« Morning Smoke: Congress Used to Know How to Investigate | Main | Rep. Issa Challenges SEC on FOIA Exemptions »

Aug 09, 2010



The quality team ruined DCAA. The approach they took was unrealistic. They rigged the reviews from the start in the way they selected audits to review. They didn't follow the processes they said they would follow at the entrance conferences. They did not consider the responses to the draft checklists provided by the FAOs. So at the end of the day, you have significant money being spent on corrective actions by DCAA that result from faulty quality reviews. I believe the IG needs to review the quality of the quality reviews, including whether FAO responses were considered at all and whether the FAO responses are even in the quality teams' workpapers (yes independently go to the FAOs and test the quality team workpapers). The IG needs to look at the number of reports that were rescinded. Did someone else from policy or the regions take an independent look at these reports to ensure they were in fact as bad as the people from quality, who often had no experience in the audits they were reviewing, said they were before the reports were rescinded? Policies are being issued by HQ that are making our jobs and our audits useless. Customers don't need reports that contain a significant amount of unsupported costs. It appears to me the quality team doesn't understand our products, our services, or materiality. The quality team efforts are in my opinion worthy of malpractice. Intentional deceipt. The reviews weren't performed fairly from the start to the finish. Therefore, the corrective action plans really are irrelevant since they are based on faulty review processes. The IG needs to review the way these audits were performed from the start to end. They need to examine whether the team considered the FAO responses. They need to look at all the money being spent by DCAA on corrective action plans resulting from faulty quality reviews. What kind of awards did the quality team get? Is DCAA better off now after the CIGIE reviews? I think those in the field, including our customers, knows this answer. All of DCAA's management should not be required to take the week long Supervisory training again, if they have already had it. Why are Supervisors being punished by DCAA Upper Management for faulty quality reviews that were based on fraudulent processes? This is expensive and disruptive to the FAOs. Why are we being forced to take this training again? Has an explanation been provided or is it some corrective action plan based again on the quality reviews? I believe someone could legally challenge this. How could the quality team consider FAO responses when they didn't even look at them for a year after they performed the fieldwork. They couldn't remember what they did so they didn't consider the responses. Whatever they drafted for the exit conference was what they ran with because so much time passed. DCAA needs to stop wasting money on corrective actions in response to quality reviews that were not fairly performed. We don't have the money or the time to waste anymore.


The Op-Ed piece is truely pathetic. Is this the best that Hale and Fitzgerald can do? Here was their chance to lay out for everyone what they are doing to improve DCAA and the piece has nothing but fluff. Are they really this clueless? The answer is yes. Fitzgerald is just taking actions that look good to an uninformed Pentagon and Congress. Let's bring in new people, let's make GAGAS compliant audits. I feel like we are in the land of OZ and Hale has told Fitzgerald that if he clicks his heels three times, DCAA will be fixed. Guess what Fitzgerald, you have to get to the root cause of DCAA's issues and it is not bringing in people from outside DCAA. That will not get my reports issued any faster.


The DCAA joke continues. Fitzgerald and Hale seem like stand up guys who get it but I think they are powerless to change the broken culture. The post from Dandy says it all. What good is a perfect proposal audit if it is issued after the contract was negotiated? Can anyone answer that? Abuse of metrics caused the first DCAA scandal. The second scandal will be the audit reports with huge findings sitting on supervisors desk and not being issued because they did not want to get "Gigged" for using the wrong words on the "risk assessment" and the report. Perhaps they were concerned that with that spelling error on WP F-03c? One of our young and very smart trainees will blow the whistle on this, just as Diem Thi Le blew the whistle on metrics and managment abuse. I can just see Sen. McCaskill grill Mr. Fitzgerald on why this was allowed to happen. Will he answer "Senator we did not want to get Gigged." Sadly, not many in DCAA understand this.


These must be the only two people in DoD that think DCAA is on the right track! The audits need to be timely, e.g. issued before the need no longer exists, to be meaningful. Please if there is anyone out there that is receiving timely reports fro DCAA, please post the info here so we can share in their glory. I suggest Mr.Hale and Mr. Fizgerald share some success stories concerning timely reports, I bet there aren't many to share. Just how many reports has DCAA issued this FY in total? I hear auditors spend most of there time waiting for their reports to be issued. None of the auditors I've spoken with consider themsevles busy, most would wlecome more work if the resulting reports would be issued.

Gov Con Maven

This is beyond laughable. GAGAS shouldn't even apply to DCAA pre-award audits. I read this op-ed to say, "We are going to do perfect audits, even if that amounts to one audit a year."

DCAA has become irrelevant to the contract cost, pricing and audit process. Of course, this is what Deputy Secretary Lynn wanted to have happen.

The comments to this entry are closed.