« Morning Smoke: Hearing to Address Drawdown of Contractors in Iraq | Main | Morning Smoke: RIK's Dead »

Mar 29, 2010


Scott Amey

Thanks for posting here. It's just amazing that the Army realized the shortfalls of LOGCAP III and created LOGCAP IV to avoid them, and now it is considering ignoring the benefits of the new program. Insiders have informed POGO that the Army is conducting a study to look at the costs of transitioning from III to IV – huh? Isn’t that study days late and dollars short? So much for the added protections built into the LOGCAP IV contract.

Does anyone else get the feeling that the Army is a bigamist?

Charles M. Smith

When I and my team designed the strategy for LOGCAP IV our goal was to introduce competition into the program for two reasons:

1. Competitive award of task orders would provide an incentive to reduce costs and improve performance, as these would be the key evaluation factors for new awards.

2. Having 3 contractors would give the Army the option to terminate poor performance and move to a new contractor. This would be a distinct incentive to avoid the problems of LOGCAP III.

At this point LOGCAP IV appears to be a failure. This is due to the manner in which the Army Contracting Command and the Army Field Support Command are managing the program and the contract. Reports from Kuwait and Afghanistan indicate problems with performance. In IRaq we just saw a GAO audit of tactical Vehicle Maintenance by KBR where about $4 million was spent and $600 thousand in value was provided.

The Army has divided the work with DynCorp getting Kuwait and part of Afghanistan, Fluor getting Haiti and part of Afghanistan and KBR getting Iraq. Competition appears to be non-existent. There are no penalties for failure to provide even good performance for the troops.

Each contractor can feel secure in this work, no matter what their performance. The signal from LOGCAP III was that the Army would take care of the contractor, even at the expense of the troops. LOGCAP IV appears to be more of the same.

Congress must exert more oversight of this program and demand that the Army change the management goals to better support the troops.

I would hope that the Senate Armed Services Committee or the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight (SOCO,)under Claire McCaskill, would take on this task. Byron Dorgan and Henry Waxman have fought this fight for years, we need more members to get on board.


I am glad that POGO called the Army on this one. They are just providing KBR a blank check and they have no guilt or shame in doing so. Truly sad. And to think that KBR's faulty eletricial work risked the lives of our soliders.

The comments to this entry are closed.