Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
I have a couple of questions about this position:
1. Why does the entire contract, or even very sizable portions of it, have to go to a single company?
|
The logistics alone make managing hundreds if not thousands of small projects very difficult, similar to coordinating multiple subcontractors doing the same type of work on the construction of a large building (like a large hospital) Although I will concede that this might not be a bad idea with a couple tweaks.
Quote:
|
2. If you would say that it's more efficient this way, I would have to point to some of the glaring ineffiiencies we have seen in the KBR work in Iraq, and particular in the area of fiscal accountability, that might cast some doubt on the truth of that claim. I think there are going to be very similar problems for a large company handling multiple sites within the city, and smaller companies handling individual sites, areas etc. A company that large has its own communications issues and mismanagement issues within its various departments.
|
So you would take one recent project, that your only knowledge (correct me if you're actually involved in said project) is what you've been told by a third, fourth or possibly even a 5th party who may or may not have an agenda? I would agree that some of the billing questions and methods tend to cast some ugly light in KBR's direction. However the only way I can see to do some of the work in question in NO, is on a time and materials basis. You could possibly put the labor rate out for competitive bidding, but to actually put the entire project out for bid is just not practical.