Deepwater Whistleblower: Time to Tell All...

-- The following is a guest blog post by Deepwater whistleblower Michael DeKort. Mr. DeKort recently filed a False Claims Act suit against the lead contractors on the Deepwater contract, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. To learn more about Deepwater, check out POGO's previous blog posts. --

This whole thing has come full circle. When it started, I said in my YouTube video that I had an unbelievable story to tell. Now, it looks like I need to record a sequel.

Of course, I know that follow-up comments will say that I am obsessed, off my rocker, or paranoid. At least, I'll be able to sleep at night, knowing I didn't back down when even the so-called “good guys” took the wrong road and put their personal desires ahead of their country.

On May 29, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (DHS IG) presented its "Letter Report: U.S. Coast Guard's Plans to Improve Deepwater Accountability" to Commandant Thad W. Allen. This IG report states that the Coast Guard is justified in holding contractors Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman financially accountable for problems in the Deepwater program. While the report includes appropriate items, it also omits some--purposefully and glaringly.

Unfortunately, the DHS IG has forced my hand. Now, I am forced to disclose information relative to these matters that I had previously agreed not to disclose. I am breaking my promise because individuals and organizations have obliterated the trust I had in them on behalf of our country.

In the report, the DHS IG purposely omits information pertaining to the refunds for the C4ISR systems the Coast Guard is entitled to recover. Instead, the IG transparently and boldly pins nearly everything on Northrop and completely omits any reference to the 123 C4ISR issues. These problems relate to safety and security problems, huge unjustified expenditures of money, and massive cover-up. This means it will be much harder for the government and the taxpayer to recover the Coast Guard's investments in Lockheed-Martin systems designs. Why would the DHS IG do this?

(First, I want to say that the DHS IG's office did an excellent job when they responded to my request for help back in 2005. I feel the assigned auditors did a great job. Unfortunately, their higher-ups would not permit the auditors to make sure the record was complete and accurate. Now they have unfortunately gone too far and actually manipulated the record in a manner that is not consistent with the facts.)

I believe the report reveals a significant level of panic and desperation from the contractors and certain government officials, who are trying to shield their roles in the ordeal. While the report appears to sabotage my federal lawsuit, which I filed to recover funds for the American people and to punish those who committed fraud (and more), it also emboldens me. It tells me that the case on behalf of taxpayers is very strong. It also tells me that the Coast Guard and the contractors are desperate to make this entire fiasco go away. Of course, I may have to treat some senior government officials as hostile witnesses to prove the cover-up and fraud. So be it. They should not have betrayed their public positions of trust.

The DHS IG report left out chronic, ongoing, long-term problems, which are far more damaging than those that have already been widely reported. These safety and security problems incurred huge, unjustified financial expenditures and were hidden under a massive cover-up.

The C4ISR systems, particularly topside equipment, should have been listed in the DHS IG's report. As proof of this, I have documentation that:

• On June 5, 2007, the Coast Guard sent a letter to the Integrated Coast Guard System (ICGS) adding non-conforming 123 C4ISR equipment to the refund list; an attachment listed dozens of items that did not conform because, in bad weather, they would disable critical communication and navigation systems.
• The Coast Guard asked for all eight of the 123s to be rejected in their entirety--the whole boat and everything on them. I have the invoices, contracts, and DD-250s (forms that documented nonconformities) that show that all of these boats were rejected in their entirety, and they asked for a return of the entire $66 million, including all of the design work for the 123s and all of the project implementation costs. This included the C4ISR systems.
• Lockheed Martin/ICGS released a press statement regarding these items saying that, at worst, they may owe $3 million for those items (though they had said the related claims were “baseless” and had “no merit”)
• The DHS IG report released in February of 2007 states that the 123 topside equipment did not meet weather survivability specifications. Further, it said that ICGS purposefully withheld that information from the Coast Guard until the summer of 2005, after the Coast Guard paid for the eight 123s.

I also have documents to prove that the DHS IG's report should have listed refunds relative to TEMPEST. For example, the February 2007 report stated that it appeared the requirements relative to TEMPEST were not rigid enough for them to fault ICGS. But, when I questioned the DHS IG's lead auditor about the errors and other relevant issues (such as the Ron Porter illegal waiver and the use of flawed classified systems that leaked classified information in Cuban waters) he told me that:

• They did not have enough time to work the case;
• They had missed key items like the ones I described;
• Their conclusions were wrong;
• They were not permitted to work the case full-time, so they were basically forced to work on it at night; and
• He agreed that their conclusion on the camera surveillance system not having to have 360-degree coverage was wrong as well.

He apologized to me. When I told him this gave ICGS cover and would effectively ensure the same problems on the National Security Cutter (NSC), he agreed that it was a concern and said he would work to get it right. But, to this day, the DHS IG has not righted that wrong. The auditor was removed from the effort. I assume he tried his best and was driven away, by his superiors, from doing the right thing.

This spring, the lead investigator for Congressman Oberstar's Transportation Committee told me he knew that the DHS IG had gotten those same areas wrong in their report--and that I had gotten it right. He confirmed what the DHS IG auditor told me and he said the auditor had also personally told him.

The investigator also told me about an episode on the bridge of one of the 123s the night before our 4/2007 hearing. He said the commandant confessed to the congressman present that he had not told the truth, had not been cooperative, and that he knew the issues existed. He apologized and promised to get it right from that point forward. Of course, this occurred while the most crucial bits of data the committee had requested from the Commandant filtered in just hours before the hearing. This after they were already weeks overdue.

What proof do I have? At this point, I will prove my case in court, which will be devastating to some contractors and government officials. As I pursue this lawsuit for the sake of taxpayers, I will have to use government officials to establish that other government officials conspired to cover up the contractors' fraud.

So, why are we here today?

A common reason prevails. It is the same reason why Lockheed did what they did, the same reason why Coast Guard leadership covered for them, the same reason why some members of Congress only put on a great dog-and-pony show. They all have to cover their poor performance.

Speaking specifically of the members of Congress, some positive things did result. While the congressional committees got attention for my issues--that may otherwise have been neglected--the root causes are still there, the Lead System Integrator's (LSI) practice has not been changed by law, no one has been held accountable, no refund has been paid, and the NSC has huge problems. Taxpayers still have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars they should not have to. Since Congress pulled up short, the contractor's involvement has only been modified slightly.

In court, I will demonstrate that rampant fraud was committed when the Coast Guard accepted and paid for the boats and systems. Of course, they were duped at the time (hence the fraud), but they righteously could have taken on the contractors at the right time. Instead, they squandered the opportunity when the light began to shine on their own performance. Instead of coming clean, the government repeated the contractor's party line that everything I said was baseless. Why? Because so much had gone wrong for so long they were afraid that they would lose their jobs, reputations, and program control. Senior people would have to answer for longstanding poor performance by their subordinates. High-level and age-old political alliances would be exposed. So they circled the wagons, all of them. As a result, the circling had to continue, as it will, on every ship they would make for 20 years.

When the DHS IG said I was right about the topside equipment and low-smoke cables, the Coast Guard changed course and requested refunds for those items. Then, the DHS IG got it wrong. When the DHS IG negated my accusations about TEMPEST and the cameras, the contractors and Coast Guard jumped all over it, using this to cover and justify their actions, past and future.

Though the DHS IG was wrong, the Coast Guard and its contractors were forced to use the same basic designs going forward--on the NSC. Accepted or “waived” failures enabled ICGS to make the case that they met spec or that the spec came up short. Actually, ICGS was legally bound by the “system of systems” requirement to repeat designs on the ships that shared systems. Further, you don't change what isn't wrong. To keep up the fraudulent charade and avoid scrutiny, they couldn't risk changing anything that wasn't officially wrong. This is why the Coast Guard treated me like a pariah. Instead of thanking me for my help and using the opportunity to help themselves, they shunned me and said all my original claims were baseless. (It was later proven that I was correct and the Coast Guard and its contractors were wrong.) As a result, I doubt the Coast Guard will ever push for the refund. Unless Lockheed and Northrop volunteer to settle, the Coast Guard is not likely to push them. Their main focus now is to cover up their own incompetence and, then, their culpability in enabling the fraud. If they pushed, the contractors would protect themselves by pushing back--and outing the Coast Guard. They can't afford to go that route.

What about the Department of Justice (DoJ)? Why wouldn't they take the case and protect taxpayers? Possibly, as in other cases, the DoJ simply does not have the manpower to push this case forward. I am told they can take only 25% of the justifiable cases they investigate. That said, other possibilities may also be at work. Lockheed's lead council is James Comey, a Justice Department “hero” and former deputy attorney general. Many people who used to work for him are still in the organization, and they have their own career aspirations. They would not want to ruffle his feathers.

I have a 2006 letter, hand-signed by Comey, who says the Coast Guard was informed about every issue and had no objections with the program. Of course, this was before the DHS IG said Lockheed purposefully withheld data, and before the Coast Guard asked for the refund. This letter, therefore, may demonstrate that counsel is ill informed, or less than competent, or, perhaps, it proves fraud. (For more, just wiki James Comey.)

Where does this leave us? I assume that these government agencies and individuals will be beyond frustrated with me. But I am beyond caring about them or that situation. My only focus is doing the right thing for the Coast Guard and the United States of America. And I eagerly await telling my story to anyone that wants to hear the truth. The synopsis: “Government officials and the world's largest defense companies put the country at risk post-9/11, wasting hundred of millions--maybe billions--of taxpayer dollars, all to avoid admitting their mistakes.”

Unfortunately, I am the only party actively pushing for the refund and for contractor accountability. Frankly, it's an awful lot for an American citizen to have to do, when all the people who have the power, resources, and responsibility to secure the country bow out--and ignore their promises to act according to the highest ethical standards.

I don't expect them to be perfect. People, including myself, make honest mistakes all the time. The issue is intent. What did these people intend to do? What were their motivations? And what are the ramifications for those they serve--the citizens of this country? With conscious choice, they had the wrong intentions. For that, I will take them to task.

-- Michael DeKort

Comments

[Dfens]

You seem to be assuming that the federal government pays us for results rather than for process. Hence, you deduce there must be criminal negligence otherwise how could these boats be such pieces of crap? It doesn't work that way. There's only one thing in a cost plus award fee contract tied to results, and that's the award fee itself. Even that has a very tenuous tie to results, which explains why most contractors stay in the 95% range despite continually sliding schedules to the right and driving budgeted costs through the roof.

I'm telling you, F-22 was LEGAL waste, fraud, and abuse from day one and will be far past the day the program dies. POGO has ensured that it will always be in that category by pulling out the stops to help the contractor end production at 187 aircraft. All the well meaning idiots got together on that one. Whoo hoo, what a great win that was! Morons! F-35 is the same thing. These are programs that put the level of waste far beyond anything you saw on Deepwater just because of the much larger amount of money being wasted. And it was all legal. Hell, POGO helped, absolutely convinced they had the taxpayers back - well, at least the useful idiots in the trenches were convinced.

Good luck finding that smoking gun.

[Michael DeKort]

Open call for assistance in Deepwater case:

Within the next few months we will be fighting the motions to dismiss from Lockheed, Northrop and ICGS. If we lose this round the case is over. That means there will be no refund and the contractors will not be held accountable for the Deepwater problem.

(In addition to that Northrop has signaled that the companies actually intend to seek damages from the Coast Guard for stopping the program. Text from Northrop motion to dismiss the Bollinger suit states the following:

"Presumably, Lockheed Martin could seek compensation from the Coast Guard under the CDA for C4ISR equipment and information delivery delays, if any, caused by the government. As the prime contractor, ICGS, not NGSS or Bollinger, could best determine whether Lockheed Martin or NGSS could assert a CDA claim against the government for delays experienced in delivering equipment or information to Bollinger. ICGS could also sponsor such a claim against the Coast Guard on behalf of Lockheed Martin.")

Additionally one of the tactics Northrop is using is to blame the Coast Guard for the 123 problems. They state that the Coast Guard abused these boats, did not operate nor not maintain them properly. From the motion:

"The Coast Guard decision to decommission vessels does not lead to the inescapable conclusion that the defendants committed fraud. To the contrary, there is strong evidence suggesting that the 123 structural issues were attributable to the Coast Guard's operation of the vessels beyond their performance parameters and failure to maintain the structural integrity of the vessels, not any nonconformance with contract requirements."

This is an open call for assistance. We are asking for the Coast Guard and even contractor personnel who read these blogs to get involved. We feel there should actually be very little trouble winning this motion but given the importance and finality of the event we believe it is prudent to not take anything for granted. If there was ever a time to act to ensure the refund is paid and the contractors are held responsible this may be the last opportunity. Finally I am calling on the Commandant himself to make a public and service wide call for the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard to assist in our efforts.

- Michael DeKort
imispgh@yahoo.com

[Dfens]

It took 25 years for them to design the F-22. 25 years! All previous fighters took 5 years or less. In the papers today it was announced that F-35 will slip a couple more years, duh. The truth is, that airplane will take 25 years to develop, cost twice what the F-22's bloated development cost, and have a per unit cost of more than $100 million (probably more like $120 M). In the 9 months I spent on F-22 I saw exactly how the US taxpayer's money was wasted. It was wasted on stupidity. I designed the same parts 3 times in 9 months! Every time they'd come up with a new load case the skin would gain a few more plys and everything underneath would change. They ran that scam for not just years, but decades. Who is going to blow the whistle on that? There's no whistle to blow on stupidity.

We used to joke that the unofficial name for F-22 was not "Raptor" but "Precious", after the famous ring from "Lord of the Rings". Now the F-35 has become "Precious". In both cases the US taxpayer is obviously being fleeced. In both cases the USAF and contractors (and POGO) will do absolutely whatever it takes to keep the program going. In neither case is the best interests of the taxpayer or soldier a factor. There is no one to sue, but a major fraud is being committed legally, in plain sight, during business hours, and all anyone can think to talk about is who will win the World Series.

The only thing I can possibly think is that someone has replaced the US citizens with zombies. Why else would they put up with this? They are zombies and they don't deserve to be protected from themselves.

[Michael DeKort]

DFENS
I understand your point and appreciate the warning. However I am well past the point of no return. We will move forward and do our best. (The powers that be want everyone to feel the way you do. That alone is enough of a motivator to keep me going.)

[Dfens]

I hope you win, Michael. I truely do. Your video was a stroke of genius. Even so, I would not advise anyone to go the route you went. I will not. As long as the US taxpayer is willing to vote for representatives that provide a monetary incentive for defense contractors to screw them then they deserve what they get. I'm not protecting anyone from themselves. If the American people are so damn stupid they'll pay a contractor more money if they provide a shoddy product than they'll pay if the contrator provides a good one, then screw them.

I refuse to participate in the fraud. I do my best. I fix what I can. But I will not be dragged through the mud to fix a problem that the US taxpayer causes by being a bunch of zombies. I won't support an organization like POGO that encourages the same kind of fraud as the government contractors do.

Clearly it's too late for you. You've chosen to go down this road, and for good reason. I mean, there is a good chance Coast Guard sailors could have been killed on those boats. They were that unsafe. Even so, I would not have advised you to stick your neck out. It's crazy. Those companies will defame you and drag you and your family through the mud, and for what? They'll do the same shoddy work on the next boat, and the next, and the next.

I'm not sticking my neck out for a bunch of zombie US taxpayers. They'll either get fed up with this system and force their representatives to fix it, or they can pay through the nose for nothing if they want. I'm not going to save them from themselves, and, frankly, I wish you hadn't too. Since you're in the spotlight, though, tell them what's wrong. Don't just let this be about the individuals you were working with. Let them know the system is screwed up. That's all I ask.

[Michael DeKort]

ICGS, Lockheed and Northrop not only don't plan to refund any of the 123 money but they are actually considering taking legal action to secure damages from the Coast Guard because they canceled the program. So not only does Northrop believe the Coast Guard is at fault for the 123 problems, due to their negligence in operating and maintaining the boats, but they believe they are owed compensation because the program was canceled. Again - how many of you involved in these issues are going to sit by and not get involved. If we were to lose the motions to dismiss process we are in now the refund will be lost and these contractors will sue the Coast Guard for damages.

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/01/deepwater-problems-motivated-by-disinterested-malevolence.html

The link to the Northrop court filing that contains the following quote is embedded in the POGO blog. See the footnote on page 12.

"Presumably, Lockheed Martin could seek compensation from the Coast Guard under the CDA for C4ISR equipment and information delivery delays, if any, caused by the government. As the prime contractor, ICGS, not NGSS or Bollinger, could best determine whether Lockheed Martin or NGSS could assert a CDA claim against the government for delays experienced in delivering equipment or information to Bollinger. ICGS could also sponsor such a claim against the Coast Guard on behalf of Lockheed Martin."

[Michael DeKort]

Let me be a bit clearer and more direct.

Are there any persons out there willing to provide additional information so that justice will be done on the Deepwater boondoggle?

[Michael DeKort]

From the Northrop Motion to Dismiss our False Claims Act suit.

Northrop blames the Coast Guard for the 123 debacle

"The Coast Guard decision to decommission vessels does not lead to the inescapable conclusion that the defendants committed fraud. To the contrary, there is strong evidence suggesting that the 123 structural issues were attributable to the Coast Guard's operation of the vessels beyond their performance parameters and failure to maintain the structural integrity of the vessels, not any nonconformance with contract requirements. Simply put, defendants fully complied with the 123 contract requirements.

This is the partner the Coast Guard is still supporting? The partner the Coast Guard is willing to cover for? (All three companies - Lockheed, Northrop and ICGS also state there can be no fraud because the Coast Guard knew about all of the problems and accepted the boats anyway. Keep in mind no refund has been paid to date and these contractors are still under contract to do most of the work they originally signed up to do and are in the running for the OPC - which is the bulk of the DW program)

This statement is in the spec for the boat

"The 123-Ft WPB scantling characteristics will provide structural integrity equivalent to, or in excess of the existing 110-Ft WPB. Any cutter structural member found to be less than ninety percent (90%) of the original nominal metal thickness as a result of the post arrival hull survey shall be replaced."

Looks to me like ICGS/NG knew exactly what they were getting in to, promised to upgrade all of the 110s, designed and fabricated a flawed solution, misrepresented the problem to the Coast Guard, collected their money and then looked for a way out. That way out is to blame the customer by saying the Coast Guard abused, mistreated and did not maintain these boats prior to the modification.

All of you people in the Coast Guard (and the contractors for that matter) who read these posts and defend the organization or the contractors pay close attention here. These companies have filed motions to dismiss our claims. If they win there will be no refund, no penalty and no accountability. Is that what you want?

[Michael DeKort]

How am I not helping the rest of you survive the "crap". I an doing everything I could think of to fix the problem and hold people accountable. Heck I even had a small part in the F-22 and F-35 False Claims Act suits. I did very little of this for myself. I lost a job I had for almost 13 years, moved my family 3 times and went through a fair amount of grief over the past 6 years. (I say fair amount because I know many people have gone through much more). Say I did this for myself is not only inaccurate it is patently unfair. Please - list the things similar things you have done. Do you have the intestinal fortitude to walk the walk? Are you actually in the trenches or a Monday Morning QB who makes remarks from the safety of the sideline?

As for your point about the larger problem you are correct. It's all a big game. No one wants to know how much things cost so congress beats up DoD who beats on the contractors who then under bid and over promise on purpose. Then they win anyway. Then the contractors are late and go way over budget. If that situation is too bad (in rare cases like the VH-1 program) they get canceled. But most do not. They suffer bad press and dog and pony hearings with a lot of finger wagging. They bow their heads and shuffle off but they are given extra funds to finish. If the product is reasonably good (or at least the perception is good) everyone forgives and forgets and the dance starts over. So sure a good part of the military industrial complex is screwed and so is congress etc. (Having said that - flaws and all - we are much better off than most countries and truly do have an far superior fighting force than anyone else) Who is to blame for this? Selfish voters who vote their guy in for the pork but want everyone else to vote their bad guy out. There is blame for everyone one including the hypocritical taxpayer.

As for POGO. They are a small shop taking on giants. They have been fair and helpful to me. Proportional to their power and civic responsibility they did far more on these issues than the congress, DHS IG, Coast Guard, Navy, Navy IG DoJ etc - who all pulled up short.

Maybe you can do better?

[Dfens]

Yeah, Michael, you might make some money or you might not. Your lawyer certainly will. No doubt your lawyer and the corporate lawyers will be the only real winners in this whole fiasco. Frankly, if you do make money, I'd say you should keep it, because you'll never work in the defense industry again. Not that I'd say that's a bad thing.

While I sympathize with you on what you've been through, you're not kidding anyone. You're not doing anyone else any favors. You're not helping any of the rest of us who are in the defense industry working with this same kind of crap every single day.

The system is broken. Our federal procurement system pays more to a contractor that screws them over than it does to one that provides the promised product at the promised time. You know that's true. Everyone in the defense industry knows that's true. The saying where I work is, "the worse they want it, the worse we give it to them." Do you think that kind of system promotes honor and decency? Is that the kind of system where the cream floats to the top? NO!

When our customer rewards incompetence and corruption, that's what they encourage. All you did was blow the whistle on a contractor who was trying to maximize their profit by playing the system the way it was set up to be played. They provide a crappy product and get paid huge amounts of money to fix it. There is not a day that goes by in the defense industry that 1000 other companies are not doing the same thing.

You want to help someone besides yourself? Expose the real problem. Tell the taxpayers the truth about why there is not a single defense program that is on schedule and on budget. Frankly, all you've done to date is play into the hands of the military-industrial complex. They'd love for the American people to think the problem is the people who work in the defense industry and not the procurement system. They're making record profits off this system. Do you think they're going to kill that goose? They love organizations like POGO. POGO hides the truth about military procurement just like the defense department used UFO's to hide the nature and location of secret aircraft. One more source of lies. One more source of misinformation.

Do something for someone other than yourself. Do something for the rest of us in the defense industry. Do something really benefits the American taxpayer and not just the lawyers. Expose the root of the problem with the Coast Guard program you worked on, and the rest of these screwed up defense programs.

[Michael DeKort]

The case is filed on behalf of the American people who, if we win, are guaranteed 2/3 of the sum. None of which would occur if we weren't pursuing this because the government bowed out. 1/3 is for the original infraction and 1/3 for damages. (2X the $100 million refund request). If we win I am not guaranteed anything. I may see up to 1/3 if certain criteria is met.

As for my giving up my 1/3 to pay down the national debt. Are you kidding me? First - this issue has never been about the money. I spent 3 years trying to get these things fixed within Lockheed. I went all the way to the CEO and Board. I went through 3 ethics investigations including one done by the corporate VP of ethics. I went to many members of congress, the DHS IG, the Navy IG, the DoD IG, the NSA, The DoJ etc before an FCA suit was filed. At any point if any of them (especially Lockheed) would have done the right thing there would be no suit and no chance for monetary recovery for myself.

Additionally – my attorney and I are using our resources to recover the refund and penalty right now. The DoJ deferred, the Coast Guard deferred etc.

I moved my family three times in the past 6 years because of Lockheed issues. This whole thing has been trying on my family. We have sacrificed a lot and hung in there to be the only party who is aggressively pursuing recovery. I will certainly not give up all of any recovery I get to the national debt. My lawyer will recover what he should; I will pay my taxes, donate to charity, help out family members and friends and then take care of my family.

Have you been down this road? Who are you to suggest that after all of this I donate - or any other whistleblower that puts themselves and their families at risk and used their own resources (where their government abdicated their responsibility), in order to do the right thing? Your suggestion is extremely unfair and unreasonable. Curious - did you win an FCA and give your money, the 1/3 that remained from getting the government 2X the original damages, back to the government? (By the way the government will get 30% or so for taxes so they actually get more than 2/3 of the recovery and my portion would be less than 1/3).

[Joe Carson]

P.S. Michael DeKort,

I have been a "player" in this cruel jungle for about 17 years now. Like it or not, people like us for "grist" - lots of people benefit from our suffering, one reason the system stays so broke.

But I suggest if you want to claim that you are filing false claims suits on behalf of the American people - implying the much money you could obtain as a result of the suit is not a factor in your actions - that you openly pledge to give whatever you win (or whatever you win above a specific dollar amount) back to the gov't to pay off the deficit. Otherwise, I suggest you should say "I want the money and it's the right thing to do by the American public."

[Michael DeKort]

POGO isn't pedaling anything - it is my post. They just helped with a little editing and links.

Systems are made up of people - most Americans in the cases we are discussing. While the Deepwater oversight by the Coast Guard wasn't great it was Lockheed and it's program leadership that started this. And this was in one of the most advanced, awarded and process mature organizations in all of defense. The same CMMI level 5 group that runs the Aegis weapon system programs.

Sure process helps but bad people can over rule the process. Good people in a poor process environment can produce a good product. Bad people in a great process environment can produce bad products. The real fix is to punish these people and organizations and make that very public. That will provide a deterrent. Everything else is either window dressing or will have much less of an impact. Strong and ethical leadership is far more important that good processes.

[Dfens]

Time to tell all, but no criticism of POGO on their blog. Pretty hypocritical, isn't it?

[Dfens]

This is an extreme example of what is wrong with every federally funded weapons program. The way the federal government structures its contracts encourages waste, fraud, and abuse. There is no down side to producing a piece of crap. If a contractor produces a vehicle that does not perform, all that means to them is they will later be paid more money to fix the problems they've created. The worse the problems they create, the more money they make fixing the problems.

The problem is not esoteric. It does not call into question the faith or decency of the people involved. It is simply a fact that there is no reward for good behavior in a federal contract. The only way available for a contractor to maximize their profit on a contract is to create problems.

Would you contract with a builder the way the federal government does? Would you tell a contractor that you'll reimburse them for all of their expenses plus pay them a 10% profit on top of those expenses for as long as it takes for them not to actually remodel your bathroom, but simply for them to develop the plans to remodel your bathroom? Why would you not do that? Why would you not be that stupid? Because you know that is nothing but an open invitation for the contractor to screw you. It is an open invitation for them to drag out the development process as long as possible.

To make things worse, would you hire a whole office full of people, people who don't know or like you, to watch over the contractor to make sure they did the work they were supposed to do on your bathroom project? Here again, you wouldn't be that stupid. You'd probably be able to figure out that your watchdogs know once the program is over, they're out of a job. What kind of watchdog are they going to be when the only monetary incentive they have is to drag out the contract, just like the first contractor you hired?

Then you let these contractors into your house, knowing full and well that after you've invested so much money with them you're not going to get rid of them. Then what do they do but build you a horrible bathroom? Pay them to fix it, naturally.

Sure none of us individually is this stupid. None of us individually would do this. Collectively, though, we are this stupid. Collectively we allow our government to do business in just this way. Then we complain when the contractors follow the monetary incentives in their contract to screw us. Which is it? Do you want to be screwed? That's what where your monetary incentive is. No one who didn't want to be screwed would provide a monetary incentive for a contractor to do that to them, would they?

Of course, blogs like this want you to think that it is your fellow Americans who are bad. It's not the system. It's not the way we do contracting. It's Americans who are bad. They need more watching. They need a stronger federal government complete with thought police to keep these bad Americans in line. Just because we give these people monetary incentives to screw us doesn't mean we are providing mixed messages. It means these contractors are full of bad Americans who need a much stronger government watching them. You can buy the crap POGO is pedaling, or you can fix the problem. Your choice.

[Joe Carson]

Dear Michael DeKort,

I'm a whistleblowing engineer too and can relate to much of what you detail. But your diagnosis is missing some important pieces, in my opinion, including:

1) where is our profession of engineering in this?

2) where is your/others faith community?

3) The US Office of Special Counsel, the federal law enforcement agency created to protect federal employees from agency lawbreaking, is a 30 year long lawbreaking fraud - the most corrupt and corrupting (relatively speaking, it is a tiny agency - 110 employees) federal law enforcement agency in our Country's history. The actions (or inactions) of civilian fedearl employees - in all agencies, including national security ones - cannot be properly understood absent an appreciation of the corrupting impact of OSC's lawbreaking. And our legal profession gives OSC's lawbreaking lawyers a "free pass."

I will reach out to your attorneys to try to contact you directly.

Joe Carson, PE