I have been consistently critical of what I have learned about the contracting process and the contracts in Iraq. The poster child of my concerns in Iraq has been Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR. This seems to be another private company that gets caught acting improperly again and again but still gets to keep or acquire government contracts.

In this particular case there is a story about KBR shipping empty trucks in its convoys. This could be exposing truck drivers to risks that they did not need to face. (They are reported to be on a contract basis for around $80k per year. I have no way of knowing if this is true as opposed to getting paid per run, but I have seen this in other sources)

Read the story and post what it seems like to you.

Is it overzealous reporting that is making too much of this issue?
Is it part of an almost obscene system of fulfilling the requirements, no matter how inane, of a government bureaucratic maze?
Is it a way of padding the expenses of KBRs work so that their small percentage above costs will by a bigger pile of money when they leave Iraq?
Is it a normal part of the trucking business that only sounds bad in this context of endangering drivers lives?
Is it something else entirely?

Empty trucks, but full danger

Just to add a scenario I see as plausible, but which paints this story in a completely different light--was KBR requested to make 'dry' runs specifically to reduce the threat of terrorism, since terrorists would have no way of knowing if a truck were empty or not, and why go to all the steps of planning and executing an attack on an empty truck? I see this as plausible, so don't want to cast stones without knowing all the facts.

However, that aside, by vote would tend to be towards fulfilling inane governmental requirements. Typically, what happens in these contracts is that the process of detailing everything to the nth degree, supposedly to prevent abuse of the system, instead creates opportunities, or even requires, abuse. For example, the contract with KBR could easily have specified a minimum number of runs. So, KBR would then be forced to make those runs to meet the contract, whether they were needed or not. Also, the contract probably paid KBR for runs made, possibly without stipulation that the fuel was needed, or even present, thereby incenting KBR to make the dry runs. I've always thought it would be much better to simply work out a normal business arrangement with built-in reviews and penalties for abuse: creating contracts to try and prevent abuse up-front are seldom successful (but do employ lots of lawyers....hmmmmm, maybe that's the purpose?). Think of the difference between time and materials vs. fixed price work. Fixed price contracts often end up costing more and taking more time than time and materials because of time spent arguing over requirements as situations come up, rather than operating with common sense, taking care of the problem, and moving on.