« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
War: it's not a time for strict accounting.
USA Today conducted a Freedom of Information Act review of Pentagon contracting in the Iraq war. The paper found that, through October, more than two-thirds of contracts flagged by auditors as "inflated, erroneous or otherwise improper" eventually found their way to approval, representing over $1 billion. In total, auditors have raised red flags about 10 percent of contracts for about $38.5 billion in bidded-out Iraq funds.
Sometimes the overruns are legit, say contracting officials:
Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for the Army office overseeing the largest contract in Iraq, said payments of questioned costs often happen when the contractor provides evidence justifying the spending."Sometimes the contractor is able to provide additional information or rationale to convince the contracting officer to include the cost in the estimate, and sometimes they do not," Theis wrote in an e-mail to USA TODAY.
Contracting officers often gave more weight to companies' justifications for costs in Iraq because they were operating in a war zone, the head of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), William Reed, testified at a congressional hearing in February. "I am satisfied they are fairly considering our recommendations," Reed said of Pentagon contract managers.
Special cases can certainly arise, like with, say, vehicle armor for U.S. troops, which is widely recognized as an urgent need. (As several readers pointed out about this post of mine last week on a DOD IG report criticizing armor-kit providers.) But these are for reconstruction contracts -- and there's not a whole lot of actual reconstruction going on anymore in Iraq. USA Today doesn't itemize the sketchy contracts, so it's hard to evaluate any mitigating claim for fast-tracking bids that might bilk the taxpayer.
A last bit of context. According to the paper, two-thirds of these flagged contracts for Iraq eventually won approval. That compares with 44 percent of flagged Pentagon contracts that didn't have to do with the war in 2005. If that's a representative sample of normal DOD procurement practices, why isn't that a scandal?
Comments (14)
Steve5117 wrote on July 17, 2007 9:22 AM:Of course it's a scandal, however all reports have been classified and stored in one of the man-sized safes in the Veep's office!
Steve5117 wrote on July 17, 2007 9:45 AM:I know a woman whose son is a vehicle mechanic somewhere north of Bagdad. She received a call from her son who wanted her to purchase a welding helmet with self darkening glass and send it to him, ASAP.
He has been welding armour kits on vehicles and wanted to avoid having to raise his shield and thus save time, allowing him to install the kits faster. The day I spoke to her, her son was scheduled to go on a recovery mission to retrieve disabled vehicles. They do that at night, just like the repo guys here, because it is safer (less visibe target to a sniper).
I wonder why the Army doesn't supply welding helmets with self-darkening glass? Could the reason be that the company that makes the self-darkening glass helmet hasn't any politicans on their payroll?
ScrewBush43 wrote on July 17, 2007 10:12 AM:You call it a war, BushCo calls it an "opportunity". Pick up a brochure at the door, watch the presentation, and learn how to grow your bottom line while enriching the Republican party.
I'm so glad we have a truly Christian President, he's so much more Christian than all of the other Christian Presidents we've had.
Aaron G. Stock wrote on July 17, 2007 10:20 AM:All this waste and corruption is absolutely necessary in "a time of war." Or so I don't hear anyone defending Bush EVER saying.
I mean, which government would ever investigate such wasteful spending in "a time of war"? Oh... yeah, that's right... the U.S. government would, during WWII, for example.
jeffgee wrote on July 17, 2007 10:36 AM:But Bush is making sure that sCHIP doesn't get funded. He's heroically protecting the taxpayers from those 8 million slacker children who couldn't pick parents with more financial resources and health insurance.
raincntry wrote on July 17, 2007 11:32 AM:It seems the only thing that has gone according to plan in Iraq is the speed and amount of taxpayer dollars spent on contractors. Kind of makes one wonder why we went in in the first place....
numi wrote on July 17, 2007 11:42 AM:This entire Iraq adventure has been all about the looting of the Treasury (taxpayers money) by Bush and his corporate cronies. Oh, and the oil.
Nothing more than the logical next step on the road to fascist Republicanism.
All hail Dear Leader!
Anonymous wrote on July 17, 2007 12:29 PM:This sentence isn't correct: "convince the contracting officer to include the cost in the _estimate_".
Contracting officers, when they deal with _payments_ are not dealing with _cost estimates_ but with _actual payments_. Cost estimates are a budget figure going forward related to an estimate; costs are reimbursed; estimates are part of panning; actuals are what really happened.
- Why is the contracting community using "estimates" in bills, and not "actuals"?
- How much "estimating" is done On 'actuals' submitted to the Finance Accounting System?
- How far after funds are expended does DoD allow for upward/downward revisions of the "estimates" for purposes of ensuring the final payments are reconciled [months]
- How do the actuals differ from the budgt baseline: Are the funds for theoverruns covered by internal reprogramming within the budget line; or does Congress have to approve a supplemental?
- How are the above cost overruns handled within the "Anti-Deficiency Act": Are there issues with overruns where contractors are spending more money than legally permitted?
chabuka wrote on July 17, 2007 12:35 PM:so the snake head swallows its tail....have to have more and more war..bigger and better to support its self....quite a racket
Wyncia Clute wrote on July 17, 2007 1:20 PM:Well, can't we make up for some necessary lax diligence in funding war by cracking down on those who cheat social welfare programs and small business tax defrauds and cutting on health care for children?
Wyncia Clute wrote on July 17, 2007 1:23 PM:Well, can't we make up for some necessary lax diligence in funding war by cracking down on those who cheat social welfare programs and small business tax defrauds and cutting on health care for children?
Astilbe wrote on July 17, 2007 1:36 PM:Yes, Chabuka, all that expensive equipment. Just sitting there with nothing to do but play 'war' games. How do you justify the excessive cost? You MUST have a war to justify the existence of a massive MIC. What a scam.
Inca Garcilaso de la Vega wrote on July 17, 2007 2:41 PM:The mismanagement and cost overruns reported in the article may very well shed some light into Tony Snow's earlier remark -- "You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August."
Obviously, little must have been done with the billions of dollars earmarked for re-building the country's electrical infrastructure that even essential buildings within the Green Zone cannot reliably, if at all, run air conditioners.
Inca Garcilaso de la Vega wrote on July 17, 2007 2:42 PM:The mismanagement and cost overruns reported in the article may very well shed some light into Tony Snow's earlier remark -- "You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August."
Obviously, little must have been done with the billions of dollars earmarked for re-building the country's electrical infrastructure that even essential buildings within the Green Zone cannot reliably, if at all, run air conditioners.