It seems government agencies have allowed private contractors to gorge on the taxpayers like tics on a dog. No wonder our national debt is nearing $9 trillion.
Yesterday, three Washington Post articles spotlighted problems with government contracting. One discusses prominent contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, which got a $2 million, no-bid, Homeland Security Department contract in 2003; by December 2004, payments to Booz exceeded $30 million and ultimately climbed to $124 million (Washington Post).
Why so costly? Partly because Booz charges twice as much for contract employees ($42 - $383 per hour) than government employees typically earn. Partly because the government failed to hire enough employees to monitor the contractors.
Government officials possessing even minimal math skills know that private companies cost more, because they charge the taxpayers for workers' salaries and for profits thereon. They're also aware of voluminous data on contractor waste and fraud suits (read about defense and healthcare contractors).
Another Washington Post article cited a congressional report, stating ...
that of the $412 billion we taxpayers spent on government contracts last year, $206 billion went to contractors that did not face the full, open-bidding process.
Yet another Washington Post article reported that former Halliburton subsidiary KBR got an Army contract to provide goods and services to troops in the Middle East that is "worth up to $5 billion a year and can be extended for up to nine more years"-- despite evidence of KBR's long history of facing waste and fraud investigations.
Less than a week ago, BNP discussed a recent KBR audit by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which showed that:
"KBR created a flawed database indicating more fuel had been sent to generators than the generators could hold, refused to give details on claimed costs, and gave employees better housing than military officers had."
In 2004, the Wall Street Journal reported that KBR overcharged U.S. taxpayers $16 million on meals for troops in Kuwait. (AP/Fox) A 2003 Pentagon audit suggests that KBR overcharged the taxpayers $61 million when importing gasoline from Kuwait into Iraq (CNN). Senate testimony indidcates that KBR charged the taxpayers $7,500 a month to lease employee SUVs (Hearing transcript).
A former company auditor reported that KBR made no effort to hold down costs, because costs were passed on to the faceless taxpayers. The auditor documented "alleged waste even on routine services: [e.g.,] $50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case; $1 million a month to clean clothes — or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry." (MSNBC)
That's just KBR's Iraq-related contracts. In 2002, before the Iraq war, KBR paid $2 million to settle a Justice Department suit alleging the company had defrauded the government during work at California's Fort Ord military base back in the ‘90s (CorpWatch).
In 2000, GAO auditors found evidence that KBR had inflated costs by over-staffing work crews and providing more goods and services than necessary; in 1997, the GAO found problems with a KBR contract for Army services in the Balkans. (Congressional fact sheet)
The list of sins goes on and on, yet the government keeps giving KBR contracts. It's like giving a burglar your house keys and itinerary before flying to Key West.
Army officials said that KBR was chosen for this latest contract based on its "management, past performance, price, and technical abilities" (WaPo). I'm at a lost for words about that explanation.
The three Post articles reveal a possibly enormous wasting of tax dollars, as well as the questionable awarding, performance, and monitoring of government contracts. I hope Congress continues investigating these problems until it finds the truth and some solid solutions.
See what others are saying:
Military Industrial Complex is Fat and Happy (Armchair Generalist)
No Bid = No Accountability (Donklephant)
Making Rain: Davis and Devolites.... (Raising Kaine)
Who Are the Real Looters? (African American Opinion Blog)
The Real Deal on DHS No-Bid Deal (Fed Blog)
Comments