The $75 million police training facility in Iraq, which was to be a key part of U.S. efforts to help Iraqis take control of their own security, was so poorly constructed that feces and urine now rain from the ceilings in student barracks, and the campus may need to be partially demolished, the Washington Post reported. “This is the most essential civil security project in the country — and it’s a failure,” said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. “The Baghdad police academy is a disaster.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- preordained1 on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
19 Comments
NPR did an excellent bit on this one.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6161944
Geez,
Will these stories ever stop?
WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!
Once again, why do you ‘liberals’ need to rain on our Dear Leader’s parade? He’s doin the best he can, okay? His multimillionaire, Republican-donating contractor friends obviously have NOTHING to do with this. Nothing to see here people, move along.
GaryC. Listen to the NPR story. More than 80% of projects and over 80% of contractors are at and above expectations.
There are a few disaster projects and a few incompetant contractors.
But above 80% is pretty good. You can’t get better than that even here in America.
I can point out even projects here in Wichita that have been poorly constructed. One recently is the $11 million dollar mistake on the railroad elevation project.
STAY THE COURSE! Yea right!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/post_saddam_iraq/html/1.stm
Quick snapshot of where Iraq is now.
$75 million for a campus? Even by todays standards that is extreme.
Topeka High School, which is larger than that campus. Was $3.4 million in 1932 and a large amount of slate and marble was used. I graduated from that school, its not just an ordinary building.
They estimated it would take probably $40-60 million to do it today.
So you can’t tell me they spent $75 million and have poor plumbing. I smell a rat. (literally)
Maybe it’s time for Bush to give us another “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” speech!
Yeah – I smell a $75 million dollar rat. Bet the rat is related to Halliburton and Cheney – you think?
Thanks Joe
I feel like I have egg on my face and may have been duped by the folks at iraqforsale.org. I bought their movie. One of it’s main premises is that Congress is doing nothing to investigate the fraud, waste and abuse of contractors in Iraq – yet the NPR article says there is a House Committee on government reform looking into it. I’ve written the Iraq for Sale folks and will post their response. Makes me wonder if they aren’t war profiteers too.
It is things like this 75 million dollar mess that is making the average American (who will never even see 75 million dollars in their lifetime, start to question the whole Iraq war.
There are definitely profiteers in this war and their greed is driving this war.
I have question. When a contractor provides a shoddy construction work in Iraq for us, do we, the government, ever make that contractor make it right at their own expense?
We certainly do here in this country. We also penalize companies for not finishing on time – is that also in their contracts?
A number one example of why we have REGULATION in the USA.
Was this some of that irreplaceable work Haliburton’s doing for God, County, and Millions?
Sorry I missed the NPR piece. 80%, huh? Is that figured by square feet? Because if it is, that would account for the high percentage, given the size of our new palatial U.S. Embassy. I wonder if they’ve checked the plumbing in that yet…
Joe must have meant 80% of contractors are over budget and behind completion. Here’s a report as of March.Pentagon denounces Halliburton’s ‘overwhelmingly negative’ performance in Iraq28 March 2006WASHINGTON, March 28 (HalliburtonWatch.org) — A new report released today reveals that Pentagon officials and investigators have harshly criticized Halliburton’s oil reconstruction work in Iraq, citing “profound systemic problems,” “exorbitant indirect costs,” “misleading” and “distorted” cost reports, a “lack of cost control,” an “overwhelmingly negative” evaluation, and an “obstructive” corporate attitude toward oversight.
The findings were released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and pertain to Halliburton’s Restore Iraqi Oil 2 (or, RIO 2) contract, awarded to the company in 2003.
To evaluate Halliburton’s performance under RIO 2, Waxman’s report analyzed hundreds of pages of previously undisclosed correspondence, evaluations, and audits. The documents reviewed in preparation of the report include correspondence from the Project and Contracting Office (PCO), the Defense Department agency charged with overseeing RIO 2; evaluations by a private contractor, Foster-Wheeler, hired to help the PCO oversee the contract; documentation related to award-fee determinations; and audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).
Pentagon investigators made the following conclusions:
• Intentional Overcharging: The PCO board evaluating Halliburton’s request for award fees found that Halliburton repeatedly overcharged the taxpayer, apparently intentionally. In one case, “[c]ost estimates had hidden rate factors to increase cost of project without informing the Government.” In another instance, Halliburton “tried to inflate cost estimate by $26M.” In yet a third example, Halliburton claimed costs for laying concrete pads and footings that the Iraqi Oil Ministry had “already put in place.”
• Exorbitant Costs: The PCO reported that Halliburton was “accruing exorbitant indirect costs at a rapid rate” and that Halliburton’s “lack of cost containment and funds management is the single biggest detriment to this program.” The oversight contractor found a “lack of cost control … in Houston, Kuwait, and Iraq.” In a partial review of the RIO 2 contract, DCAA auditors challenged $45 million in costs as unreasonable or unsupported.
• Inadequate Cost Reporting: The PCO found that Halliburton “universally failed to provide adequate cost information,” had “profound systemic problems,” provided “substandard” cost reports that did “not meet minimum standards,” and submitted reports that had been “vetted of any information that would allow tracking of details.” The oversight contractor complained about “unacceptable unchecked cost reports.”
• Schedule Delays: Halliburton’s work under RIO 2 was continually plagued by delays. According to the PCO, Halliburton had a “50% late completion” rate for RIO 2 projects. Evaluations by the award fee board noted “untimely work” and “schedule slippage.”
• Refusal to Cooperate: PCO evaluations described Halliburton as “obstructive” with oversight officials. Despite the billions in taxpayer funds Halliburton has been paid, the company’s “leadership demonstrated minimal cooperative attitude resolving problems.”
The decision to award Halliburton the RIO 2 contract was controversial. Before the award of the contract, DCAA auditors warned the Defense Department not to enter into additional contracts with Halliburton because of “significant deficiencies” in the company’s cost estimating system, but the Department ignored this advice. It now appears that problems that led to the unusual DCAA warning have been realized in RIO 2, with serious implications for the reconstruction effort in Iraq and federal taxpayers.
Halliburton is the largest private contractor in Iraq. The company has operated there under three mega-contracts: the “LOGCAP” contract to provide support to U.S. troops; the original “Restore Iraqi Oil” (RIO) contract, which Halliburton received in secret without competitive bidding in March 2003; and the RIO 2 contract, which was awarded to Halliburton in January 2004.
Previous reports by government auditors and congressional investigators have evaluated the LOGCAP and RIO contracts. The report released today, however, is the first to examine the RIO 2 contract.
According to the report, “The RIO 2 contract is critically important to the successful reconstruction of Iraq. The mammoth $1.2 billion contract gave Halliburton the responsibility for restoring the oil fields in southern Iraq, which historically have been Iraq’s largest and most productive. Three years ago, Bush Administration officials promised that Iraq would be able to fund its own reconstruction out of its oil revenues. The successful restoration of the southern oil fields, which the Administration entrusted to Halliburton under RIO 2, was supposed to pay for the rebuilding of much of the rest of Iraq’s infrastructure. But these promises have not been fulfilled.”
This might be the real reason George W. and Dick Cheney want to “stay the course”. Follow the money.
Well, gee, I’m so tickled to know that my tax money is out there making Halliburton stocks go up. I’m waiting for a thank you from Hank. :)
Wonder if Haliburton is one of those righteous religious funds?