The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

Large is the new small?

Check out this GovExec article on accusations that contracts allocated for small business are being given to large contractors instead.  Last week, Senator Kerry, the ranking Democrat in the Senate Small Business and Entreprenuership Committee, sent letters to Small Business Administration's head Hector Barreto and to its Inspector General Harold Damelin.  Kerry charged that SBA "is fostering an atmosphere that encourages widespread fraud and abuse in small business contracting."

In December 2004, the SBA's Office of Advocacy found in a report that $2 billion of small business contracts in 2002 actually went to large corporations such as Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.

At issue is whether SBA miscoded large corporations (or their subsidiaries) as small businesses or whether these were instances of large corporations mischaracterizing themselves (or their subsidiaries) as small.  However, read this bit of tongue-twisting:

[David Safavian, head of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy] added that letting companies self-report their size "allowed for some of these cases to sneak through the process," but that he has seen no evidence that companies are purposely lying.

Does Safavian see a difference between sneaking and lying? If you unknowingly sneak are you unpurposely lying?  Whatever the answers to these ridiculous questions are, Safavian indicates that he knows self-reporting is a failure--on his watch!  But he doesn't seem to have a problem with it.  Is this the type of chap we want as head of the OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy?

Contracting Data Online

Those who suffer attempting to make sense of the federal government's contracting now have a bit more information to go on. The long awaited interface for the Federal Procurement Data System is up and running -- go to the Federal Data Procurement Center then click on the "FPDS-NG," which stands for Federal Procurement Data System- Next Generation. Some, including POGO, were critical when it appeared that public access would be limited. We are pleasantly surprised. The new database allows many new searching capabilities and is a welcome step forward in improving transparency. Now that some of the basics are available to the public, perhaps the General Services Administration could move toward posting information about what the contracts funded, links to requests for proposals, and copies of contracts signed.

Despite Everything: U. California receives performance reward for Los Alamos

According to sources, the University of California System is still getting a performance award for their management of Los Alamos National Laboratory, despite the embattled Lab being shut-down for nearly six months due to security weaknesses.  So far we haven't found a press release to link to, but tomorrow there should be some media coverage. 

The word is that the performance award is being cut to a third of its normal size, which is a step in the right direction.  Yet it's a bit hard to comprehend why UC should be rewarded at all after the debacles last year.  Especially after the shut-down cost an estimated $500 million.

Why wasn't the V-22 picked as Marine One?

Today the Pentagon announced that Lockheed Martin will build the next presidential helicopter, known as Marine One, beating its competitor Sikorsky.  In the following unpublished [written before the competition's conclusion] op-ed POGO's Eric Miller argued, "Why isn't the V-22 being considered as the next Marine One?"

The president is looking for a new state-of-the-art helicopter to pick him up on the South Lawn of the White House. So why isn’t the “revolutionary” V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft even on his radar screen?

This seems a bit puzzling because the V-22, which takes off like a helicopter but flies like a plane, would seem to be a perfect match for the Commander-in-Chief’s mission. If this bird really is as good as the Marines say it is, you’d think that the folks from Bell-Boeing, the partnership developing and building the V-22, would be camping out in the president’s reception room eager to take him for a test spin around the block.

But for some reason, they’re not. Could it be that all the president’s men are concerned that the V-22 isn’t safe or reliable? If that’s the case, then why do the Marines want it so badly?

Track the Government

A new online resource makes tracking government activities easier. Through automated and customized updates, www.GovTrack.us takes information available from many different sources, integrates it and makes it useful for citizens.

However, why doesn't the government do something like this? Maybe they should hire the 22 year old UPenn PhD student who made GovTrack in his spare time. (Although, we are a little creeped out by the pyramid with the eyeball.)

C-130J: Is she "high maintenance"?

With the Pentagon planning to terminate the troubled and overpriced C-130J cargo aircraft program, the Air Force/Lockheed Martin Dog & Pony Show has responded by deploying in Iraq two C-130Js to prove the aircraft's worth. (It should be noted that the Air Force and Marines accepted delivery of 50 C-130J's between 1999 and 2003, but have yet to declare the aircraft operational due to so many deficiencies.)

Two POGO sources, who have asked not to be identified, are hearing that the C-130J deficiencies are being masked by sending unusually large support teams to accompany the Iraq deployment. Plans are to rotate the two aircraft out and replace them every 90-120 days.

Both hear that the two C-130Js "deployed" to Iraq are flying with unusually large support from both service and defense contractor technicians, as well as extra spare parts. They tell us the hope is that with this extra-ordinary support the C-130Js will help obtain the high mission capable numbers that the Air Force and Lockheed are touting.

click here for POGO's latest press release on the C-130J.

Is the $436 hammer back? Was it ever gone?

No surprise here.  The Pentagon, according to a new GAO report, has more "high-risk" waste, fraud and abuse than all other federal agencies.  From today's Post:

The Department of Defense accounts for eight of the 25 federal programs, functions or offices that appear on the GAO's 2005 "high-risk" list. Two DOD functions -- inventory management and weapon systems acquisition -- have been on the list of problem programs since 1990.

Also, the GAO report identifies Homeland Security information sharing as wholly inadequate.  The 9/11 Commission Report emphasized the need for greatly increased sharing, citing how a lack of communication between agencies allowed terrorists to evade authorities.

Another item to make the GAO's hit list is the "management of interagency contracting."  Notably the GAO says:

If not properly managed, a number of factors can make these interagency contract vehicles high risk in certain circumstances: (1) they are attracting rapid growth of taxpayer dollars; (2) they are being administered and used by some agencies that have limited expertise with this contracting method; and (3) they contribute to a much more complex environment in which accountability has not always been clearly established.

Want an example of "interagency contracting"?  Remember CACI?  It was a contractor involved with torture at Abu Ghraib.  It's a great example.  CACI's "contract with the Army is administered by the Interior Department, under an outsourcing agreement with the Army, which has made it even harder to track," according to the Washington Post last year.

Bogus Budgeting

In a column of today’s Barron’s, former Senate budget staffer Winslow Wheeler takes the media to task for failing to report as “virtually dead-on-arrival” the Pentagon's recent budget memo outlining $30 billion in weapons cuts. The much-reported budget memo includes cuts to such sacred cows as the F/A-22 jet fighter, the C-130J cargo aircraft, and even missile defense. He adds: “Indeed, it is not even clear whether the framers [of the memo] …are serious. Its $30 billion in net budget reductions are spread over six years, with many postponed until ‘08 or ’09.  Some cuts occur only after the targeted programs receive increases. For fiscal year 2005, which ends Sept. 30, the total reduction is $0.” He makes a series of sadly true points about the assorted interests that have aligned to prevent the budgetary belt-tightening and concludes: “The feeble attempt will be killed in cold blood and, in Washington, no own will mourn. To the contrary, they will tout their heroism and celebrate their conquests. Only the taxpayer will feel the wound.” To read Winslow's column, click here.

Secrecy helped create, worsen tularemia situation

The belated revelation this last week that three Boston University researchers were infected (two in May 2004) with the potentially-lethal tularemia bacterium ("rabbit fever") should trouble not only the Boston community where a planned BioSafety Level 4 lab may be built, but all communities with existing or planned "hot labs."  Excessive secrecy hinders the ability to act in an informed manner and erodes the ability of the public to hold entities and individuals accountable.

Jeanne Guillemin, the author of the new book, Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism, told POGO that:

The problems were multiple but secrecy was the worst of them. The microbiologists didn't know they were working with a virulent strain, when the first two became sick, the association with the lab was not made, when the diagnosis was confirmed, both BU and city and state government decided to keep the information from the public. Their rationale apparently was that since tularemia is not contagious, the public was not at risk. But tularemia transmits easily by air: suppose there were other cases in May that went unreported. The mortality rate for untreated tularemia, by the way, is 30 percent, as bad as the worst rate for smallpox.  BU was lucky this time but the only head to roll was that of Peter Rice, who led the research project, yet public trust depends on accountability throughout all levels of government and research institutions.  And where, we might ask, was the CDC, which seems to have kept its knowledge of these cases under wraps.

FBI dilutes FOIA's intent

The FBI continues to try and shield itself from public oversight and accountability.  The Bureau is in court defending its decision to use automated, computerized searches for documents requested under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) in lieu of conducting a search through paper files.  The automated searches have missed many documents that a hand search of paper files may have uncovered.  The AP reports:

Justice Department guidelines say the law requires a search "reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents."

Legal and academic critics say the search in this case didn't meet that standard. They said they suspect the transfer of records from paper to electronic files has become an excuse for doing cursory searches that the government knows won't retrieve all relevant documents.

If the FBI is successful, then FOIA loses much of its meaning.  Requests under FOIA would only turn up documents that the FBI can produce with a few keystrokes on their computers, rather than producing what the FBI can legally produce, but which might require (gasp!) the Bureau actually searching through files.  This would be an excuse useful in covering up abuse and corruption, yet even more likely, is a great excuse for laziness.

MORE: A trackback to this post takes you to another blog with this interesting comment:

The FBI is just embarrassed and trying to take attention away from how bad their search systems really are.

The scary part? Search is pretty central to their jobs, pretty central to catching bad guys, and pretty central to keeping us all safe.

It looks like they really weren’t trying to hide those other files (in the CBS story). It looks like they really couldn’t find them.

Regardless of the FBI's intent, if the Bureau succeeds in court then FOIA will be weakened.  But the author of this comments makes a good point: the FBI has computer and database systems--which are crucial to tracking and identifying terrorists--that aren't working.

Better whistleblower protections needed at Livermore and Los Alamos

The law firm, Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer have put out a press release on the need for better worker/whistleblower protections at Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories.  It echoes some of the points POGO made in comments to the Los Alamos draft Request for Proposals for potential bidders for Los Alamos management.

In brief their recommendations are:

-- Implementing current laws for whistleblowers

-- Strictly enforcing all discrimination laws

-- A complete change in the Human Resources Department, which for years has done nothing to protect the workers

-- Make changes in the legal counsel's office for the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

- The Laboratory counsel's office has consistently supported Human Resources and management in all their terminations and denials of retaliation claims and not performed their independent duty to make sure the workers are treated fairly

- Lab counsel was found liable for retaliation against Dee Kotla in a jury trial in 2002 and was never disciplined

- Janet Tulk, Associate Director, Administration & Human Resources, and senior legal counsel, has done nothing to change these practices

-- The Lab needs to stop wasting money on litigation

- Congress, U.S. Department of Energy Inspector General's Office, The General Accounting Office, as well as some members of Congress, have continually questioned the policy of the Department of Energy reimbursing UC and the Lab for all litigation expenses.  This policy encourages the Lab and UC to spend an endless amount of money on attorneys and costs in litigation that is unnecessary

The press release also contains some details of court cases involving Livermore and the University of California.

FBI internet surveillance: Is oversight possible?

Wait a second.  In this AP article on how the FBI's Carnivore's internet wiretap software has been replaced by "superior" commercial wiretap software, it says:

Henry H. Perritt Jr., who led an oversight study of Carnivore in 2000 for the Justice Department, said the FBI originally built its own surveillance system because commercial tools were inadequate. Perritt, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, said he was unaware of any commercial wiretap software that includes audit features robust enough to convince a federal judge that e-mails from innocent Internet users weren't captured by mistake.

"You'd like to have a package that supervisors within a field office and in Washington could do an audit and make sure they're using the tools compliant with the court order," Perritt said.

Does this new commercial software that the FBI now uses have audit features necessary for judges (and others) to see how it is used?  POGO would like to know.  With such a potential for wide-ranging abuse you'd think that there should be the tools for proper oversight. After all it was former FBI director Louis Freeh who said, "[The FBI is] potentially the most dangerous agency in the country if [it] is not scrutinized carefully."