mrs. schinasi. >> thank you. i think a contingency environment we can all agree that the highest level efficiency is not always the only factor that needs to be taken into account for decision-making or even the deciding factor in many cases. and at some level, we all agree that it's important to be good stewards of the taxpayers money. but at some level, the interest of the participants made the verge in a private company, tbr or any other private company has to be concerned about its profitability if you can stay profitable, elastica dismissed. and at some level these decisions have to do with maintaining profitability or being efficient. i note that in the response that kbr provided to the government leiby direction to start cutting down the workforce. one of the arguments that was made was that you are were busy working on lots of change orders. and i realize again is our part for the course in a contingency environment and also new awards. so my question to you is, is there an incentive for you or -- i will

mr. henke. you going to pass? ms. schinasi? >> we talked before about the uncertainty associated with the job done in the military doesn't want to have the final idea of what the end state is going to look like or when. it seems to me that's always the case in contingencies or bitterness contingency we also saw that twice. we thought first in the initial invasion into iraq and then on the side again with the surge, where there was uncertainty about what was going to happen, what kind of services were going to need, what department, how quickly needed to get there. is there any way you approach the straw down differently with respect to uncertainty. i mean one is ramping up and one is rated down. both cases it seems to me are operating under the same kinds of positions not knowing what the end state is going to be. >> man madam chair -- none commissioner, this is very different now. this time we have a specific specified task, which is to conduct logistic support to the draw down. much like before with the site task to give sinc

mr. harrington? >> no, i do not. >> the business states announces you discuss, we had very full talks with commissioner schinasi and generals and officials about this. am i correct that the type of assumptions and has to work on necessarily are what the savings percentage would be if there's a competition and what the skill of contracting will be on this contract that would be competed but otherwise we'll just go sole source to kbr? i will say that again. percentage of savings, scale of contracting. >> sir, i have to say at this point is and what the army calls can what we call procurement sensitive information. that's the reason this is going forth with the army leadership in unable to comment on some of the specifics because it is procurement sensitive information right now. >> we haven't been disinvited because its procurement sensitive information, have we? shirley general pillsbury -- ever my. it was general pillsbury's decision. >> past performance of the contractors, or the contractor, was that a heavy consideration in the presentation? and any corrective action plans and things like that? >> sir, i do not r

schinasi, please. >> thank you. and thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning. i want to start, mr. assad, with making a comment on your opening statement about making progress. and i think i would agree there aren't many areas under your leadership that your office has made a lot of progress. i will talk about the changes in the awards process that you're put in place, they to reduce you have for services. but i want to focus more on the other statement which was a long way to go. you can do only so much as the policy office. and my position has always been process is good but outcomes are better. in order to get different outcomes, we're going to need to talk about resources. some going to turn to, general fields, to say i'm pleased the army has put in place someone with your understanding and background of contract and managing contractors to a position where you do have some resources that you can read a portion here or some other things that we're talking of which are so important. and i just want to see if i can get you on the record a little bit asked out you're going to do t

mr. harrington? >> no, sir. , i do not. >> and the business case analysis, you discuss, we had very full talks with commissioner schinasi and i were in the theater talking to generals about this, am i correct that the type of assumptions as to work on necessary are what they say the percentage would be if there's a competition, and what the scale of contracting will be on this contract, that would be competed but otherwise we'll just go sole source to kbr? i will say that again. percentage of savings, scale of contract. >> sir, i have to say at this point, this is what the army calls to what we call sensitive information. that's the reason this is going forth to the army leadership. unable to comment on some of this because it is procurement of sensitive information right now. >> we haven't been disinvited because it's procurement sensitive information, happily? shirley general pillsbury -- nevermind. it was general pillsbury decision. >> past performance, of the contractors, or the contractor, was that a heavy consideration in the presentation? and any corrective action plans or things like that. >> sir, i do not recall th