Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc?
Must be a Halliburton subsidiary…right?
Ok, have to figure this out first;
Despite President Obama’s long history of criticizing the Bush administration for “sweetheart deals” with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.
The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi [my emphasis], will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide “rule of law stabilization services” in war-torn Afghanistan.
Yowsa! Well, maybe this is the only company capable of performing the work required, like in Halliburton’s case?
Not exactly, via IBD;
It’s a far cry from the aid scene in Afghanistan these days. Unlike Halliburton, which does something others can’t, Checchi is just one of many aid groups that can do the vaguely defined work of democracy-building. Yet, it has the same “IQC” designation.
Shut out by a no-bid contract, rival contractors told Fox it’s a corrupted process that will only institutionalize the aid rackets of Afghanistan and delay the work of real democracy-building.
It may also lead to cost-overruns and the shutting out of qualified people — all for political reasons.
The cotract is what’s known as an IQC — indefinite quantity contract, and according to the Acquisition.gov website;
16.504 Indefinite-quantity contracts
(a) Description. An indefinite-quantity contract provides for an indefinite quantity, within stated limits, of supplies or services during a fixed period. The Government places orders for individual requirements. Quantity limits may be stated as number of units or as dollar values.
Okay, reading thru the legalese here;
(C) The contracting officer must document the decision whether or not to use multiple awards in the acquisition plan or contract file. The contracting officer may determine that a class of acquisitions is not appropriate for multiple awards (see Subpart 1.7).
(1) No task or delivery order contract in an amount estimated to exceed $100 million (including all options) may be awarded to a single source unless the head of the agency determines in writing that—
(i) The task or delivery orders expected under the contract are so integrally related that only a single source can reasonably perform the work;
(ii) The contract provides only for firm-fixed price (see 16.202) task or delivery orders for—
(A) Products for which unit prices are established in the contract; or
(B) Services for which prices are established in the contract for the specific tasks to be performed;
(iii) Only one source is qualified and capable of performing the work at a reasonable price to the Government; or
(iv) It is necessary in the public interest to award the contract to a single source due to exceptional circumstances.
(2) The head of the agency must notify Congress within 30 days after any determination under paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(D)(1)(iv) of this section.
So under (B), (iii) and (iv) above, they have 30 days to notify Congress where any of the above is even necessary?
Oh, that’s Charles Rangel! Yeah, he’ll do the right thing.