Feral Jundi

Friday, June 18, 2010

Jundism: War Zone Corruption Allegations Up Sharply

     In Iraq, investigators have opened 67 fraud cases this year, compared with 69 for all of 2009, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). In Afghanistan, it’s 42 cases this year vs. four last year.

     Stuart Bowen, who heads SIGIR, says more tipsters are coming forward. “Some of these people have come back to the States, so they’re out of the threat zone,” he says. “Perhaps what they saw is gnawing at their conscience.” 

*****

     To me, this is great news.  It indicates to me that there is finally a connection between the guy on the ground and the folks tasked with investigating this stuff. That means guys and gals are talking and sending in tips because ‘they have the courage to do what is right‘ and the IG is acting on it. So bravo to you folks out there that are sticking it to these shady people and companies that think they can get away with this stuff.

     It also indicates that there are finally more investigators out there to actually investigate these tips.(contractors have been submitting stuff for awhile now) Although the government and tax payers would have been better served if they would have focused on this in the beginning of the war. Arguably, things would have been less screwed up if they had this manpower in the first place and it is a shame it has gone on this long like it has. The lesson to me, is you must have the necessary manpower and sound leadership in place to expand and contract with the dollars/stuff/people going in and out of war zones. Flexible and scaleable oversight is crucial. This kind of oversight is necessary not only for ensuring the tax payer gets a good value for their money, but that the actions of contractors or military folks does not negatively impact the war time strategy with their actions.

     That last part I cannot stress enough.  With today’s 24/7 media, the internet, blogs, cameras in smart phones, social media, etc., it is almost impossible to operate out of the public’s view. That means when a company screws up or does something it should not have done, the whole world ends up finding out about it.  And then whatever program and strategy that company was a part of in the war, is now threatened by that company who chose the wrong path. That is unacceptable in my view.

     Plus, I just love seeing shady companies/managers/individuals who screw over their fellow contractors or the government, get the heat. So keep sending in those tips to the IG, because what you have to say matters. It is an easy way to keep a company honest and on their toes. And maybe, just maybe, companies will actually start listening to their people and taking care of these problems or wrongdoing before they make their way to Youtube or the desk of the IG.

     Now one tip that I would like to present to the IG, if any of those guys are listening, is that you should also make an effort to connect with the ‘non-english’ writing, or computer illiterate contractors.  An Iraqi or Afghani contractor should have the means of connecting with you, because those folks see all sorts of wrong doings within their companies. The hordes of TCN’s from all over the world who are working on the bases, are in the same boat as well, and there should be an effort to reach out to them.  Perhaps a multi-language tip submit program involving anonymous call ins could be implemented there, because speaking a grievance would probably be better than them writing it.  Plus they could do it anonymously from the convenience of their phone. Interpreters could then translate the message and investigators can go from there.

     Also, there needs to be some pressure on the companies involved with TWISS.  I am getting lots of emails from expats and Ugandans about how screwed up that program is. And because this is an LPTA (lowest price, technically acceptable) program, the companies have all been racing to the bottom to out bid the other guy.  As a result, you have the lowest paid expats in the industry supervising poorly vetted Ugandans or whatever TCN group, and that dynamic does not promote a well running machine.  If anything, expats could care less about doing a good job, and those individuals only look at the job as a stepping stone to go onto something else. Most contractors involved with TWISS that I have talked with couldn’t wait to get out of that contract.

     LPTA does not work, it is a race to the bottom, and eventually LPTA is going to hurt the wartime strategy. The vetting of TCN guard forces like Ugandans is poor as well, and I place the blame on companies who are more concerned with cutting costs to outbid the other guy. They will say things like ‘that was the job of the training company we use in Uganda, and we had no part in that’ or ‘well company X in Uganda said they were good to go’.  Pffft. Meanwhile they man posts in Iraq with folks who are ill or cannot shoot a weapon or whatever, all because the vetting process is ‘technically acceptable’ and ‘lowest cost’. And why would US companies spend the money on this if they didn’t have to?

     It is a ‘race to the bottom’, and the government thinks this is a good idea. Wait until a poorly supervised or poorly vetted Ugandan kills some civilian or soldier, or fails at performing the duties of their post? That is not to say that there are not squared away expats or Ugandans in this program. But it is the program itself and the contracting vehicle that supports it, lends itself to such a screwed up set of circumstances. If the IG wanted a program to investigate, TWISS and the pathetic results of LPTA would be a good one to focus on. –Matt

Edit: 06/21/2010 -Doug Wethington from DCIS just responded in the comments below, and I wanted to put his information in an edit. Here is the important part:

I can also tell you we activity seek “non-English” sources of information for the reasons you site. We know these folks have valuable information and we try diligently to get the word out that we are interested in hearing what they have to say. I welcome any suggestions that will assist us with those efforts. We also welcome email tips, in whatever language, to:   icctf@iraq.centcom.mil

Forgot to add, the only phone number we currently have where a recording could be left and tranlation accomplished is the Defense hotline at 800-424-9098. I will take your suggestion and see if we can get a dedicated line with a recorder to receive complaints in country. Thanks for the advise.v/r

Douglas Wethington, Regional Director of Investigations, DCIS

——————————————————————

War zone corruption allegations up sharply 

By Aamer Madhani

June 17, 2010

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government, which is pressing Iraqi and Afghan leaders to get tough on internal corruption, is doing the same in its ranks.

Cases of suspected fraud and other wrongdoing by U.S. troops and contractors overseeing reconstruction and relief projects in Iraq and Afghanistan are up dramatically.

James Burch, the Defense Department’s deputy inspector general for investigations, says his agency is investigating 223 cases — 18% more than a year ago.

Investigators have charged an Army officer with pocketing cash meant to pay Iraqi civilian militiamen, contractors offering an Army officer $1 million for the inside track on a road project in Afghanistan, and three contractors for an alleged conspiracy to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fuel from a U.S. base in Baghdad.

Army Maj. John Cockerham was sentenced in December to 17½ years in prison for accepting $9 million in bribes for contracts to sell water and other supplies to the U.S. military.

(more…)

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Industry Talk: Best Value Versus Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

Brooks further noted that IPOA believes it is unwise to require cost to be considered the ultimate driver in federal procurement, for doing so simply creates a “race to the bottom” where other qualifications are not given due consideration. “We believe that the proposed amendment will result in more contract defaults, poor performance and an overall decrease in the quality of goods and services provided to the services.”

*****

Interesting debate. Doug took the side of the Commission on Wartime Contracting, and POGO is doing their own thing. My thoughts on it all is who wants the lowest bidder protecting them in a war zone? I mean if you were to look at what happened with AGNA in Kabul, or what I call the Kabul Fiasco, that is a prime example of how lowest bidder contracting does not work. In that ‘race to the bottom’, AGNA sure did win that contract, but they also created an impossible environment for their guard force to operate in.( I will spare you the party photos)

I also put in this post, what POGO thought about best value, and why they support the LPTAO(Lowest-Price Technically Acceptable Offer). They think that if the government would have specified what they thought was technically acceptable in the contract, that the Kabul Fiasco could have been avoided in the first place. I think they make an excellent point as well, but yet again, I refer to the common saying ‘you get what you pay for’. I would ask Danielle over at POGO if she would like to be protected by the lowest bidder in a war zone? Would you want the best protecting you, or would you want what was technically acceptable? Do you want the best doctor for the money, or do you want a doctor who is cheap and barely got through medical school-but can still practice medicine?

Plus, when you put the responsibility of deciding what is technically acceptable in the hands of individuals who are being pressured by their management or politics, to reduce cost, what is the limit to what is technically acceptable in their view? Of course you don’t want to overspend for a task, but when there is an environment/culture in government to only seek the cheapest price for a task and not consider other factors, I think that could lead to some serious problems.

Another example of how LPTAO sucks, is the TWISS contracts. Someone in the chain of contracting command, determined what is technically acceptable in regards to the guard force protecting troops under TWISS. What that process has produced is Ugandans or Kenyans standing guard at the gates of FOBs, who are getting paid peanuts and receive minimum training or vetting. All because the government has deemed that the companies supplying these troops are authorized to do so. If you talk to contractors who have worked this contract, they will tell you how incredibly screwed up it is.(the management will tell you it is a glowing success, go figure. lol) But it is all technically acceptable to the powers that be to allow the companies to run the TWISS stuff that way, and the companies keep ‘racing to the bottom’ to win that contract. (I get more emails from guys and gals who are just pissed off about how poor of a contract TWISS is–more than the Kabul embassy contract)

Overall, we should contract these services with a number of factors in mind. Past performance should count, as does cost. Experience in protecting people, and having the technical ability to do so is another. We should pick the best value companies for dangerous war zone duty, much like a patient would pick a doctor for their life saving diagnosis and care. I do think lowest bidder works for some contracts, like leaf raking or sweeping up a garage–stuff where lives are not on the line. But for protecting people in highly complex and dangerous war zones, where lives and government reputation is on the line, you probably want a system of contracting in place in which the government gets the best forces they can get for the money. That’s if they care about the protection of their reputation and people out there?

The government should also focus on getting plenty of competent contracting officers who can managing these contracts, to ensure that the government continues to get a good deal. Unfortunately, the government has been applying lowest bidder mindset to their contracting officer corps, in the form of not paying enough for that job, and not doing the things necessary to build up and strengthen that essential tool of government contracting. –Matt

—————————————————————–

IPOA Opposes IMPROVE Act Amendment to End Best Value Competitions

Stability Operations Trade Association Advocates For Use of “Best Value” in Defense Procurement

WASHINGTON-On April 27, 2010, IPOA, the Association of the Stability Operations Industry, sent a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Members of the House Armed Services Committee urging them to oppose a proposed amendment to H.R. 5013 – Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Act of 2010). The association asked the congressional leaders to reject an amendment entitled “Requirement that Cost or Price to the Federal Government Be Given at Least Equal Importance as Technical or Other Criteria in Evaluating Competitive Proposals for Defense Contracts.” IPOA fully supports the IMPROVE Act’s goal of more efficiently procuring services to support the Department of Defense. However, the amendment would effectively hamstring the ability of contracting officers to use discretion in awarding contracts and sets the stage for compulsory acceptance of the cheapest offer, minimizing other factors such as experience, quality or past performance.

“Lowest-price security not good enough for war-zone embassies”

IPOA cited an October 1, 2009 report from the Commission on Wartime Contracting entitled “Lowest-price security not good enough for war-zone embassies,” in which the Commission noted the dangers of focusing on price as the determinative factor when selecting contractors for the Department of State. The Commission noted that statutory requirements to select the lowest price can do more harm than good. In fact, the Commission recommended that the provision be eliminated and that the Department of State be given the flexibility to use a best value award process. The House amendment currently under consideration would move the Department of Defense closer to a statutory “low price” award scheme and would go against the clear recommendation of the Commission.

“Forcing the government to contract essential services on the cheap is not a recipe for success,” said Doug Brooks, IPOA President, “if we’ve learned anything over the past nine years it is that cutting corners on oversight or quality in contracting can have dire consequences.” Brooks noted that IPOA supports the concept of “best value” in federal procurements and believes the amendment’s “one size fits all” approach is ill advised.

Brooks further noted that IPOA believes it is unwise to require cost to be considered the ultimate driver in federal procurement, for doing so simply creates a “race to the bottom” where other qualifications are not given due consideration. “We believe that the proposed amendment will result in more contract defaults, poor performance and an overall decrease in the quality of goods and services provided to the services.”

IPOA was founded in 2001 to reflect a clear recognition that the private sector can play a larger, more cost-effective role in fundamentally improving peace and stability operations worldwide. With more than 60 members, IPOA is the leading voice of the stability operations industry.

Story here.

——————————————————————

CWC Findings on Embassy Guards Fiasco Amount to “Blame Shifting”

Oct 06, 2009

On October 1st, the Commission on War Time Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (CWC) issued a Special Report. Entitled “Lowest-priced security not good enough for war-zone embassies,” the report places most of the blame for the recent fiasco involving the work of ArmorGroup North America at the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, on the use of a negotiated procurement source selection technique known as “lowest-price technically acceptable offer” (LPTAO).

Powered by WordPress