CIA defends Blackwater contract worth $100m
The head of CIA has defended awarding a large contract to the controversial security company formerly known as Blackwater.
June 27, 2010

Quote :

"'[Xe] provided a bid that… underbid everyone else by about US $26m. And a panel that we had said that they can do the job, that they have shaped up their act. So there really was not much choice but to accept that contract,' Mr Panetta explained."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10429981.stm

This is totally cool now, right? I mean, they changed their name and all.

6/28/2010 5:23:33 AM

When you change your company's name you should at least make it something pronouncable, otherwise everyone is just going to call you "the company formerly known as....."

6/28/2010 6:32:01 AM

6/28/2010 8:42:03 AM

< Chris Matthews >HA!< /Chris Matthews >

[Edited on June 28, 2010 at 9:16 AM. Reason : .]

6/28/2010 9:16:25 AM

And the flaw in the government procurement/bidding process is revealed once again. They can just bid low once they have the knowledge of what an "acceptable price" usually is, then change order the fuck out of the government until the contract goes 50% over budget (because once you have them on contract you've got them over a barrel if they REALLY want that contract to be completed ).

6/28/2010 10:59:40 PM

fucking murderous assholes

i hope they all die

6/29/2010 4:16:17 AM

well of course they kill people

that's what their contract is for

[Edited on June 29, 2010 at 7:57 AM. Reason : ]

6/29/2010 7:57:04 AM

fine by me

6/29/2010 8:34:41 AM

^^
Wow, I had no idea their contract included the right to kill civilians with no provocation!

^
Do you even know anything about Blackwater or it's history?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middleeast/14blackwater.htm

6/29/2010 12:37:36 PM

This is one of those times where I'm a bit torn. On one hand, they deserve all the criticism that the company and the Prince of Darkness himself received for their atrocious conduct over the last decade. On the flip side, the company has completely gutted and rebuilt itself with Erik Prince leaving the firm, and at this point is probably more transparent and "clean cut" than their competitors due to the high level of scrutiny they've received. Still, my personal gut instinct is to not use them anywhere near any current battlefield.

Quote :

"And the flaw in the government procurement/bidding process is revealed once again. They can just bid low once they have the knowledge of what an "acceptable price" usually is, then change order the fuck out of the government until the contract goes 50% over budget (because once you have them on contract you've got them over a barrel if they REALLY want that contract to be completed )."

I work in procurement, and this is probably an overly simplified view of the entire process. Companies aren't in the business to just get reimbursed, they're in the business to make a profit, and while going over the price may provide you with greater cost, if you have a properly placed contract in place, they won't make any fee/profit on their contract.

Nor should we throw out the entire cost-plus vehicle either because there are a lot of cases where it's necessary such as high risk ventures like design programs or situations where the the requirements just aren't clear enough to competently bid a firm-fixed price contract.

Also, if you see a massive overrun in a program, it's not necessarily all the contractors' faults either. Usually it's a 50/50 blame game between the two sides: the government will constantly add or change requirements midstream adding costs, and the contractor is either too stupid or to scared to say no especially in these lean times. By "Government" too I mean that these deals aren't made at the program management or contracts level but at the working level between a low-level gov't official and their counterpart with the change and costs not being reported or fully processed until its too late.

Enough of my little side rant.

In summary, the CIA is stupid for using Xe just because of the publicity alone. Still, I am a little sympathetic as the company had apparently made a huge effort to clean up its act.

6/29/2010 2:31:15 PM

The CIA doesn't give a fuck about its bad press. If it did, it wouldn't do half the shit it does.

But as for this issue...eh, I'm with RedGuard. It's not the same organization anymore, so I have trouble judging on the basis of its earlier iteration. We don't still hate the Germans or Japanese, and the large majority of those places stayed on after our, uh, restructuring of them.

6/29/2010 4:50:48 PM

^^ Fair enough. I was primarily pointing out what I believe to be a double standard. If the CIA in a Republican administration were using the "company formerly known as Blackwater," most liberals here and elsewhere would be going apeshit.

I'm going to contact Halliburton with my suggestion for their name change. Profit. It'll be totally cool, right?

6/29/2010 5:10:11 PM

^
No one is happy about this, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

6/29/2010 5:39:03 PM

^ Okay. No need to get into a snit.

[Edited on June 29, 2010 at 5:52 PM. Reason : But not being "happy" is a looong way from the outrage that would be on display.]

6/29/2010 5:51:16 PM

I'm just saying, you don't have to twist every post into a "liberal agenda" statement.

6/29/2010 6:17:08 PM

^ I did nothing of the sort.

6/29/2010 6:22:09 PM

Xe is capitalism's greatest international success.

6/29/2010 6:39:12 PM