Posts Tagged McCaskill

Legal News: Senate Passes Key Defense Policy Bill Filled With Contractor Oversight Mechanisms

     The key thing here is that this bill was passed just in time to deal with DynCorp’s billion dollar contract.  Which is great.  I would certainly hope that the government would actually care about how this money is spent and that they get their money’s worth.  Although my view on the thing is that actions speak louder than words, and I will believe it when I see some actual adult supervision on this stuff.

     I really liked the last provision listed which “prohibits small arms contracts from being awarded on a sole source basis and require those contracts be awarded based on full and open competition in order to get the best weapons for our troops in combat.” Wow, that is cool! Hopefully this will open up things a little to all companies out there, and contribute to a truly innovative and vibrant competition that would result in getting the best possible weapons into the hands of the troops. –Matt

Senate Passes Key Defense Policy Bill with McCaskill Provisions

December 22, 2010

Senator’s provisions will improve healthcare and benefits for military, increase contracting oversight, and address F/A-18 shortfall.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill applauded the passage of a major defense policy bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011, which was passed unanimously by the Senate this morning. The NDAA outlines funding levels for the Department of Defense (DoD) for the coming fiscal year and addresses major defense policy matters. When the bill passed the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCaskill, who serves as a member of the committee, was able to win inclusion of several important amendments in the bill that will help improve access to healthcare for the military and improve oversight of DoD contractors. Despite fairly significant changes to the bill before final passage, many of her measures were included in the final bill.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Industry Talk: KBR To Get No-Bid Army Work As U.S. Alleges Kickbacks

     “Odierno said, ‘I’ve got three million pieces of equipment I’ve got to get out of Iraq, I’ve got 100 or so bases to close, I’ve got to move 80,000-plus people out of here and you want me to change horses in the middle of the stream?’” Casey recounted.


   Interesting news.  I thought the current administration made a point of limiting the practice of no-bid contracts in this war? Reality sets in I guess…..

   My only thoughts on this whole deal is that the DoD realizes that they actually need KBR for the massive draw down in Iraq, and the build up in Afghanistan.  It is a crucial time period, and it could be costly and time consuming to switch companies during this time period.  The bottom line–the DoD and the administration needs KBR, if they want to be successful in their current strategies. Hell, the numbers and facts speak for themselves and we are more vital than ever before to the current war effort. –Matt


KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks

May 06, 2010

(Updates with General Casey’s comment in 10th and 11th paragraphs, McCaskill comment in third paragraph from end.)

By Tony Capaccio

May 6 (Bloomberg) — KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said.

The Army announced its decision yesterday only hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work. The Army also awarded the work to KBR over objections from members of Congress, who have pushed the Pentagon to seek bids for further logistics contracts.

The Justice Department said the government will join a suit filed by whistleblowers alleging that two freight-forwarding firms gave KBR transportation department employees kickbacks in the form of meals, drinks, sports tickets and golf outings.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , ,