Greg Menke writes:

Gunner writes:

On 26 Aug 2004 16:46:46 -0400, Greg Menke
wrote:


As I have explained before they are not cost-plus no bid
contracts. Because of the short time fuse available, there was not the
time for the normal 180 contract period. What they did was amend
current contracts to include services that the government needed.

So you don't have any problems with the overcharges they are under
investigation for?

Under investigation. This means they are innocent until proven guilty.
Correct?

It all depends on where, when and why the gov't takes an interest in
you. Innocent until proven guilty is good PR but its hardly policy.
In the case of Halliburton we're not talking about an individual
either.

Actually- I'm not quite happy with that- too cynical. It probably
does matter a bit where, when and why, however as a doctrine, I do
follow it whether or not I like the parties concerned or not. With
some few exceptions, I think the gov't does too. I wish it did more
often, but then gov't is always a work in progress.

However AFAICT the overcharges for gasoline have been documented, the
question wrt guilt is about why & how the overcharges took place.
I'll be willing to accept an accounting error & let it go at that if
no malfeasance is established and the overcharges are returned.

Gregm