Halliburton is in fact the most qualified bidder, why not just put the
contract up for bid? Seems stupid to generate bad PR for no reason.
Makes people wonder if it is in fact the most qualified bidder.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Monique Boea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:22:59 -0400
Subject: RE: George W. Bush, a great president
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So the problem with the company is how he obtained the contract/business?
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 12:22 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: George W. Bush, a great president
so why not put it up for bid and formalize that? It's unnecessary bad PR.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:05:58 -0400
Subject: RE: George W. Bush, a great president
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 10:10 7/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>My only comment on that (besides that I do agree with Larry - there simply
>aren't that many firms that could do the work) is to say: why bother, then
>with making no-bid contracts? Why change the process?
The only other American companies that could handle this type of work would
be Schulumberger (sp?) and Betchel. I want to say that maybe a GE might be
able to do it too but I'm not certain on it. Either way, I think
Halliburton has the most experience in dealing with Military
contracts.________________________________
_____________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
