The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

President Opposes Nuke Facility, Threatens to Veto Defense Bill

The President said he will veto the National Defense Authorization Act as it is currently written because it includes, among other things, funding for a costly nuclear weapons facility, according to a statement the White House released yesterday.

The Administration “strongly objects” to efforts to construct the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR) in 2013, according to the President.

“The Departments of Defense and Energy agree that, in light of today's fiscal environment, CMRR can be deferred for at least five years, and funds reallocated to support higher priority nuclear weapons goals,” the President wrote.

The November 29 statement echoes the President’s latest budget request, which proposed delaying construction of the nearly $6-billion facility and using existing facilities to fulfill its missions. The CMRR-NF would produce and store plutonium pits, a primary component of nuclear weapons.

DoD Contractors Cost Nearly 3 Times More than DoD Civilians

See the inforgraphic below for all the data

Last month, the Project On Government Oversight sent a letter to government officials poking holes in the Department of Defense’s (DoD) claims that it utilizes a cost-effective workforce, and that congressional prohibitions have prevented it from implementing greater cost efficiencies. DoD’s own documents prove otherwise and support POGO’s 2011 finding that, on average, the federal government is wasting money by hiring service contractors.

POGO’s review of DoD service contracting budget and spending data found that contractor employees cost 2.94 times more than an average DoD civilian employee performing the same job. In fact, although the number of employees in both workforces is relatively balanced, spending on the workforces is not: DoD service contracts cost $253.8 billion and DoD’s civilian workforce cost $72 billion (base) or $108 (base plus overhead) in FY 2010.

Comparison of contractors to military personnel results in similar ratios, although this comparison is complicated by such cost considerations as pay, housing, subsistence, change-of-station expenses, education assistance, veteran’s benefits, tax advantages, and non-monetary benefits to military members

Video: Freeman on the Revolving Generals

By ANDRE FRANCISCO

What do top U.S. generals do after they retire from the military? Maybe relax on a golf course somewhere after decades of service? Some may, but 70 percent of three and four star generals go to work for defense contractors or consulting firms after them leave the military, according to a new report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

This is hard evidence of the revolving door in Washington between public agencies and private companies that do business with the government. Project On Government Oversight investigator Ben Freeman went on HuffPost Live yesterday to discuss this revolving door with John Amick and Michael Hastings. Watch the full video above.

Andre Francisco is an online producer for the Project On Government Oversight.

Follow @andrefrancisco

KBR November Litigation Round-Up

By NEIL GORDON

November has been a very bad month for defense contractor KBR.

KBR is the federal government’s primary logistics support contractor in Iraq, receiving tens of billions of dollars in business from the Department of Defense over the last decade, much of that under the U.S. Army’s monopolistic Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract.

In early November, an Oregon federal jury returned an $85.2 million verdict against KBR for exposing military personnel to toxic chemicals at an Iraqi water treatment facility in 2003. The jury found that KBR had “acted with reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm and conscious indifference to the health, safety, and welfare” of the plaintiffs. A case raising similar claims is pending in KBR’s hometown of Houston, Texas, and will soon go to trial.

Star Creeps: Petraeus & the Price of the Top-Heavy Pentagon

Gen. David Petraeus

In addition to extramarital affairs and “flirtatious e-mails,” the General Petraeus sex scandal highlighted another of the Pentagon’s dirty little secrets – generals live like billionaires, and taxpayers are footing the bill.

As the Washington Post reported on Saturday, these perks “befitting a billionaire,” include, “palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir.”

Lavish perks bestowed to generals increase with higher ranks, as Raymond Dubois, former DoD director of Administration and Management from 2002 to 2005, told Air Force Times. “A four-star has an airplane. A three-star often doesn’t…Can a three-star get an airplane when he needs it? Not always. Does a four-star get an airplane when he needs it? Always. Many times he’ll already have a G5 sitting on the runway, gassed up. There are the kinds of costs that are fairly significant when you add them all up,” according to Dubois.

Taxpayers are paying for this largesse, and they keep paying long after the generals retire—even if they are receiving other salaries and benefits.

General Petraeus, for example, will reportedly receive a $220,000 annual pension for the rest of his life. Petraeus is reaping the benefits of a 2007 provision that dramatically increased the pensions of top generals and admirals, but not the lower ranking soldiers they command. The Pentagon’s press office told POGO, for the average three-star general or admiral that retires from the military, “the annual difference in retired pay between the old and new criteria is about $39,900,” per year.

ABC News: Paula Broadwell's Gun Commercial Raises Ethical Concerns

Watch More News Videos at ABC | 2012 Presidential Election | Entertainment & Celebrity News

By ANDRE FRANCISCO

Paula Broadwell, General David Petraeus' mistress, may have used her ties to Petraeus to promote a new lightweight machine gun for a defense contractor.

Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, said political influence should have no place in federal contracting.

"It's an uneven playing field. That is not how a contract should be decided," Brian said.

Watch the video above to see the ABC News story. Read the report at ABC News.

Andre Francisco is an online producer for the Project On Government Oversight.

Follow @andrefrancisco

Coburn: Cut Wasteful Spending at the "Department of Everything"

By BEN FREEMAN

As fears of the impending “fiscal cliff” continue to mount, at least one Member of Congress is laying out proposals for cutting wasteful spending at the Pentagon, or, as Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) refers to it, the “Department of Everything.”

A new report released today by Coburn finds that the DoD could save $67.9 billion over ten years by making specific cuts to what he describes as “non-defense” defense spending.

The report targets “five areas of the Pentagon budget that have little to do with national security where taxpayer dollars could be saved and deficits reduced without impacting our national security.”

Not everyone may agree with everything Coburn recommends should be cut, but there are certainly some doozies in the report, including:

• An app that lets you know when it’s time for a coffee break.
• Research which found that “Fish could show the nation how to overcome political polarization and promote democracy.”
• $1.5 million for a Pentagon project “to develop its own brand of jerky treats that are the bomb!”

POGO's Top Picks for Defense Budget Bill

Yesterday, the Project On Government Oversight sent a letter to Congress with our picks for the most important provisions that should be included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA, H.R. 4310 and S. 3254). Even though election season is in full swing and Congress has passed very little legislation as of late, the NDAA has become something of a must-pass bill and is one of the few bills that’s highly likely to reach the President’s desk for signature this year. The House passed H.R. 4310 and the Senate Armed Services Committee passed S. 3254 in May. Now Hill staffers are in discussions about how to reconcile the two versions during the lame duck session.

Some of POGO’s recommendations center on reining in wasteful Pentagon spending by cutting unnecessary weapons systems and nuclear programs. (Many of these are drawn from Spending Even Less, Spending Even Smarter in which we and Taxpayers for Common Sense identified over $600 billion in defense budget savings.) Of course, several of the measures we champion would enhance oversight and accountability to taxpayers. These range from strengthening whistleblower protections to increasing contractor accountability to improving information about how the Pentagon spends taxpayer dollars.

POGO is also urging Senate leadership to allow adequate time for debate and amendments to the NDAA on the Senate Floor. In addition, the NDAA should be reconciled by an open, transparent conference committee with all proceedings webcast live for the public. A bill of this magnitude, authorizing over $600 billion taxpayer dollars, with such important consequences for our national security and economy should not be rushed through committee or passed behind closed doors.

POGO’s recommendations are listed below. You can also read the letter we sent to HASC and SASC for the details.

Don't Let Your Tax Dollars Sink With This Ship

Click to see our graphic

By ANDRE FRANCISCO

The Pentagon once again wants to spend billions of your taxpayer funds on a new ship that is plagued with problems. We think it’s time to say "no."

The Navy testing office recently said the littoral combat ship is not meant for combat, even though combat is literally its middle name! The Navy plans to spend $2.2 billion next year on this program, but the Project On Government Oversight revealed that there have been numerous problems during testing and early deployment (including cracks in the hull and loss of power throughout the entire ship). POGO also revealed that Navy officials hid poor testing results while it was trying to convince Congress to buy more ships. The Navy ultimately envisions buying 55 of these sub-par ships.

Check out our graphic then share it with your friends so we can spread the word about this ship.

Andre Francisco is an online producer for the Project On Government Oversight.

Follow @andrefrancisco

Video: U.S. Defense Contractors Drunk and Stoned on the Job

Watch More News Videos at ABC | 2012 Presidential Election | Entertainment & Celebrity News

Editor's Note: After you've seen the video below, get the full story in a new blog post from POGO's Joe Newman.

By ANDRE FRANCISCO

New video released by ABC shows U.S. defense contractors in Afghanistan stumbling drunk and stoned on sedatives while on the job.

The contractor, Jorge Scientific, has a contract to train Afghan police, according to ABC News. Military personnel and defense contractors are strictly prohibited from consuming alcohol or drugs, but it looks like there was very little oversight of Jorge Scientific.

Project On Government Oversight Executive Director Danielle Brian was quoted in the ABC story as saying,

It has got to be that there is more of a sense of oversight on the part of the military and the U.S. government to make sure these contractors are not actually undermining the diplomatic mission with their behavior.

POGO has been following the behavior of U.S. defense contractors in Afghanistan for years, including an investigation into similar behavior by the defense contractors guarding the U.S. embassy in Kabul.

Andre Francisco is an online producer for the Project On Government Oversight.
Follow @andrefrancisco

Pentagon Single-Bid Contracting Hurting Taxpayers

By SCOTT AMEY

Last week, the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General released a report finding that single-bid guidance isn’t being followed and, as a result, “the Services have not realized potential cost savings associated with increased competition and re-competing $390.9 million in contract modifications. DoD also cannot accurately assess the percent of improvements in DoD achieving effective competition.” Specifically, the DoD IG found:

The Services did not follow DoD single-bid guidance when awarding 31 contracts, valued at approximately $656.1 million, out of the sample of 78 contracts awarded as competitive, valued at approximately $1 billion, that we reviewed. Specifically, contracting offices:

• issued 16 of 31 single-bid contracts, valued at $165.3 million, without advertising solicitations for 30 days;
• issued 8 of 31 single-bid contracts, valued at $471.0 million, without adequately determining price reasonableness; and
• issued 7 of 31 single-bid contracts, valued at $19.8 million, without advertising solicitations for 30 days and adequately determining price reasonableness.

In addition, the IG found that DoD did not “develop specific steps to prevent 39 of 47 contract modifications, valued at $390.9 million, from exceeding the 3-year limitation on awarding contract modifications without first recompeting.”

This news is startling because, according to FPDS-NG (it’s not my number, so don’t shoot the messenger), single-bid offers accounted for $185 billion spent in base contracts and exercised options by DoD in FY 2011, and rules were violated in 31 of the 78 contracts sampled by the IG.

The Affordability of Defense Contractor CEOs

There has been a lot of talk about what America will be able to afford in the coming years. And yet for the last decade, the Pentagon has received a blank check for all kinds of pricey, and often ineffective, weapons systems too often designed to fight enemies we don't have.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and many top defense contractor CEOs have said we can't afford the 10 percent budget cut to the Pentagon that would come with sequestration. Some defense contractor CEOs are arguing that sequestration will cause massive job losses, even though history doesn't support that conclusion.

On October 1, Wes Bush, CEO of top defense contractor Northrop Grumman, sent an email to Northrop employees asking them to oppose the sequestration cuts and to personally contact their representatives.

Bush closed the email by saying, "In this time of tremendous uncertainty, our customers will need to make difficult decisions—decisions influenced by how they view those who are producing the capabilities and services they seek and require. Ultimately, program performance and affordability are the drivers of these customer perspectives."

Since the U.S. taxpayer is Northrop's largest customer, it's worth noting that as Bush talks of affordability, he received $26.2 million in total compensation in 2011. That's more than the CEOs of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or Raytheon, though the crown for highest compensated defense CEO goes to David Cote of Honeywell, who raked in $35.7 million last year.