« Integrity of DoD Contract Oversight Questioned by Report | Main | The Mysterious Contractor A is...Boeing »

Jul 23, 2008



Connie, what a crock! So in your view a government buyer just cannot possibly make a wise purchasing decision without having the ability to demand from the seller every single piece of data that the buyer thinks he needs? Shows just how foolish all the rest of us, conducting our business without that authority....And how about some facts and figures to support your bald assertions on Gansler/Clinton responsible for workforce downsizing....With the DOD budget ballooning in the past 8 years--to where it is more than the rest of the entire world put together--you think the problem rests with the Clinton administration?!


Even though I have no expertise in this area, the previous brave and courages previous comment reply appears to have a concerned and articulate response that I though it may be worthwhile for me to again re-mention that proper and forthright oversight and accountability continue to appear as the best expression in respect and regard to our proper and forthright endeavors towards and within our Democracy.

Connie the Contractor

Nick –

The GAO report is really quite thin on substance. One great example that everyone seems to be making “hay” about is the allegation that a contractor had disapproved the scope of a DCAA audit and the auditor was forced to comply with the contractor’s wishes. That’s not what happened, and GAO’s report is disingenuous in this regard. DCAA, against its own wishes was forced by OSD, DCMA, and the Air Force, to put together a so-called Integrated Product Team (IPT), which included the contractor, for the purpose of conducting audits on the contractor. This policy was the brainchild of Jacques Gansler, the Clinton-era Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, and his Deputy, Stan Soloway, now President of the contractor lobbying group, the Professional Services Council. The IPT agreement spelled out the scope of the audit in advance, and when DCAA started the audit, the contractor disagreed with the what DCAA was doing, arguing that it violated the IPT agreement. OSD, DCMA and the Air Force concurred with the contractor, so DCAA was forced to limit the audit scope to what was in the IPT agreement. The contractor did not force the change in audit scope, the members of the IPT did, and DCAA was a very reluctant “partner” in that IPT (in fact, DCAA stopped using IPTs).

Also, Collins and Lieberman have some nerve criticizing DCAA. Their support of “acquisition reform” and limiting government access to contractor cost or pricing data has done more to bilk the taxpayer than anything some DCAA auditors might or might not have done. It reminds me of the recent report by Jacques Gansler finding that the acquisition workforce at DOD had been downsized too much. And who would know better about this than Gansler, as he was the person most responsible for the acquisition workforce downsizing during the Clinton Administration. Talk about hypocrisy.

The comments to this entry are closed.