crossposted from
unbossed
Maybe it's better not to check out GAO's latest reports. Better in terms of sleeping more securely because you have been lulled into a false sense of security. A new GAO report shows how the Administration's depletion of our military coupled with an unbridled faith in the magic of the market leaves us ever more insecure.
Please stop banging your head on the wall. It annoys the neighbors.
The title of its new report -
Contract Security Guards: Army's Guard Program Requires Greater Oversight and Reassessment of Acquisition Approach, GAO-06-284 (April 3, 2006) - is far too mild.
Here is what that measured language really means. The report begins:
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, increased security requirements and a significant number of active duty and reserve personnel sent overseas to support the war on terror left the Department of Defense (DOD) with fewer military personnel to rely on to protect domestic installations. To correct this shortage,
If you were - logically - expecting it to say that all efforts were made to ensure we had secure military bases, you have not been living in the reality-based community in which the rest of us are forced to hang out.
Here's what actually happened:
Private security guards were hired to fulfill roles previously performed by military employees. Yes, $733 million has been paid to hire rent-a-guards to guard 57 Army installations. And that's just the Army.
To produce its report, GAO asked the Army (1) what their strategy was to find these guard services; (2) how they screened employees; (3) how they trained the conract guards, and (4) how they awarded fees.
The Army said that it used mainly sole-source contracts - even though the Army knew from the start that "it was paying considerably more for its sole-source contracts than for those awarded competitively." Most of the Army's installations are being guarded by these no-bid guards as opposed to those that were awarded based on best proposal.
Remember that these proposals are supposed to include more than price. They should include performance history and other factors relevant to performing the job.
What was the result? The contracts that were awarded after competition cost 25 percent less than the sole-source contracts, and yet the Army continued to use sole-sourcing. The GAO also found that contracts awarded by following the GSA bidding processes could be awarded as quickly and for less cost.
Remember also - Your tax dollars are buying this. And it is your security that is at stake.
But it gets worse.
"During initial planning, the Army worked with a contractor who had not performed guard services before to refine the contract performance work statement."
Given all this, it may be hard to believe, but the GAO found that the Army's screening process was inadequate and was putting the Army at risk. If that is not clear enough, GAO says the Army has ineligible guards protecting our Army's installation's gates.
Ineligible guards is a polite way of saying "very bad people":
[A]t two separate installations, a total of 89 guards were put to work even though they had records relating to criminal offenses, including cases that involved assault and other felonies. Thorough background checks lag far behind the rate at which contract guards are put to work, and the initial screening process relies on prospective guards to be honest when filling out job application forms.
But, wait, there's more.
Awhile back, GAO found problems with the trustworthiness of DOD contractors. Dod promised GAO that it would put better standards in place and would verify the trustworthiness of its contractors.
So what has happened?
The Army has given its contractors the responsibility to conduct most of the training of contract guards, and the Army cannot say with certainty whether training is actually taking place and whether it is being conducted according to approved criteria.
and worse
Here are key findings from the report, separated out for easier reading and time to come up for air.
GAO found that there is no requirement for the Army to certify that a contract guard has completed required training and that Army performance monitors do not conduct oversight of training as a matter of course.
GAO also found missing or incomplete training records at several installations.
At three installations, guards were certified by the contractor before training had been completed.
An investigation discovered that at one installation, contractor personnel had falsified training records. And despite this discovery, the Army went ahead and paid the contractor over $7,000 to re-qualify the guards.
The Army has paid out more than $18 million in award fees. These are supposed to be paid out only for exemplary performance and to promote high quality performance. Instead, the Army is paying the fees to every contractor that complies with only basic contractual requirements. So far the Army has paid out almost 98% of the available award fees. As a result, contractors assume they will receive the award money regardless of performance.
Given this, it should be no surprise that GAO found that Army performance monitors were not really monitoring or rating contactor performance to ensure they were fulfilling the requirements of their contracts. Why waste money monitoring them when the contractors get paid just for showing up . . . and maybe not even that?
Who are these contractors?
You have to wonder why the Army would be run this way - contracting out to contractors with no experience - doing this in an area of critical importance to national security - being poor stewards of our tax dollars. This all seems to fit a pattern similar to that of Halliburton in Iraq.
So just what is it about these contractors that makes them so attractive to the Army? The contractors are not Halliburton. The contractors are two Alaskan Native Corporations (ANC). They have received contracts that total roughly $2.2 billion. In addition to the work at military bases, they are performing other security work such as maintaining scanning machines at borders and supporting the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).
There is nothing unique about giving no-bid contracts to ANCs. It has been going on for years.
Why ANCs?
Alaska Native Corporations are big businessthese days but not because they are out there competing based on quality. What they do have is a special legal status that means they are not limited by a $3 million cap on no bid contracts. Cost benefit studies required for other bids are not required for ANC contracts. Amazingly enough, ANCs do not even need to be run by Alaskans. They can act as fronts, funneling much of the work through subcontractors. link
Would it then surprise you that these ANCs had little previous experience with security services? And would it surprise you that the work they subcontracted went to Wackenhut Services Inc. and Vance Federal Security Services? link
So once again this Administration demonstrates that it just loves minorities - in their proper place - which is funneling money into the hands of Republicans and their fellow travelers.
Conclusion
So, this is the sad state of the institutions that are supposed to be strong and protecting us. Instead, they themselves are vulnerable and open to attack. In short, the administration that uses 9-11 as its mantrum, chanted at every difficult point, has left us ever more insecure and vulnerable.
OK. I hear you. The pain won't stop. So I will. But you gluttons for punishment can read the full report for yourself here.