Halliburton to Build $30 Million Guantanamo Jail
 

I would presume this declares the administration's intensions regarding Gitmo. I have to admit I'm a bit speechless at the moment and that is probably for the best.


Halliburton to Build New $30 Million Guantánamo Jail
Reuters

Thursday 16 June 2005

Washington - A Halliburton Co. unit will build a new $30 million detention facility and security fence at the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where the United States is holding about 520 foreign terrorism suspects, the Defense Department announced on Thursday.

The announcement comes the same week that Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended the jail after US lawmakers said it had created an image problem for the United States.

Critics have decried the indefinite detention of Guantánamo detainees, whom the United States has denied rights accorded under the Geneva Conventions to prisoners of war. The prison was called "the gulag of our times" in a recent Amnesty International report.

An air-conditioned two-story prison, known as Detention Camp #6, will be built at Guantánamo to house 220 men. It will include exercise areas, medical and dental spaces as well as a security control room, the contract announcement said.

The contract announcement did not specify whether the new prison would also hold foreign terror suspects.

Under the deal with the Norfolk, Virginia-based US Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic, the work is to be wrapped up by July 2006. It is part of a larger contract that could be worth up to $500 million if all options are exercised, the Defense Department said.

The project is to be carried out by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root Services of Arlington, Virginia. It includes site work, heating ventilation and air conditioning, plumbing and electrical work, the Pentagon said.

The first prisoners arrived at the prison camp in January 2002 after the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked airliner attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

The Pentagon has said about 520 detainees from more than 40 countries are being held at the prison, without giving a precise figure.

Rumsfeld said on Tuesday US taxpayers had spend more than $100 million on construction costs and no other facility could replace it.

Score. That's a sweet freaking contract.

It must be nice to have your former CEO in the government contract approval process.

-bear

Friends in high places they have

As one commentator put it, it's like the Daily Show jokes are being written for them.

Yes, this insider contract thing has go to stop. Haliburton did almost no business with the US government before Cheney became VP, and now look at all the contracts. Its disgraceful.

A/C, exercise room, and medical/dental spaces? I have to pay for three off the four, and I don't have anywhere to exercise indoors.

Like it or not, Haliburton has been a government contractor for a long time, and because of it they're going to keep getting contracts.

Hey we chose to imprison them without convicting or charging them of any crime. I don't think providing A/C, excercise facilities, and medical/dental care is out of line.

Amnesty International just gets through calling GB a 'gulag', and the entire anti-war movement has their panties in a wad because an enemy combatant is complaining about security guards blasting Christina Aguilera music, and what does Bush do? He builds the joint even bigger!

I guess he isn't too concerned about Amnesty International.

It seem like the administration is trying to appease the critics while keeping the camp. This way we get the worst of both worlds. We are still holding people in prison without trial and we are spending even more taxpayer money doing it.

Hmm, it may be shiny and new but it will hold less than half of the captives? Or are they just making room for even more prisoners from a new/continued campagn? Will we just cram them all in there? Or just the ones that cooperate?

I'm also with the "Halliburton contracts need to go" folks. Whatever happened to bidding on government contracts? Considering the way Halliburton jacked up the prices for what they did over in Iraq i would have thought they would be the LAST place we would go to get something done. $30Mil? Not likely. Should be interesting to hear the excuses this time as to why the price will be raised, though. Isn't there some law someplace about this kind of thing? If not, there should be.

It's not just $30 million. Halliburton has $500 million up for grabs.

Doh, missed that paragraph lol. So $30mil just for the facility and fense. I guess the other $470mil is for gas. I'd be interesed to hear what the other options are... was all just kinda glossed over.

It would seem to me that something this large would have been itemized in an appropriations bill of some kind. If not, where is the congressional oversight for this kind of spending?

The lack of understanding of how these contracts works is almost mind boggling based on the amount of noise this subject makes.

The profit margin is determined ahead of time. It is normally a very low %, far lower than most private work. If Haliburton goes over that profit margin they have to give the money back (hence the 'overcharged for oil' deal, government accountants determined the profit margin exceeded the one set and Haliburton had to return the difference, SOP.)

The government sets the profit margin for between 2-7%. In Iraq I believe it is set at 3.8%.

Basically the only way to make a profit is to do very large scale projects like this, so you need to be big enough to do the work PLUS you have to accept the deferred payment that is typical for most government contracts.

Not many companies fit the bill and Haliburton has a very good record on this.

So complain all you want but I'd rather have the job done by reputable companies who have worked with the government for decades.

Very good info Ustwo. Thanks.

Of course you are right Ustwo but it doesn't change the fact that the optics, on the surface at least, remain less than favourable.

Of course the Bush admin could have unfairly blocked Haliburton from all government contracts in order to 'look good', but is that what you want in a president?

Substance over style.

Hmmmmm..... pro-free market when it comes to the public but when it comes to giving jobs to cronies, let's say we have profit margin 5ages and pretend we support those. That those profit margins don't include the bonuses, salaries and kickbacks we included in the price.

It can be like in Iraq where we have the money paid to us for the armor and equipment our troops need..... but we have yet to send out. Or we can overcharge and say inflation and we didn't realize Castro would be such trouble.

Oh those no-bid contract cronies....

I'm sorry but not everything Bush does is evil.

Did I say it was just Bush?

One thing you failed to mention Ustwo is that under this contract style it is in the contracters favor to spend as much money as possible. Claim as much as you can as an expence, overcharge where ever possible, and your profit amounts go up. This is what Halliburton did in Iraq with the oil. The only thing is they got caught.

[QUOTE=Ustwo]The lack of understanding of how these contracts works is almost mind boggling based on the amount of noise this subject makes./QUOTE]

It appears I need to qualify why I started the topic, which is a continuation of one that started with a bit of tongue in cheek. For those with a short attention span, myself included:

- Bush implied that alternatives were being considered regarding the prisoners at Gitmo.

- Rumsfeld said the same day that he knows nothing of any changes being considered.

- Cheney (the guy that really wears the pants) asserts Gitmo will remain open.

- Some Republicans and Democrats are calling for the closing of Gitmo, due to the harm it has done in winning the hearts and minds, etc....

- Surprise! Gitmo has a new jail going up.

This contract with Halliburton had to be in the works for some time, hence my question about congressional oversight. And yet, we are served a disingenuous bit of happy politics from Bush before the announcement.

In my opinion, the Bush administration has counted on the short attention span of the American voters.

Exactly, Rekna. The Big Airplane Company that I worked for had military bids of cost/plus with costs always exceeding the bid that awarded it the contract. The subdivision that I worked for, that was entirely banking related, got tagged on as an expense to military projects. Any, yes...they got caught.

And yet continue to keep up the practice, with the govenment's help to hide the evidence none the less.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...438694,00.html

How about paying a $100 to do a bag of laundry that we have to pay for.

http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFile...0Testimony.pdf

And then there is the $2.2 billion worth of subsidies. Mind you back when the Dems were in power Halliburton obtained $1.5 worth of subsidies.

i am not sure if pbs outlets all broadcast the same programming at the same time, but anyway tonight there will be a feature on frontline about contractors on the order of halliburton.

info here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

From the end of WW2 to the Carter Administration, America's economy was built on government defense contracts. Companies made huge money developing weapons and warcraft (ships, planes, land vehicles), this allowed them to have R&D, and provide us with the best products at affordable prices (but this also allowed unions to become greedy and lazy). The economy boomed (we had peaks and lows but nothing truly serious), then the people heard about the waste and after 'Nam wanted the defense spending lessened. We did and our economy nosedived. The money that the companies needed and had counted on was no longer there and they couldn't grow, they only barely survived.

Reagan set out to break the unions by taking bids from overseas and allowing companies to outsource. The companies started to make small comebacks but imports were drowning us and by the end of the 80's we had to cut military spending again.

Eventually, our economy couldn't handle the loss and in the early 90's we again hit a recession again. However we had tech stocks and the internet. The economy grew because the focus was off military spending and on growing sectors. But outsourcing and labor being sent overseas was not addressed and as companies paid less, factories closed and government spending on technology started to be cut, that growing sector of the economy that was helping us recover from our military economy.

Today, the economy is very unstable because we don't truly have military (although I believe Bush is old school and has tried to rebuild that way.... but the outsourcing and overseas companies taking the jobs has crushed us.) The government can no longer give USSteel big business for it's needs..... it has to take bids and ends up having to use Chinese or Japanese steel because they cost less.

Anyway my point is government contracts aren't always bad, in fact they are needed to keep the economy going forward..... however, in order to maintain a growing economy our government needs to fund more than just the military industrial and move into other sectors but make sure the companies are US and the products are made in the US. And we must keep a free market where not just 1 company gets everything..... where contracts are spread out between companies.

Thanks for the info Ustwo, anyway you can provide a source or link?

For me, it's not so much that it's Halliburton, but rather the seemingly lack of transparency in the whole bidding process. I don't think anyone said that Bush was evil, but sometimes what his administration does raises eyebrows. It is healthy to question and raise questions I think.

My question would be, why do they need to build a new facility? What's wrong with the old one? It all seems like a waste of money to me.

Or, you could even "spin" it this way - They have to rebuild a ne facility to comply with international standards, to build more "humane structures", and satisfy Amnesty International concerns. THAT, would be ironic :)