🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <uliuhkcdv1t998@corp.supernews.com>,
Rod & BJ <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>Demonstrated competence to perform a complicated service under extreme
>conditions for many years and you can get right in there with those big buck
>cost plus contracts. Haliburton also lost 100 million or so on a South
>American construction project...You win some and lose some, welcome to the
>business world.
>
> Since Cheney was required to sell his stake in Haliburton as a price to
>return to public service and since he played no part in the award of any
>Gov. contract to any of the Haliburton subsidiary there would be no
>substantive issue here. An expectation that any company he was ever involved
>with must be penalized or shut out of viable Gov. work is pretty silly and
>not very workable.   Soggy

I never claimed that Cheney will benefit.  He can let those who are now
in charge of Halliburton to benefit, which one day the "godfather will
call upon you for a service".  The expectation is not that Cheney's
prior company be shut out of viable government work, but that it be
held to the fair and standard practice of going through the process of
a competitive bid.  You claim that B & R will do a good job.  Maybe so,
but their contract has no disincentive if they don't do a good job.
Moreover, how good a job can they do?  We have no basis because they
received the contract without an open competitive bid process.

Now, I know just as well as you that many "open competitive bid" programs
that the government (local, state, or federal) run are hardly totally open
or completely fair.  There are those there just to lowball the bid, others
have insiders friends helping out (can someone say, "Willie Brown"?). No
doubt about that.  But hey, at least go through the process of seeming to
be fair, eh?

EDEW