by David Phinney
Friday July 12th 2024



Oops: Another KBR Cost Overrun

June 25, 2007 — KBR forgot to keep accurate records of gasoline distribution, quartered employees in living spaces that may be larger than necessary and served meals that appeared to cost $4.5 million more than what was being eaten, according to a new Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction audit. SIGIR selectively distributed the report to favored news outlets on Sunday in anticipation of a Monday release.

The report is all about one KBR task order in the Green Zone, the place where order is supposedly the best — and one assumes where wartime exigencies are the least.

The Washington Post reveals from a reading:

KBR managed its housing at its Camp Hope inside the Green Zone, resulting in most of its employees living in more spacious quarters than those they support…. Ninety percent of KBR employees were assigned to trailer spaces without roommates, meaning KBR employees appeared to have better housing than Army captains.

The SIGIR report surveys a “small sliver” of KBR’s Green Zone business — a task order for supplying gasoline, food services, and housing and various morale and recreation services.
KBR failed to use an internal meter in gas pumps that tracks how much fuel is used, according to the report.

When auditors looked at the database in September 2006, it showed that 12,622 liters had been issued for December 2006 — “a future date and an obvious impossibility,” the audit said.

Here’s The Washington Post’s curtain raiser to the report: Audit of KBR Iraq Contract Faults Records For Fuel, Food.


Reader Feedback

2 Responses to “Oops: Another KBR Cost Overrun

  1. Haruka says:

    Anytime you have a government (real or proxy) fihgitng insurgents either:1. the government is clearly and unambiguously winning2. it’s losing. Not winning is the same as losing in that situation.Governments in conflict with each other can persist in an ambiguous stasis for a long time (see the US and Cuba) but not insurgents and governments.So, the US is losing in Iraq and has been for some time now. The (meager) upside is that a government that’s strong enough in some ways can kind of afford to be losing for a long time before either turning things around or falling. But every day of non-winning against insurgents is another day closer to government collapse and the less sugarcoating that harsh fact gets the better.I have no idea what can be done in Iraq. If there is something that can be done to turn things around I’m fairly convinced that the current administration is not prepared to do it (as they seem to think in traditional narrow ways and don’t seem to be good at listening to people).

  2. Sonu says:

    Ronin – It is possible to be niether winning no losing, but not for long.Ferris – Not winning is the same as losing in that situation [insurgency].That depends what your timeframe is. Pick a date at random between 1950 and 1990 and ask yourself:NATO vs. the Soviet Bloc: Winning or Losing?United Kingdom vs. IRA: Winning or Losing?Peru vs. Shining Path: Winning or Losing?Israel vs. PLO: Winning or Losing?For long protracted struggles against terrorists and other ideological opponents, just showing up is important. Winning may take a very long time, but the side with resources and strategic advantage can outlast its weaker, more ruthless opponents.Yes, there are still bitter-ender Basque, IRA, and Maoist terrorists at work; the PLO’s nihilistic progeny still attack Israel when not attacking each other; Russia is still a destabilizing power.Sure, Iraq is a bad situation and will likely be a bad situation for a long time to comeBut the idea of a painless, consequence-free retreat is a fantasy. You’ve got to pick your poison. Hard times now, or disaster tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.