February 21st, 2008 | | Posted in Uncategorized
Just as I am hard against those who feel that dumping money into social programs that do not work, I am the same way with those feel that one’s patriotism is questionable when questions are raised concerning the out of control spending for the current war in the middle east. When I came across the following website yesterday, I was not at all surprised about the massive amount of spending on non-governmental contract work funded by us taxpayers. Anybody who has ever contracted with government here in the states like I have know just how easy it is to get over. This is why the competition for government contracts can be so competitive.
From the website ‘followthemoneyproject.com’
Follow the Money Project
The Follow the Money Project is sponsored by the Bauman & Rasor Group, a consulting group that works with whistleblowers to file qui tam False Claims Act lawsuits. The Bauman & Rasor Group’s website is www.quitam.com .
The Follow the Money Project is investigating where the money appropriated for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is going — especially money that should be going to the Troops.
Dina Rasor is the Director and Chief Investigator for this project. Ms. Rasor has been investigating military procurement fraud and waste for over 25 years. In 1981, she founded the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) which investigates government fraud and works with whistleblowers. She still serves as POGO’s treasurer and board member. She is a partner in the Bauman & Rasor Group. For a complete biography on Dina Rasor, click here.
Robert Bauman is Associate Director and an investigator with the Follow the Money Project. He was a career investigator with the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. He is also is a partner in the Bauman & Rasor Group.
Here are just a few excerpts from Dina Rasor and Robert Bauman’s testimony last month
as they appeared in front of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
=========
The Achilles’ Heel of Contractors in a Hostile Zone
Before the war started, the DOD was on a course of contracting out work at a higher rate than seen in the past. This caused alarm in some of the oversight organizations, such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the DOD Inspector General. Both of these organizations wrote reports about their concerns of using contractors in hostile areas. The Army was warned about the dangers of using contractors in a hostile area.
A 1991 DOD Inspector General[1] Report warned about the problems that the services could have if the contractors would leave or not work in emergency situations. This report says that the problem was exposed in a 1988 DOD Inspector General report but firm plans had not been established. The report also warned that a DOD instruction written in 1990 (updated in 1996) was not being followed.Section 4.4 of that instruction states:
For situations where the cognizant DoD Component Commander has a reasonable doubt about the continuation of essential services during crisis situations by the incumbent contractor, the Commander shall prepare a contingency plan for obtaining the essential service from alternate sources (military, DOD civilian, host-nation, other contractor(s)).
At the beginning of the war, in June 2003, the Government Accountability Office warned in a report that the commanders did not have back up plans, as required in the instruction above, on what to do if the contractors did not stay in a hostile area.
One of the soldiers that we profiled in our book is Perry Jefferies, who is sitting at this panel today. I would urge you to listen carefully to his story and read his full testimony. Here was an experienced military man who was in charge of logistics for 1800+ men in the desert during and after the war and his story graphically illustrates what happens to our troops when the contractor is unwilling to go “beyond the wire” to serve troops.
According to KBR’s LOGCAP Statement of Work (SOW), CJTF-7, 14 Nov 2004, the company was supposed to go within 100 kilometers of a base to supply the troops. According to another LOGCAP SOW, DAAA09-02-D-0007, Task Order 89.00, 10 APR 2005, water and other supplies were to be distributed as far as 250 kilometer to 400 kilometers from designed bases. Yet we have received many emails and letters from troops letting us know how much trouble they had getting even the most basic supplies during this period. Our book is full of examples where the contractor would not take the risk and leave the bases. We call it the “just say no” problem of using contractors for vital supplies on the battlefield. .
[snip]
We see this as the Achilles’ heel in using contractors in a hostile zone. The contractors can refuse to do some or all of the work in a task order and the commander does not have immediate ways to solve the problem, only protracted civil administrative and legal remedies. A contractor employee has the right to quit on the spot, even on the battlefield, and go home. Both of these actions, especially when the contractor is in charge of vital logistics, can greatly put the troops and mission in danger. In other words, the contractor and his employee can just say no.
These contractors and their employees have replaced troops who did not have that option. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was designed to prevent troops from quitting the battlefield or hostile areas. No matter how patriotic our troops and commanders may be, we are asking them to do something that is directly against their self interest. When they take an oath to the Armed Services, they place themselves under the UCMJ and give up some rights. This is needed on the battlefield. If a soldier refuses to do a job under a lawful order, he can be jailed and court-martialed. If a soldier decides that he doesn’t want any more of the war and leaves, he can be jailed and charged with desertion. If a commander is not doing his job or refuses to do some of his job, he can immediately be relieved of command and court-martialed. This is the type of action that you need on the battlefield or hostile areas because the troops’ lives depend on it. It doesn’t work when you put civilian contractors in the same role in hostile areas and you don’t have the same law to make them do the work.
[snip]
According to an excellent report recently published by the Center for Public Integrity, “U.S. government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan have grown more than 50 percent annually, from $11 billion in 2004 to almost $17 billion in 2005 and more than $25 billion in 2006.”
(more from the report)
============
What gets me about all of this is that many of these services being performed by contractors used to all be performed by the military. Tasks like driving supply trucks in a war zone should not be contracted out to someone who can call out sick.
On the flip side, there are those that will use this information as yet another reason why we should not be over there in the first place. That is where I part ways with that crowd as the overall mission to fight against terrorism I still support. Now that the surge appears to have worked (something that many critics fail to acknowledge), the task now is to bring stability to that region (which according to Michael Yon–embedded independent reporter and former Green Beret), we are making huge gains in that department as well.
I have come to the conclusion that government is simply too big to seriously audit itself. Yet we continue vote for more of it.