Pretty much, no. Its why Kerry and Edwards may rip Haliburton, but they don't name replacements. Over on the "other website", they wrestled this question for awhile.
I don't know if its pathetic, or stupid, but the closest companies they could think of (of similiar size and scope) that compete with Haliburton or could compete, were french companies, and a couple of them have ties to Victor Boot.
Playing the devil's advocate, the biggest economy in the world has no other firms available to go into Iraq to rebuild?
For instance there were charges being laid that a bridge that costs 100 million for Americans to build could have been built by Iraqis for 10 million.
There are pretty strict requirements for "sole source" contracts. The contractor has to be the only one capable of meeting all the requirements of the work, on time and within budget. Otherwise they have to go through the competitive bidding process.
I had a sole source contract once, because I had a particular skill set plus personal availability. They could have let several contracts for different tasks to several different people. There were people who could perform tasks 1 and 3 of 5, and others who could perform task 2 only, or 4 and 5 only, but they would then have been faced with meeting impossible deadlines for finding people and letting contracts for emergent work, and it would have been a constant struggle, a big mess, and would have cost them a lot more money--or they could just give me the contract and get everything in one bundle.
It was pretty much the same sort of thing for Halliburton. They looked at the scope of work, and made a decision (documented) that Halliburton was the only firm available, able, and willing to take on the whole package.