The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

Bloch Scrubs Dirty Computers

Instead of going with the in-house computer technicians, Office of Special Counsel-head Scott Bloch hired Geeks on Call for a 7-layer scrub of his computer and several office laptops to get rid of a virus last December, reports today’s Wall Street Journal. Such a cleaning is not usually performed for viruses, commented the guy in charge at DC’s Geeks on Call franchise. The cleansing occurred while the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Inspector General (IG) was looking into allegations that Bloch “improperly retaliated against employees and dismissed whistleblower cases without adequate examination,” writes WSJ reporter John Wilke.

Whether or not this unauthorized battle against the computer viruses was a cover-up or an improper administrative protocol will be the determination of the OPM IG, but POGO is wondering if Bloch can do anything that would get him fired. Today, POGO, along with several whistleblower protections groups and current and former OSC staff, sent a letter to President Bush recommending that he should remove Bloch from his position as Special Counsel.

POGO has repeatedly criticized Bloch's administrative actions on our blog. Today's news can be added to a long list of concerns, which includes inappropriately steering contracts (pdf) to friends and cronies, interfering with politically-sensitive investigations, closing hundreds of whistleblower files summarily without investigation, and advising female staff members to wear skirts that could lead to flashing their co-workers.

-- Ingrid Drake

Center For Public Integrity Updates Its "Windfalls Of War" Report

Yesterday, the nonprofit watchdog journalism organization the Center for Public Integrity published "Windfalls of War II," an update of its George Polk Award-winning 2003 investigation of U.S. contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here are some of the Center's key findings:

• U.S. government contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan have grown more than 50 percent annually, from $11 billion in 2004 to more than $25 billion in 2006. "Iraq remains the clear priority of the U.S. government," according to the Center, "with more than seven times as many contracting dollars designated for spending there as for Afghanistan."

• Of the $13 billion awarded through cost-plus contracts (which guarantee the vendor either a fixed amount of profit or a set percentage of profit above its cost), 30 percent was awarded through simple cost-plus, fixed-fee arrangements that offer no incentives for cost savings.

• Former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, Inc. is the largest single contractor with $16 billion in contracts from 2004 to 2006, nearly nine times larger than the second largest contractor, DynCorp International.  However, KBR's share is eclipsed by the $20.4 billion awarded to "unidentifiable foreign entities."

The site also features a search engine that provides full-text access to hundreds of documents, including reports, audits, testimony, project site inspections, and correspondence. Not surprisingly, many of the top 100 contractors in the report, including six of the top ten, are in POGO's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database.

The first "Windfalls of War" was released in October 2003. It took six months to complete and involved a team of 20 editors, researchers and writers (including yours truly) and 73 Freedom of Information Act requests, some of which had to be fought over in federal court. "Windfalls I" found that 71 companies and individuals were awarded almost $8 billion in reconstruction contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003. (Over the next year, the Center would add 63 more companies and billions of dollars to the contract total.) KBR led the pack in 2003 with more than $2.3 billion in contracts. Most significantly, the report discovered that these contractors had donated more money to George W. Bush than to any other politician, and many boasted former high-ranking government and military officials among their employees or directors.

However, for those of us who worked on "Windfalls I," the most disturbing finding was the almost comically-absurd nature of the government contracting process. The documents provided to the Center by contracting officials were a bewildering and disorganized mess, often containing inaccurate information or copious redactions. Each agency had its own cryptic method for reporting contract values and other pertinent information. Often, before releasing any information to the Center, officials checked with the contractor to obtain their approval. As mentioned previously, the Center had to resort to litigation to get the government to release certain information.

By contrast, the new report finds the contracting process "more transparent and the search for data—available from the General Service Administration's Federal Procurement Data System—more methodical." However, it notes that significant obstacles still exist. The FPDS doesn't include all contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan. One particular contracting agency in Baghdad reports only some aggregate totals and is steadfastly refusing to provide the Center with missing contract data.

-- Neil Gordon

POGO Releases Report on Rescue Helicopter Program (CSAR-X)

Yesterday, POGO released a report entitled “Rescue at Risk: Crucial Helicopter Requirement Weakened” which details the improper weakening of a key requirement in the combat search and rescue helicopter replacement program (CSAR-X) that allowed Boeing to win the contract competition.

According to POGO sources, the aircraft deployability requirement was changed after a meeting between Air Force Special Operations Command officials (the managers of CSAR-X at the time) and Boeing officials as well as additional pressures from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to favor Boeing’s Chinook helicopter. The subsequent requirement change was made in a manner that required less oversight and allowed the Chinook to enter the CSAR-X competition.

Aviation Week’s Aerospace Daily & Defense Report has already published two articles on the report. Today’s article expands on POGO’s findings with following lede:

At least one of the U.S. Air Force combat, search and rescue (CSAR-X) competitors - almost certainly Boeing - asked for the key performance parameter (KPP) requirement change that enabled the Boeing HH-47 Chinook variant to enter and stay in the race for the acquisition program worth up to $15 billion, according to Air Force and other sources with intimate knowledge of the program.

However, Boeing directly contradicts that conclusion in an email response to Inside the Air Force (subscription required), quoted in an article today on the POGO report:

To be clear, Boeing had absolutely no input toward the KPP [Key Performance Parameter] changes.

In the face of such ambiguity and impropriety surrounding the key requirement change, members of Congress are reviewing POGO’s findings. Last Friday, Congress approved, as part of the Defense appropriations bill, $99 million in upgrades to the existing HH-60 Pave Hawk fleet while cutting funds to the replacement program. The bill’s conference report reads:

The budget request includes $290,059,000 for development of a new platform to perform the combat search and rescue mission. Due to bid protests upheld by the Government Accountability Office, contract award for system development and demonstration has been delayed well into the summer of 2008. Due to this delay, a significant amount of the request cannot be executed during fiscal year 2008. Accordingly, the conferees reduce the request by $185,059,000. The conferees transfer $99,000,000 of this reduction to Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for much needed modifications to the HH-60 fleet which, due to delays in the CSAR-X program, will perform the combat search and rescue mission for many years longer than planned. An explanation of the HH-60 modifications provided for is included in the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force section of the Joint Explanatory Statement of Managers.

Also, a revised Request For Proposals (RFP) was set to be finalized yesterday for a re-competition of the contract. Nevertheless, CSAR-X delays continue. The POGO report offers three recommendations for a way forward.

Finally, today The Hill’s Congress Blog posted a write-up by POGO staff on the CSAR-X report.

-- John Pruett

   

Acquisition Councils Propose Improvements to Federal Contracting Practices

Subpart 9.1 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires a prospective contractor to demonstrate its “responsibility,” which is defined, in part, as having “a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.” To this end, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council have proposed amending the FAR with a rule that would require contractors to “conduct themselves with the highest degree of integrity and honesty.”

The rule proposes that contractors “should have a written code of business ethics and conduct” and should establish and maintain “an internal control system” to detect and prevent improper conduct in connection with the award or performance of government contracts or subcontracts. (For more than a decade, many of the top contractors have implemented various corporate ethics and integrity programs, either on their own or through such organizations as the Defense Industry Initiative.) The rule would also require contractors, at the risk of suspension and/or debarment, to “timely” notify contracting officers when they become aware of violations of federal criminal law with regard to the award or performance of such contracts or subcontracts.

While POGO applauds any and all efforts to ensure contractor integrity and honesty, we immediately noticed several shortcomings in this proposed rule. First, it provides that contractors “should” (not “must” or “will”) have codes of ethics and internal control systems, and these requirements are waived in a wide variety of circumstances: if the contractor is a small business, if the contract is for the acquisition of commercial items or will be performed outside the United States or has a value less than $5 million or a performance period of less than 120 days. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the reporting requirement is unreasonably narrow: contractors are only required to report violations of federal criminal law in connection with a contract or subcontract. What if a contractor breaks the laws of a state or a foreign country? What if it’s a civil or administrative violation? What if the violation doesn’t involve a federal contract or subcontract?

Unfortunately, having a code of ethics and internal controls won’t always ensure integrity and honesty. Just yesterday, for example, it was announced that Chevron Corp. agreed to pay $30 million to settle allegations by the Securities and Exchange Commission that Chevron paid kickbacks in connection with the Oil-For-Food program. The SEC noted that Chevron had a company-wide policy prohibiting such unethical conduct, but management failed in its duty to ensure compliance. So, while POGO thinks this is a step in the right direction, we can’t help but wonder whether this proposed rule will be genuinely effective or whether it will create loopholes big enough to drive an oil tanker through.

POGO also questions the effectiveness of the FAR requirement for prospective contractors to have “a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.” We are not alone. At an ABA luncheon last week, Robert Cusick, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, said that the above provision will remain ineffectual until objective integrity and ethics standards can be created and enforced. POGO's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database proves this – contractors with questionable records continue to receive billions in taxpayer dollars.

-- Neil Gordon

A Victory for Transparency in Congress

Thanks to the diligent efforts of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a provision that would have undermined transparency in government spending will be removed from the final version of the House FY 2008 Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Cited as Section 193 of the appropriations bill, the provision would have prohibited the public as well as congressmen not on the Transportation-HUD appropriations committees from viewing agency budget justifications prior to May 31 of each year. For more information on the provision’s implications, read POGO’s fact-sheet (pdf).

Sen. Coburn reached an agreement yesterday with Rep. John Olver (D-MA), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation-HUD, to strike the provision from the final bill. In a press release, Sen. Coburn stated:

Taxpayers, and elected representatives who don’t serve on the House or Senate Appropriations committees, have a right to access information about how the federal government plans to spend their money.

Also yesterday, just prior to Sen. Coburn and Rep. Olver's agreement, POGO and eleven other transparency and government oversight organizations sent a letter to senators requesting their support in removing Section 193 from the appropriations bill. That letter can be read here (pdf). For our press release, click here (pdf).

-- John Pruett

So What's New?

Via former Federal Aviation Administration Special Agent Brian Sullivan:

Oct '05 - Jan '06: GAO investigators get bomb components through 21 of 21 airports tested.

March to June '07:  Same results at 19 airports.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Cookie and Buzzy

Remember the cozy little Blackwater-Krongard picture we drew for you a month or so ago?  Well, it just got cozier.  Today, Chairman Henry Waxman, of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, revealed that State Department Inspector General Howard "Cookie" Krongard's brother, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, sits on Blackwater's advisory board.  Cookie's outfit, the State Department OIG, is involved in investigating Blackwater.  Initially he denied that his brother was on the board, but after calling him, Cookie discovered that Waxman's charge was, in fact, true.  E-M-B-A-R-R-A-S-S-I-N-G. He then said he would recuse himself from all Blackwater matters in his office.

UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman at TPM Muckraker caught a big one.

 

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Army Light Helo Prone to Overheating, According to Pentagon Test Office

According to the Associated Press three days ago:

The Army is spending $2.6 billion on hundreds of European-designed helicopters for homeland security and disaster relief that turn out to have a crucial flaw: They aren't safe to fly on hot days, according to an internal report obtained by The Associated Press.

POGO's got that report for ya right here:

UH-72A Lakota Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) Operational Test and Evaluation Report, July 2007 (pdf)

I've got to point out that the AP, as much as we love them, actually got scooped by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Bob Cox way back in August.  He didn't put in it his lede, but he did write:

And the cabin air conditioning, which is different than that of the commercial EC-145, cannot keep temperatures low enough. The aircraft manual specifies a condition where the avionics may shut down after just 30-minutes if operated at too high a temperature.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

David Copperfield at the NRC

In a letter sent today to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regional administrator overseeing Peach Bottom power plant, David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Project Director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, derides what the administrator had referred to as "prompt compensatory measures and immediate actions" on the part of Peach Bottom operator Exelon to address the sleeping security guards controversy. Lochbaum then details a timeline of Exelon's consistent refusal to even acknowledge that a problem exists.

POGO has been actively involved with highlighting security concerns at the Peach Bottom facility and has pointed to a plant culture that overworks security employees and punishes anyone that attempts to correct security problems. This culture is evidenced by the recent Exelon firing of employee Kerry Beal, who had videotaped sleeping guards and brought the issue to management's attention. As for the NRC, the agency has reacted by investigating Beal and seizing his computer.

As Lochbaum stresses, the actions we've seen so far have been anything but "immediate" and have failed to correct Peach Bottom's underlying security and management problems.

-- John Pruett

Senators Propose Reforms for Inspectors General

Yesterday, Senators McCaskill, Collins, Lieberman and Coburn introduced legislation (S. 2324) to strengthen Inspectors General (IGs) in the federal government, those watchdogs who make government function better and root out waste, fraud and abuse. This bill is the counterpart to Representative Jim Cooper's House legislation which passed handily by a vote of 404 to 11 in early October. CongressDaily reports S 2324 will be marked up next Wednesday in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and is expected to be moved to the floor quickly.

As POGO has pointed out on this blog, the independence of numerous IGs has been under assault in recent years including the Small Business Administration IG, Central Intelligence Agency IG and the General Services Administration IG. On top of that, several IGs have come under a cloud of controversy and have been investigated for wrongdoing despite their unique place in government as leading guardians of ethics and integrity.

The Senate bill, which is similar in many respects to the House legislation, would do much to improve the IG system and bolster IG independence so that they can effectively carry out their fraud-fighting, government accountability activities without political interference.  There are a few changes from the House version, most notably the dropping of a fixed seven-year term for IGs, and the requirement they can only be dismissed for cause.  The Senate bill instead requires the President or agency head to notify Congress of the reasons for dismissal or transfer at least 30 days beforehand.

-- Beth Daley

Congress Still Largely Uninformed on Israeli Strike on Syria

Despite several congressional requests to the executive branch for briefings on Israel's air strike on Syria in September, Congress still remains largely in the dark, POGO learned yesterday.  On October 20, Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), respectively the ranking members of the House intelligence and foreign relations committees, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal charging that:

We regret that the administration has ignored numerous letters from Congress asking that all members be briefed on the Israeli airstrike. Failing to disclose the details of this incident to the legislative branch, preventing due diligence and oversight -- but talking to the press about it -- is not the way to win support for complex and difficult diplomatic efforts to combat proliferation by rogue nations. [emphasis added]

The Senate intelligence committee officially told me "no comment" yesterday.  However, a congressional staffer told me that "the issue has been closely held. The leadership of the defense committees and Intel committees have been briefed, but not the general membership of the Congress as you correctly noted in Ros-Lethinen’s OpEd."  Other sources told me that they were not aware of their full committees being briefed yet either.

Perhaps of greater practical concern for congressional oversight is, though a few select members have been briefed, none of their staff, which members depend upon for their expertise and knowledge, have not been allowed to accompany them, POGO has been told.

Though the Senate intelligence committee would not speak about the issue, its chairman, Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), then the ranking Democrat on the committee:

... complained in a 2003 letter to Vice President Cheney that his briefing on the NSA eavesdropping was unsatisfactory. "Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," he wrote. [link]

-- Nick Schwellenbach

Secret Briefing to House Intel on the CIA IG Today

The House intelligence committee is holding a closed door meeting on the CIA's Inspector General today, presumably to figure out if its independence is being threatened by the actions of CIA chief Michael Hayden and his subordinates.

Though there may be some anonymice going to some of the major papers, the House intelligence committee should make transcripts of this hearing available, consistent with the needs of national security.  Which means if there is information that is truly sensitive (it should go without saying that embarrassing information is not sensitive), redact it, but the blanket cloak of secrecy itself may undermine the full effectiveness of congressional oversight.

-- Nick Schwellenbach