POGO and Public Denied -- Who's at Fault?

WOW, what great timing! Yesterday’s breaking story on the new twist to the Defense Department's (DoD’s) revolving door shocked many and has resulted in a call from several members of Congress for a review of the Pentagon's mentorship program. POGO has long been concerned with the revolving door issue, and had asked the Obama administration to make a DoD revolving door database public and also submitted a public comment urging government officials to do the same. Today, DoD finalized that rule, and denied POGO’s request for public access.

In their explanation, DoD kinda threw Congress under the bus:

One source submitted comments on the interim rule. That source supported the rule and its objectives, but recommended that the central database/repository for retention of written ethics opinions, required by section 847(b), be made publicly available. DoD has not adopted this recommendation, as section 847 does not authorize access to the database by the general public.

 
I don't recall, however, that Congress expressly denied public access to data – the law merely states that DoD create an ethics opinion database. Actually, I held hope that the Obama Administration's focus on openness, transparency, good contracting, and eliminating special interest clout in government decisions would rule the day, and that the people would triumph.

Maybe Obama’s lofty goals haven’t trickled down to all parts of the government, but what’s the harm in seeing a list of former government officials who are now working for defense contractors? We have campaign finance and lobbying disclosure – why not expose those circulating between the public and private sectors who might be a driving force behind government decisions and policies? Wait, I just answered my own question.

-- Scott Amey

Moneyed Mentors at the Pentagon

As you can see from today's Morning Smoke, USA Today's Tom Vanden Brook, Ken Dilanian and Ray Locker put out a great story on retired military officers consulting for the Pentagon as mentors to "help run war games and offer advice." The Pentagon wouldn't release a full list of the mentors, but USA Today was able to identify 158 senior members, 80 percent of which had financial ties to defense contractors. The article demonstrates that the revolving door between the Pentagon and the defense industry is alive and well, and in some cases gets stuck so that an individual is in both places at once. It's worthwhile to read the whole thing, but here are three of the big takeaway findings:

Is DCAA Adopting a More Confrontational Stance With Contractors?

Not according to a recent survey of government contractors conducted by Deltek Inc. Washington Technology reports that Deltek (a company that offers clients advice on how their companies can "survive" a pass/fail system in which "failure carries a death sentence") found that "more than 83 percent of [government] contractors that were recently audited sa[id] that the relationship was 'good' or 'excellent.'  The vast majority said it was actually improving."

Now, of course, good oversight doesn't necessitate a confrontational stance — though it should be adversarial when contractor profit motives conflict with taxpayer interests — but we're dying to know what POGO blog readers think of these survey results. Does this legitimize Senate concerns that DCAA needs to ramp up oversight, or is it only a red herring?

-- Mandy Smithberger

Poor Government Management of Contracts Risks Billions in Losses

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently updated its bi-annual report to Congress on its High-Risk Program, which highlights areas of government that are at high risk for waste, fraud, or abuse. Of the five problems highlighted, the failure to manage federal contracting more effectively continues to put the government at high risk for suffering billions of dollars in losses. In particular, GAO highlights nearly twenty years of ineffective contract management in the Departments of Defense (DoD) and Energy (DOE), the two federal agencies with the highest expenditures in federal contracting.  Fraud, waste, and abuse are never acceptable consequences of government contracting, but continued risk of their occurrence is an even graver threat to good government at a time of ever-tightening budgets.

The GAO reports that in fiscal year 2008, the DoD spent nearly $400 billion acquiring goods and services, more than half of which were for services that might otherwise have been performed by federal employees. GAO has warned that DoD increasingly relies on contractors to provide services to help meet critical missions and support acquisition functions.  This is like allowing the fox to guard the chickens — this practice undermines the DoD’s ability to independently define and secure its core missions.  DoD’s unrelenting reliance upon time and materials contracts, and its failure to specifically define the tasks that are to be performed eliminates any incentive for private contractors to control costs, thus resulting in unnecessary cost overruns that have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars during the nearly twenty years GAO has been attempting to get the DoD to reform its contract management practices.

GAO also highlighted shortcomings in contract management for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Office of Environmental Management (EM), agencies in the DOE  that are responsible, respectively, for modernizing the nation's aging nuclear weapons production facilities and building facilities to treat and dispose of millions of gallons of radioactive waste. The joint annual budget for these two agencies is nearly $15 billion, accounting for nearly 60 percent of DOE’s budget. To meet their missions over the coming decades, EM is expected to spend billions of dollars on federal contracts, while NNSA is expected to spend tens of billions. 

Removing DCAA Director Won't Fix the Agency's Problems

POGO has learned that an e-mail was sent this afternoon to all Defense Contract Auditor Agency (DCAA) employees informing them that Patrick Fitzgerald, Director of the Army Audit Agency, will be appointed to head DCAA on November 9th.  The current Director of DCAA, April Stephenson, has accepted a position as Special Assistant to the Comptroller. Statement from POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian below.

Contractors have been on a rampage fighting new requirements being placed upon them by DCAA for the past year.  Removing the Director of DCAA does not address congressional and taxpayer concerns that this agency lacks the independence and clout necessary to serve taxpayer interests.  It would be unfortunate and ironic if congressional inquiries into the independence and strength of DCAA ultimately serves to strengthen the hand of contractors.

POGO's curious to hear contractor, DCAA employee, and taxpayer reactions to the news. As always, we encourage you to comment below.

-- Mandy Smithberger

See also:

• Target Practice with the DCAA
• Strengthening DCAA Through Independence and Additional Resources

Note to Defense Secretary Gates: Tell Congress Earmarks Cannot Be Tolerated

Yesterday the Center for Defense Information, National Taxpayers Union, Project On Government Oversight, and Taxpayers for Common Sense sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging him to make it clear to Congress that earmarks in the proposed Department of Defense appropriations bills cannot be tolerated.  "Unfortunately," the letter states, "the appropriations process has demonstrated that Congress is not committed to basing defense spending on the best interests of our national security."

The letter particularly raises concerns about Congress's practice of earmarking funds from Operations and Maintenance accounts that are needed for troops in the field.

As it stands right now, the Department of Defense might be given a budget that requires it to buy additional weapon systems the Department does not want, including as many as 800 lesser earmarks, 10 unneeded C-17 aircraft, and an additional DDG-51 destroyer. But even worse, it appears that the budget that will be given to the Department will reduce already insufficient funds for troops in the field.

You may read the letter here.

Rapid Acquisition Hearing Provides Argument for Rapid Reform of Whistleblower Protections

This morning the House Armed Services Committee's Defense Acquisition Reform Panel conducted a hearing titled, "The Department of Defense’s Rapid Acquisition Process: Is It a Model For Improving Acquisition?" Not all of the testimony has been posted yet, but the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) testimony can be found here. The GAO found that the Department of Defense's (DoD) "use of a tailored acquisition approach" was successful due to its reliance on proven technologies, commercially available products, and establishment of minimal operational requirements.

But it's important to remember that part of the reason that DoD took on this successful program is because Marine Corps science advisor Franz Gayl blew the whistle and disclosed to Congress that there were unnecessary and egregious delays in the Marine Corps' acquisition system. For his work, Gayl has been and continues to be retaliated against. The Government Accountability Project has Gayl's testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee about his experience here.

We should all be grateful that he has come forward and helped to prevent further needless troop casualties, but the case of Franz Gayl demonstrates why it is important to pass real protections for whistleblowers. We hope you will join us tonight for the second film in the Whistleblower Film Series, The Whistleblower, to see a profile of Chuck Hamel (a POGO board member), who blew the whistle on big oil in Alaska and became the target of a major undercover sting that threatened the lives of his fellow whistleblowers and even targeted a senior Congressman.

-- Mandy Smithberger

The Senate is Considering the Defense Appropriations Bill Today

Here's what we'll be rooting for:

• Amendment 2566: Introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), this amendment will restore $165 million to operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts by prohibiting spending on congressionally directed spending items (aka earmarks) from these accounts. Our letter of support can be found here.

• Amendment 2580: Introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), this amendment strikes funding for the unwanted and unneeded C-17 program. Our letter of support that we sent the Senate on this amendment can be found here.

As usual, POGO will be following the debate on the floor. Watch it on CSPAN2 or follow us on twitter.

-- Mandy Smithberger

U.S. Special Forces Need Helicopters to Dodge IEDs, but Congress Wants More C-17s

Today POGO sent letters to every Senator asking them to strike funding for unnecessary C-17 airlifter planes. Even though the Pentagon has said it does not need additional C-17s, the current FY 2010 Defense Appropriations bill has set aside $2.5 billion for them.  

Meanwhile, U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan unnecessarily put their lives at risk in operations that should be used with helicopters, but because of a lack of resources, are instead used with land vehicles.  Unfortunately, the land vehicles are extremely vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IEDs).  This is what it looks like when a land vehicle encounters an IED:

Special Forces use these vehicles in "white missions" to recruit and train local antiterrorist militias and engage the enemy in remote areas. Had there been sufficient resources, these operations would have been conducted with helicopters. Of the last eleven deaths among U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan, eight have been caused by IEDs. 

In our letter, we urged each Senator to support an amendment by John McCain — which would strike the funding for the superfluous C-17s — and reallocate resources to equipment that our troops desperately need.  You may find our letter to the Senate here.  More photos of IED-ravaged land vehicles used in Special Forces operations after the jump.

C-17 Earmarks: Seeing Red

POGO and Taxpayers for Common Sense just sent a letter to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee urging them to support the Department of Defense's priorities and to stop earmarking funds for the C-17 Airlifter program. From the letter:

When it comes to the C-17 program, Congress has earmarked with reckless abandon. Perhaps the grossest example of Congress’s irresponsible wasting of taxpayer funds was in 2007, when conference committees more than tripled the number of additional C-17s requested by House and Senate authorizers and appropriators. We have attached a chart to illustrate how Congress has been the wind beneath the wings of this Airlifter program from that point forward.

-- Mandy Smithberger