Federal audit rips Iraqi reconstruction work

[Janett_Reno]

Federal audit rips Iraqi reconstruction work

Says many tasks assigned to U.S. construction giant were never completed


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19962288/

By Aram Roston
Investigative Unit Producer
NBC News Investigative Unit
Updated: 2 hours, 7 minutes ago
U.S. construction giant Bechtel National Inc. arrived in Iraq in 2003, on the heels of U.S. troops, with a fat contract awarded by the U.S. Agency for International Development to rebuild the country.

Then in 2004 the company won a second contract, worth a potential $1.8 billion. Wearing white construction helmets labeled "Bechtel," the company's construction supervisors oversaw work on hospitals, schools and bridges, and tried to get the water flowing and the electricity turned on.

A new federal audit released Wednesday, however, found that a big chunk of Bechtel's reconstruction work for USAID, the federal agency that issued the contract, was never achieved on the second contract. Auditors checked the 24 jobs Bechtel was supposed to complete.

"Ten did not achieve their original objectives," the auditors found. In another three projects, "we were either unable to determine what the original objectives were or the achievements were unclear."

The cost to American taxpayers for unfinished efforts was high: the U.S. government approved a total of $180 million dollars in payments for Bechtel’s ten allegedly unfinished projects. They include a $24 million water treatment plant in Baghdad's impoverished Sadr City, a $26 million children's hospital in Basra and a $4 million Baghdad landfill that was never built.

"The Bechtel audit is emblematic of the reconstruction problems in Iraq," said Stuart Bowen, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, whose office conducted the audit.

Mark Tokala, an official at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, characterized the audit's findings of unfinished projects as "a success rate of less than 42 percent."

'Limited' oversight
USAID also was cited in the audit for its "limited" oversight of Bechtel's work.

The audit said "USAID had only two people directly involved in the contract administration of the Phase II contract — the administrative contracting officer and the cognizant technical officer."

In addition, USAID had little time to check Bechtel's invoices, the auditors said, since the agency "had agreed in its contract with Bechtel to review and pay Bechtel's vouchers within 10 days of submittal." Indeed, auditors found that in one case Bechtel was paid within two days of submitting an $11 million voucher, giving USAID almost no time to check the bills that the company was submitting.

Another issue was that a large chunk of the federal funds didn't go to work directly on projects but on "support costs," like fees and security. The audit found that only 59 percent actually went to construction, with the rest paid to Bechtel for security and fees.


The Bechtel contract was called the "Phase II Iraq Reconstruction Contract." While it was supposed to have a ceiling of $1.8 billion, it ended up less than that as jobs were cancelled and reassigned. The actual costs came to about $1.3 billion.

Bechtel, USAID disagree with findings
USAID disagreed with many of the findings in the report. Bechtel spokesman Jonathan Marshall told NBC News that "there is almost nothing in the audit that is critical of Bechtel's performance."

Marshall added that often when the original objectives were not achieved, that was because of decisions made by USAID — not Bechtel. "It is unfair to consider that a critique of Bechtel's work," he said.

Frederick Barton, who examines reconstruction for Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank, said in an interview that the government may not have been honestly appraising the chances for success from the beginning.

"It just sort of galls you," he said. "At the very least someone should have said, we are going to throw money at the problem and fifty percent may not get done. The U.S. government pretended they would be able to complete these things, but someone must have known. It's a big shell game," Barton said, "but its an expensive shell game."

[dude1394]

As many have said, this war is being lawyered to death.

[Janett_Reno]

And it will continue to be now and after the neo cons are out of office.

[dude1394]

That will be interesting. Certainly dubya' won't be running and either it will be another republican or a democrat.

Think the republican will be also known as a "neo-con"?

I expect the democrat will be known as a defeato-con as it's historically accurate.

[Janett_Reno]

It will be much better, when the neo cons leave, no matter what Republican or Democrat is in office next. The next president will have more sense than this one. No matter if it is Repub or Dem, doesn't matter. The next pres will not be run by the vice pres. The next pres will have a better administration and they will not be afraid to ask, suggest and talk without being sat in the corner, by the vice pres. W has alot of issues but his downfall was Cheney and Rumsfield. Ashcroft wasn't a sweetheart either.

It has been so much corruption by the neo cons, that it will be lawyers investigating now and after they are out of office. This was the comment i was making. Will it do any good? Probably not because the fact is, the damage has already been done and you can't change what has been done. You can't bring back the billions we have thrown away and in some instances just lost it in thin air and have no idea where it went, just flew out of the window with no trace.

The only neocon or one that really doesn't know what he is, is John McCain because he switches so much. One week he can't stand W and the next week he loves him. None of the rest will be a neo con like these. They have damaged this country so bad but i always believe in hope and believe we can get back on the right track and will be better days and years ahead with our next Repub or Dem president. I honestly do not think McCain is a neo con but he is now damaged goods and he just switch hits. I respect him fighting for us and all he went thru but sometimes you stay around in politics to long, you get lost in the shuffle.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

It will be much better, when the neo cons leave, no matter what Republican or Democrat is in office next. The next president will have more sense than this one. No matter if it is Repub or Dem, doesn't matter. The next pres will not be run by the vice pres. The next pres will have a better administration and they will not be afraid to ask, suggest and talk without being sat in the corner, by the vice pres. W has alot of issues but his downfall was Cheney and Rumsfield. Ashcroft wasn't a sweetheart either.

It has been so much corruption by the neo cons, that it will be lawyers investigating now and after they are out of office. This was the comment i was making. Will it do any good? Probably not because the fact is, the damage has already been done and you can't change what has been done. You can't bring back the billions we have thrown away and in some instances just lost it in thin air and have no idea where it went, just flew out of the window with no trace.

The only neocon or one that really doesn't know what he is, is John McCain because he switches so much. One week he can't stand W and the next week he loves him. None of the rest will be a neo con like these. They have damaged this country so bad but i always believe in hope and believe we can get back on the right track and will be better days and years ahead with our next Repub or Dem president. I honestly do not think McCain is a neo con but he is now damaged goods and he just switch hits. I respect him fighting for us and all he went thru but sometimes you stay around in politics to long, you get lost in the shuffle.

Unfortunately you are dreaming. The last democrat allowed the cole, first wtc bombing, ran from somalia, sat back and watched N.Korea snooker us and had multiple chances to catch bin laden and was too busy with the interns. But he did drop some bombs on an aspirin factory and some tents.

Funny liberals, thinking that the world is going to just stop being the world once dubya is gone. 9/11 would have still happened and al queda would still be attacking the us as well as formenting revolution in the middle east and all around the world.

The difference is that we wouldn't be doing anything about it.

[Janett_Reno]

Throw some faith and morals in there somewhere. It spins better that way.

[MavsX]

nah i believe that the dude's comments are correct.

What do you think al queda and the like won't hate us if W wasn't in office? They don't just hate W, they hate everything America stands for. Not to mention their "religion" is ass-backward anyway. Those people in the middle east have nothing to live for. Their minds are warped For them, violence is the only way to rise up. What they need is to be silenced with about 100 nukes. Clearly i am being facetious, but hey.

its easy to pile the blame on W for all of our problems. 9-11 would have still happened, we dont know what would have happened if we didn't invade iraq...NO ONE CAN SAY IT WOULD BE BETTER RIGHT NOW IF WE DID NOTHING.(meaning not go to iraq) it could be worse..we might have to really be scared to live our lives on our home soil.

At least we can walk away saying, we tried to do something about it. We stood together as Americans and risked it all....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Throw some faith and morals in there somewhere. It spins better that way.

Quite the cynic, silly and unserious, but cynical nonetheless.

So in your mind we invaded Iraq for Cheney and halliburton. Don't you understand how idiotic that is, completely idiotic.

Or that we invaded it because Dubya wanted to avenge his dad. Again don't you see how idiotic that is?

The reason we invaded was laid out there right in front of you, congress and the world. After 9/11 something had to be done and sadaam was known to have wmd and supported terrorists. YES there was (and is) a sense that changing the middle east from it's bass-ackwards ways is the only way to get at the root of this, I still believe that is the truth, I still do

Irregardless if you don't, the US is doing what it always does, trying to help a people overthrow a monster and help them become self-governing. You can argue that it was stupid, short-sighted whatever. But the goal is (and was) a noble one, embodying all that the US has stood for. In addition it's in our vital interests to find a way to deal with the islamic terrorist plans for the middle east.

Liberals used to stand for the same thing as Hitchens has so eloquently stated.

I cannot seem to find the AUMF for bubba's going to war in Kosovo? But that seems to be okay with the libs. Bubba started a war without anyone's, ANYONE's agreement ( no UN, no congress, no one). And you sure didn't hear the lefties bitch about that. Hypocrites and cowards imo.

[Janett_Reno]

I feel we should have went after Bin Laden. Hasn't W layed out Iran, North Korea and Syria has a terrorist country? Why didn't we invade them first before Iraq? Most all the 9/11 bombers was from Saudia Arabia. Should we invade them? How about Cuba and Venz, should we invade them?

Bin Laden hated Iraq and Bin Laden hated Sadam. We should be after Bin Laden and now he is in either of two places, Pakistan or Iran. Think we will invade Pakistan?

I totally agree we should have did something and we did as Americans all stand together and the world did, wanting to get Bin Laden. His Al Queda was not even in Iraq before we invaded Iraq and now they are.

This little mission accomplished has lasted longer than WW ll. Cheney saying they would welcome us as we free them, was wrong in the end and mission accomplished wasn't. I honestly feel we need to be after who caused 9/11 and this is Bin Laden. The muslims was behind us and the world was but when we invaded another muslim country that had nothing to do with 9/11, then they are leary of our country.

Again it is no way we can make the middle east change to all christianty. They live by different laws and rules than us and even some countries we get along great with, such as Saudia Arabia, we do not agree how they treat women and their laws but we can't tell them to read the bible like we do and live it. They believe in something different.

Bin Laden is against the Christians and Jewish people and he wanted us to fight the muslims as he has warned all of them, we are comming. He warned all of Saudia Arabia and he wanted to draw us in a war and back Israel and it be a holy war, jews and christians against muslims. It backfired at first because the muslim people backed us untill we went into Iraq.

I support our troops and i feel they should not be led in a wild goose chase. Let them hunt down and get the people that did this to us on 9/11 and Bin Laden is not comming to Iraq. It is people on both sides that was not for the Iraq war. Both Republicans and Democrats.

I promise you SK has wmd's and so does Iran. Al Queda has grown to alot more than it was since we went to Iraq. We should have done alot more than we have done and are doing now but the problem wasn't Iraq.

---------------------------------------------------

Let me finished by this, dude, since you are afraid and scarred to death of Hillary and all dems, plus you feel no Republican for the next election is no good and worthless, are you a Bush/Cheney backer and suggest they rule the USA forever because you do not like the Republican party, nor do you like the Dem party, so are you suggesting you hate Republicans that are the old Regan Repubs and you only like the radical neocon Republicans? If so and none of the top neocons are running, do you feel like we are doomed and you have no party now?

You know it is a Green Party and also Liberman would welcome you to his camp as well.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

I feel we should have went after Bin Laden. Hasn't W layed out Iran, North Korea and Syria has a terrorist country? Why didn't we invade them first before Iraq? Most all the 9/11 bombers was from Saudia Arabia. Should we invade them? How about Cuba and Venz, should we invade them?

We did go after Bin Laden, and we are still after him? Do you think we should invade overthrow pakistan/iran to search for him. How naive.

Bin Laden hated Iraq and Bin Laden hated Sadam. We should be after Bin Laden and now he is in either of two places, Pakistan or Iran. Think we will invade Pakistan?

No we won't invade pakistan, but if that's where he "is" would you? Since that's all we should have done. Bin Laden hates a lot of folks and most arab countries "fear" bin laden. Islamic terrorism is bigger than bin laden. Bin Laden hasn't been heard from in over a year but it goes on. Get it. The "getting" bin laden is a meme that he dems use to try and puff themselves up as tough. If we abandon iraq we'll abandon Afghanistan quickly. (In fact dems have already suggested it). Pakistan will realize that the US is not to be trusted as will most of our other allies. We can be run out of our vital interests because the democrat party and liberals lack courage.

I totally agree we should have did something and we did as Americans all stand together and the world did, wanting to get Bin Laden. His Al Queda was not even in Iraq before we invaded Iraq and now they are.

Guess what, we americans also all stood together to take out saddam. Again you just don't get it, Al Queda isn't "going away". Read what his plans are? It won't stop until a caliphate is created. Typical of appeasers to read what despots write and discount it. Happened with hitler, happened with the communists and is happening with Al Queda. Cowards will always appease the strongman.

This little mission accomplished has lasted longer than WW ll. Cheney saying they would welcome us as we free them,

As they did and do. However we neglected to take into account that Al Queda was a player as well. After the bombing of the mosque set off the sectarian violence all hell broke loose. AlQueda expected the US torun away with it's tail between it's legs, with a democrat in power it would have already happened. Thank god there isn't one.

lwas wrong in the end and mission accomplished wasn't.

Cute....silly but cute.

I honestly feel we need to be after who caused 9/11 and this is Bin Laden. The muslims was behind us a the world was but when we invaded another muslim country that had nothing to do with 9/11, then they are leary of our country.

As we are but not one of your "dem" saviours have communicated an idea of how to "get" him because he's either dead or somewhere that you can't get him. Unless you want to invade pakistan. Just a bunch of bluster, you really don't want to do anything, just take advantage of it politically.

Again it is no way we can make the middle east change to all christianty.

This is where you are stupidiest. No one is trying to "change" the middle east to christianity? Show me ONE, ONE link that supports your asinine statement here? Dubya has gone out of his way to show just the opposite. I don't know if you have a personal hatred of christians or what, but this line of reasoning is not only stupid, but insulting to any christian.

They live by different laws and rules than us and even some countries we get along great with, such as Saudia Arabia, we do not agree how they treat women and their laws but we can't tell them to read the bible like we do and live it. They believe in something different.

Duh...

Bin Laden is against the Christians and Jewish people and he wanted us to fight the muslims as he has warned all of them, we are comming. He warned all of Saudia Arabia and he wanted to draw us in a war and back Israel and it be a holy war, jews and christians against muslims. It backfired at first because the muslim people backed us untill we went into Iraq.

Read something dude. Bin Laden first began to hate the US when we defended Kuwait against Saddam in the first gulf war. Al Queda's goals are to

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

I support our troops and i feel they should not be led in a wild goose chase. Let them hunt down and get the people that did this to us on 9/11 and Bin Laden is not comming to Iraq. It is people on both sides that was not for the Iraq war. Both Republicans and Democrats.

The troops do what the president and the congress and the people of the united states tell them to do. How do you reconcile "supporting" the troops when they want to finish the job that they have started? Al Queda IS in Iraq, the same guys who blew us up at the WTC ARE Al Queda. They DID come to the US, what in the gods green earth makes you think they are going to stop once they are shown that we will abandon all of our allies and run away from this fight? They won't, but you don't really care about that because if you did your party would have to talk about it, but they don't, because all they really care about is votes. Nothing has changed with that party.

I promise you SK has wmd's

Have they invaded countries, used them on their own people, supported terrorists abroad? Don't be stupid.

and so does Iran.

Mustard gas probably, nukes no. But what point are you trying to make?
So you want to invade Iran?

Al Queda has grown to alot more than it was since we went to Iraq. We should have done alot more than we have done and are doing now but the problem wasn't Iraq.

Pure conjecture, might even be true. but I'm of the opinion that we kill Al Queda whenever and wherever we find them. If you think they will go away if we leave them alone, well 3000(but could have been 30,000) beg to differ.

---------------------------------------------------

Let me finished by this, dude, since you are afraid and scarred to death of Hillary and all dems,

Afraid for the country, yes.

plus you feel no Republican for the next election is no good and worthless,

Where did this fantasy come from? I'm quite happy with Rudy right now for example. To be honest, I'm just not that interested yet, ever since Jimmah and Bubba started the constant campaigning and the democrats have decided to move the primaries up and up I just will not participate in something that is two years out. Dammit, don't you think there are more important issues than a year-round political horse race? I think it's insulting to be honest and is only pushed by the media to try and scare up a story. Who gives a crap right now?

are you a Bush/Cheney backer and suggest they rule the USA forever

More fantasy...sounds like your typical kos kid rhetoric.

because you do not like the Republican party, nor do you like the Dem party, so are you suggesting you hate Republicans that are the old Regan Repubs and you only like the radical neocon Republicans? If so and none of the top neocons are running, do you feel like we are doomed and you have no party now?

Again this is your own fantasy. I'm a republican and a conservative, I've been a staunch republican since clinton was elected and I realized that the democrats will pander to anyone and won't solve problem one. They will demagogue social security and do nothign about it, no matter the consequences to the country if it gets 'em votes. They'll condemn inner-city children to a life of poverty if it pleases their teacher-unions. They are more than willing to racially discriminate to pander to thier constitutencies and they are just flat out stupid economically. Not to mention they can't wait to raise yours, mine and everyones taxes so that they can spend the dollars as they see fit. No thanks. I'll never vote for another democrat, ever.

You know it is a Green Party and also Liberman would welcome you to his camp as well.

I've vote for a green party before I'd vote for a democrat probably. It's a sign of the democrat parties pure cowardice that they would turn on a man like Liberman who's been a staunch democrat for years and years but don't agree with them on foreign policy. So the democrats cowardice knows no bounds, you just cannot be a democrat unless you are willing to abandon allies, no matter how progressive you are. The abandonment of Lieberman tells me all I need to know about the Democrat party. And yourself.