, the Army plans to schedule "a complete re-solicitation."
An unnamed U.S. Army official told Reuters that an examination of the statement of work revealed "that there were some ambiguities in there." The official also rejected the idea that political considerations played a factor in the CPA's original awarding of the contract to Nour.
The "ambiguities" are described as as a huge spread in competing bids, which apparently indicates that the competing suppliers were not operating with similar understandings of the contract requirements. The Coalition Provisional Authority said last month that its choice of Nour reflected the price of the offer; at $327m, the winning offer came in significantly below the $560m offer proposed by Bumar.
Losing companies claim Nour's bid was unrealistically low, and alleged that the company does not have the experience to fulfill the contract.
Protests have been filed with the General Accounting Office of the US Congress by five companies:
• Bumar (Poland)
• Cemex Global (Jordan)
• Port Services Limited Dade Sky Trading Company (Georgia, USA)
• Raytheon Technical Services Company (USA)
• General Dynamics Ordinance and Tactical Systems (USA)
Additionally, the Bush administration may face tough questions regarding the Nour contract, as the company's chairman, Houda Farouki, is said to be a close friend of Ahmed Chalabi.
Comment:
It seems to be getting harder and harder to think of the phrase, "good faith," without cracking a sardonic grin. We might pause to wonder what the limit is. Even if we presume that the President and his administration are beyond reproach, that the appearance of cronyism is merely that, the appearance of cronyism, I'm sure Mr. Bush and Co. (LLP) would appreciate it if their well-intended friends who happen to coincidentally be the best people for the job at the best price, could give him a break and not screw things up.
This isn't a huge deal in and of itself. After all, the issues--whatever they actually are--have been recognized and the contract canceled. Neither the taxpayers nor the Iraqis have lost anything special by the problems. So while we can certainly say, "Well enough," and move on to the next issue, we should also take a moment to ask ourselves why it is this administration simply cannot seem to avoid making a mess of things.
Halliburton, its subsidiaries, poor prewar planning, poor prewar intelligence, unsatisfactory regional presumptions, missions "accomplished," and now ... this, among other things. Any one issue might, by itself, be no cause for concern.
But a pattern seems to suggest itself here. After all, the short list of issues pertains merely to one war. There's also Afghanistan and the War on Terror, and we can't forget Bush's economic and educational messes here at home.
So far, the homophobic dog and pony show seems to be working. By shifting public focus, the Bushy Rovers have managed to neutralize some of the media feeding frenzy that should be taking place. How many more glancing blows can the pugilistic president take before people realize he doesn't know how to box? And this is Arbusto; his footwork can only get so fancy before he trips over his own feet. After all, he can't walk and chew a pretzel at the same time.
• U.S. Army Public Affairs. "Army Terminates Contract to Equip New Iraqi Army." March 5, 2004. See http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=5727
• Pleming, Sue. "U.S. Reviews All Bids for Big Iraq Army Contract." Reuters, March 3, 2004. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28568-2004Mar3.html
• Reuters. "U.S. cancels Iraq contract after questions raised." March 5, 2004. See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4461467/
• Nour, USA: See http://www.nourusa.com/