quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/world/middleeast/29reconstruct.html

quote:

In the end, KBR collected about $2.4 billion under the disputed contract, according to a Congressional report. It was largely superseded in 2004 by new, competitively awarded contracts that divided up the oil work in Iraq between KBR and the Parsons Corporation.

So much for only one company in the world able to do the job and that a no-bid contract was the only way to go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

WHat you think is common sense is paranoia and fear, so you have nothing to back up your proclamation, simple, just admit it.
its not that hard to admit you are wrong, is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

youve done nothing to back up your assertions.. cmon braveling, give it up.. just because you cant see anything outside your tunnel vision, doesnt mean no one else can
cmon I dare you to back up what you say
just this once
double dog dare

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

fast Reply

maybe I am misunderstanding this or something, but it is my understanding that if a court of law awards a person with the monies they lost due to other's incorrect actions, that court of law is agreeing the action of witholding monies was wrong.

So this woman acted on her conscience as a US tax payer and told her management what they were doing was illegal, in doing so, she got demoted and harrassed, which is basically saying bollocks to legality, do it our way, the illegal way or face the consequences. She faced the consequences and if I were a us tax payer, I would be celebrating the woman for highlighting but one abuse of the system by people who should know better.

As to those who deride this woman for her actions, what is it, you like paying tax and furthermore, are quite happy for those in high places to waste it, coz, hey, there is more where that comes from for I have deep pockets for those who have brainwashed me into believing the system works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

fast Reply

maybe I am misunderstanding this or something, but it is my understanding that if a court of law awards a person with the monies they lost due to other's incorrect actions, that court of law is agreeing the action of witholding monies was wrong.

So this woman acted on her conscience as a US tax payer and told her management what they were doing was illegal, in doing so, she got demoted and harrassed, which is basically saying bollocks to legality, do it our way, the illegal way or face the consequences. She faced the consequences and if I were a us tax payer, I would be celebrating the woman for highlighting but one abuse of the system by people who should know better.

As to those who deride this woman for her actions, what is it, you like paying tax and furthermore, are quite happy for those in high places to waste it, coz, hey, there is more where that comes from for I have deep pockets for those who have brainwashed me into believing the system works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I think what youre missing is that the settlement was for the demotion as a response to her "whistleblowing". They expected to lose that end of the suit and settled for an amount they thought was equivalent to what would be awarded should they be found guilty. A settlement isnt an admission of guilt nor a finding of the court, it is "insurance" for both sides that they pay/receive a value in line with their expectations for loss/win and the expense of continuing the litigation.

There was no award related to the contracts themselves being in any way improper, which is customary in US whistleblower suits when there is a finding that there was an impropriety. That this end of the suit was neither settled nor litigated means that both parties didnt think their was merit to it. Also the DoD would have a responsbility to correct the contract. They havent.

As a consultant to one of the largest defense conractors in the world in the 80s/early 90s, I frequently worked with the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency on contracts of this nature. The DCAA and DLA are the two groups that are responsbile for ensuring that contracts are both legal and adhered to. While I havent seen the KBR contracts themselves, there is nothing in the news reports that make them sound at all unusual in their form, sole source or competitiively bid. If they were administered on an illegal basis (eg payments made that were not covered by the contract, or miscalculations of profits) then the only way there would be something worthy of a whistleblower suit would be if there were government officials complicit in making those payments knowing they were improper. Since that didnt happen, my take is that she was politically motivated in the anti-Bush/Iraq frenzy and thought she might have a case but didnt. The response to her claims was stupid and deserved to be punished.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I think what youre missing is that the settlement was for the demotion as a response to her "whistleblowing". They expected to lose that end of the suit and settled for an amount they thought was equivalent to what would be awarded should they be found guilty. A settlement isnt an admission of guilt nor a finding of the court, it is "insurance" for both sides that they pay/receive a value in line with their expectations for loss/win and the expense of continuing the litigation.

There was no award related to the contracts themselves being in any way improper, which is customary in US whistleblower suits when there is a finding that there was an impropriety. That this end of the suit was neither settled nor litigated means that both parties didnt think their was merit to it. Also the DoD would have a responsbility to correct the contract. They havent.

As a consultant to one of the largest defense conractors in the world in the 80s/early 90s, I frequently worked with the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency on contracts of this nature. The DCAA and DLA are the two groups that are responsbile for ensuring that contracts are both legal and adhered to. While I havent seen the KBR contracts themselves, there is nothing in the news reports that make them sound at all unusual in their form, sole source or competitiively bid. If they were administered on an illegal basis (eg payments made that were not covered by the contract, or miscalculations of profits) then the only way there would be something worthy of a whistleblower suit would be if there were government officials complicit in making those payments knowing they were improper. Since that didnt happen, my take is that she was politically motivated in the anti-Bush/Iraq frenzy and thought she might have a case but didnt. The response to her claims was stupid and deserved to be punished.

So now you've been a combat medic in Vietnam, a defence industry consultant involved in contract enforcement, an actuary, a high priced economics consultant and an insurance salesman.

You either have to stop taking the hallucigens or at least stop posting till you come down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


How typical, and laughable [:D]

The Conservative talks facts and makes posts relevant to the subject at hand, the left leaning individual hurls baseless ad hominems

kens post, even ken himself is a caricature of practically every other leftist inhabiting Internet discussion boards...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I think what youre missing is that the settlement was for the demotion as a response to her "whistleblowing". They expected to lose that end of the suit and settled for an amount they thought was equivalent to what would be awarded should they be found guilty. A settlement isnt an admission of guilt nor a finding of the court, it is "insurance" for both sides that they pay/receive a value in line with their expectations for loss/win and the expense of continuing the litigation.

There was no award related to the contracts themselves being in any way improper, which is customary in US whistleblower suits when there is a finding that there was an impropriety. That this end of the suit was neither settled nor litigated means that both parties didnt think their was merit to it. Also the DoD would have a responsbility to correct the contract. They havent.

As a consultant to one of the largest defense conractors in the world in the 80s/early 90s, I frequently worked with the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency on contracts of this nature. The DCAA and DLA are the two groups that are responsbile for ensuring that contracts are both legal and adhered to. While I havent seen the KBR contracts themselves, there is nothing in the news reports that make them sound at all unusual in their form, sole source or competitiively bid. If they were administered on an illegal basis (eg payments made that were not covered by the contract, or miscalculations of profits) then the only way there would be something worthy of a whistleblower suit would be if there were government officials complicit in making those payments knowing they were improper. Since that didnt happen, my take is that she was politically motivated in the anti-Bush/Iraq frenzy and thought she might have a case but didnt. The response to her claims was stupid and deserved to be punished.

So now you've been a combat medic in Vietnam, a defence industry consultant involved in contract enforcement, an actuary, a high priced economics consultant and an insurance salesman.

You either have to stop taking the hallucigens or at least stop posting till you come down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


How typical, and laughable [:D]

The Conservative talks facts and makes posts relevant to the subject at hand, the left leaning individual hurls baseless ad hominems

kens post, even ken himself is a caricature of practically every other leftist inhabiting Internet discussion boards...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I think what youre missing is that the settlement was for the demotion as a response to her "whistleblowing". They expected to lose that end of the suit and settled for an amount they thought was equivalent to what would be awarded should they be found guilty. A settlement isnt an admission of guilt nor a finding of the court, it is "insurance" for both sides that they pay/receive a value in line with their expectations for loss/win and the expense of continuing the litigation.

There was no award related to the contracts themselves being in any way improper, which is customary in US whistleblower suits when there is a finding that there was an impropriety. That this end of the suit was neither settled nor litigated means that both parties didnt think their was merit to it. Also the DoD would have a responsbility to correct the contract. They havent.

As a consultant to one of the largest defense conractors in the world in the 80s/early 90s, I frequently worked with the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency on contracts of this nature. The DCAA and DLA are the two groups that are responsbile for ensuring that contracts are both legal and adhered to. While I havent seen the KBR contracts themselves, there is nothing in the news reports that make them sound at all unusual in their form, sole source or competitiively bid. If they were administered on an illegal basis (eg payments made that were not covered by the contract, or miscalculations of profits) then the only way there would be something worthy of a whistleblower suit would be if there were government officials complicit in making those payments knowing they were improper. Since that didnt happen, my take is that she was politically motivated in the anti-Bush/Iraq frenzy and thought she might have a case but didnt. The response to her claims was stupid and deserved to be punished.

So now you've been a combat medic in Vietnam, a defence industry consultant involved in contract enforcement, an actuary, a high priced economics consultant and an insurance salesman.

You either have to stop taking the hallucigens or at least stop posting till you come down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


How typical, and laughable [:D]

The Conservative talks facts and makes posts relevant to the subject at hand, the left leaning individual hurls baseless ad hominems

kens post, even ken himself is a caricature of practically every other leftist inhabiting Internet discussion boards...

No. willbur wrote another fantasy and I pointed it out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I think what youre missing is that the settlement was for the demotion as a response to her "whistleblowing". They expected to lose that end of the suit and settled for an amount they thought was equivalent to what would be awarded should they be found guilty. A settlement isnt an admission of guilt nor a finding of the court, it is "insurance" for both sides that they pay/receive a value in line with their expectations for loss/win and the expense of continuing the litigation.

There was no award related to the contracts themselves being in any way improper, which is customary in US whistleblower suits when there is a finding that there was an impropriety. That this end of the suit was neither settled nor litigated means that both parties didnt think their was merit to it. Also the DoD would have a responsbility to correct the contract. They havent.

As a consultant to one of the largest defense conractors in the world in the 80s/early 90s, I frequently worked with the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency on contracts of this nature. The DCAA and DLA are the two groups that are responsbile for ensuring that contracts are both legal and adhered to. While I havent seen the KBR contracts themselves, there is nothing in the news reports that make them sound at all unusual in their form, sole source or competitiively bid. If they were administered on an illegal basis (eg payments made that were not covered by the contract, or miscalculations of profits) then the only way there would be something worthy of a whistleblower suit would be if there were government officials complicit in making those payments knowing they were improper. Since that didnt happen, my take is that she was politically motivated in the anti-Bush/Iraq frenzy and thought she might have a case but didnt. The response to her claims was stupid and deserved to be punished.

So now you've been a combat medic in Vietnam, a defence industry consultant involved in contract enforcement, an actuary, a high priced economics consultant and an insurance salesman.

You either have to stop taking the hallucigens or at least stop posting till you come down.

Wrong. I never said I was an insurance salesman, that was a lie that Tazzy made up. The rest are true and verifiable if you make it worth my while. The Defense industry consulting was AS an actuary, not two different things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
I think what youre missing is that the settlement was for the demotion as a response to her "whistleblowing". They expected to lose that end of the suit and settled for an amount they thought was equivalent to what would be awarded should they be found guilty. A settlement isnt an admission of guilt nor a finding of the court, it is "insurance" for both sides that they pay/receive a value in line with their expectations for loss/win and the expense of continuing the litigation.

There was no award related to the contracts themselves being in any way improper, which is customary in US whistleblower suits when there is a finding that there was an impropriety. That this end of the suit was neither settled nor litigated means that both parties didnt think their was merit to it. Also the DoD would have a responsbility to correct the contract. They havent.

As a consultant to one of the largest defense conractors in the world in the 80s/early 90s, I frequently worked with the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency on contracts of this nature. The DCAA and DLA are the two groups that are responsbile for ensuring that contracts are both legal and adhered to. While I havent seen the KBR contracts themselves, there is nothing in the news reports that make them sound at all unusual in their form, sole source or competitiively bid. If they were administered on an illegal basis (eg payments made that were not covered by the contract, or miscalculations of profits) then the only way there would be something worthy of a whistleblower suit would be if there were government officials complicit in making those payments knowing they were improper. Since that didnt happen, my take is that she was politically motivated in the anti-Bush/Iraq frenzy and thought she might have a case but didnt. The response to her claims was stupid and deserved to be punished.

So now you've been a combat medic in Vietnam, a defence industry consultant involved in contract enforcement, an actuary, a high priced economics consultant and an insurance salesman.

You either have to stop taking the hallucigens or at least stop posting till you come down.

Wrong. I never said I was an insurance salesman, that was a lie that Tazzy made up. The rest are true and verifiable if you make it worth my while. The Defense industry consulting was AS an actuary, not two different things.

An actuary doing contract enforcement between a defence contractor and the DOD, and not even an employee of either?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
It depends on what you mean by "doing contract enforcement", they are your words, not mine. My role was quite simple, a genius like you should have been able to figure it out instead of making a fool of yourself once again by making a baseless post.

An element of cost plus and cost plus with incentive contracts is the cost of wages and benefits. Pension and health benefit costs are reviewed by the initial contracting officer of the DCAA and by the DLA on audit. As the client's actuary I both determined what costs would go into the contract and represented them on audit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
It depends on what you mean by "doing contract enforcement", they are your words, not mine. My role was quite simple, a genius like you should have been able to figure it out instead of making a fool of yourself once again by making a baseless post.

An element of cost plus and cost plus with incentive contracts is the cost of wages and benefits. Pension and health benefit costs are reviewed by the initial contracting officer of the DCAA and by the DLA on audit. As the client's actuary I both determined what costs would go into the contract and represented them on audit.

You represented a defence contractor before the DOD on cost plus contracts and you're neither a lawyer nor a CPA? Bullshit. No one would hire an outside consultant for such a job when it is already the responsibility of counsel and their accountants. Once again you didn't have privilege so there is absolutely no way any company would give you access to such sensitive information.

Maybe you don't realize this but some of us have actually spent a lot of time around big business and your bullshit is simply unbelieveable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


How typical, and laughable [:D]

The Conservative talks facts and makes posts relevant to the subject at hand, the left leaning individual hurls baseless ad hominems

kens post, even ken himself is a caricature of practically every other leftist inhabiting Internet discussion boards...