« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Who Watches Contractor-Held Property at State Dept? No One!
Back to our Afghanistan-contractors document for a minute. How could it be that the State Department could effectively lose $28 million worth of cars, guns, radios, computers, generators, and other not-easy-to-lose items? Probably because State doesn't devote people to making sure the stuff is where the contractors say it is, in violation of federal regulations. From the State Department Inspector General:
[Federal Acquisition Regulation] assigns certain responsibilities, such as reviewing contractors' property control systems and approving the type and frequency of physical inventories, to the [contracting officer] or "the representative assigned the responsibility as a property administrator." However, the Department had not appointed a property administrator for these contracts, and Department officials indicated that it was not the Department's practice to do so. ...As of September 30, 2006, according to the Department, contractors held capitalized government property with a total cost of about $144 million and a net book value of almost $49 million. Although the Department has not appointed property administrators in the past, [the Office of the Inspector General] concluded that contractor-held property has reached such a level that the amount of oversight necessary cannot be met effectively by the Department's existing property administration structure and recommends the following.
The federal government uses many acronyms. Unfortunately, WTF isn't one of them.
Josh
Zachary
So, once again Condi is in the position of saying: "No one tasked me with anything?"
December 28, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rice is either swimming in Euros or wears the largest pair of blinders made by God.
December 28, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone walked off with an embassy yet? Because that's about what they're asking for: someone to come in and remove one completely.
Businesses couldn't get away with this kind of sloppiness: their directors - and the shareholders - would be after heads fromt he corner offices.
(WTF _should_ be in government's vocabulary, after the last several years.)
December 28, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is capitalizing BLACKWATER?
December 28, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, this doesn't happen by accident. When a department fails to oversee the use and storage of capital property, there's one reason and one reason only - so it can be stolen. And someone high up the chain has to sign off on it.
December 28, 2007 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A congress that was really serious about oversight would require every department of the Federal government to account for every penny and asset in its budget, before dolling out more money to fund its operations. Why wouldn't this be the normal mode of operation?
December 28, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not fair. Condi knows where that stuff went. She's making sure that the Republican bitness partners are getting their money's worth.
December 28, 2007 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the book 'Charlie Wilson's War' you would know that this isn't really anything new. I haven't seen the movie, but all through the book, Wilson and others are sending tons of money to Pakistan with absolutley no accounting.
Mainly during the Reagan years, but not all of it was under his administration.
It's incredible, I am truly astonished at what these guys pulled off. Our tax dollars at work.
It's really the story of how the US armed the Afhgan people for YEARS to fight the USSR.
Of course we know the blowback is what we are dealing with now.
December 28, 2007 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, speaking of Charlie Wilson's War, didn't the Pakistanis essentially get the bomb as a by product of letting the Americans use Pakistan as a staging area for transfering arms to the Afganistani Freedom Fighters?
December 28, 2007 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pakistan developed nuclear weapons technology in response to the perceived threat from India before the Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan began in 1979 and the USA assisted arming of the resistance there later; not that it really matters any more but that resistance was not exclusively mujahideen.
The development of nuclear weapon technology by Pakistan was initiated by Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1972 w/ the first implosion design of a nuclear weapon demonstrated in 1978. It was alleged that China was involved in the development of that capability and this seems quite plausible given China's stance toward India at the time.
It seems unlikely the USA was involved in the Pakistan nuclear program during that period nor would it seem necessary as a precondition to trade in arms to Afghanistan given long traditions of smuggling and baksheesh as well as general official corruption along the likely trade routes.
Less OT but not by much, the lax supervision of contractors and loss of material by State is no surprise, representing as it does the US version of traditions noted above. What is perhaps different is the arrogance and lack of grace displayed in the current articulation of the US version typical during the Dubya Bush administration.
December 28, 2007 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are the auditors, people associated with AICPA on this?
Also, contrary to some assertions -- that SAS99 "only" applies to securities; they are not -- SAS99 applies to all audits, and is a standard to evaluate performance audits: Whether the audit scope needs to be increased.
Applying SAS99 to the DoD-State Dept Audits in re Afghanistan:
- What are the State/DoD IG explanations for not using the SAS99 as a basis to increase audit scope?
- How was audit scope increased/not increased after indicators mentioned in SAS99 were mentioned?
- What is the plan of the AICPA to review the credentials of the auditors/reporting system in re DoD-State-GAO in auditing oversight, and evaluation of government audits?
Time to get the AICPA to provide some leadership; or get them to explain why they apparently -- despite many SAS99 indicators -- failed to make a public opinion, or call for Congress to conduct some fact finding.
The argument "We stay out of politics" isn't relevant when discussion professional obligations to publicly remove oneself from a problematic institution, audit, or other engagement.
- What evidence does the AICPA have, given these financial-management-issues in DoD?State, that they've exercised all professional obligations expected of AICPA professionals?
Burden is on AICPA to provide confidence that they are providing leadership.
Then need to review with the State-level certification boards that review the auditor-compliance: Have the states launched appropriate investigations into AICPA-associated CPAs and auditors?
- Have the state level auditing review boards considered the scope of accounting/auditing problems in the IG sytem?
- Has AICPA appropriately provided leadership?
- Have the state-level organizations which relugate the specific auditors working for State, GAO, and DoD been approprately engaged?
- What is the plan of the state-level auditors to review the performance of the auditors in State-DoD-DoJ as they relate to compliance with Genvea, the FAR, and other standards regulating expenditure, conduct, and oversight during war time?
December 29, 2007 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If someone is going to say that there was no one overseeing these contracts, what role did the DoD DCMO have in reviewing State-lreated contractos as they supported DoD-operations?
Is the DCMO and DCAA [Defense Contract Audit Agency] saying they did not work with anyone in state to gather evidence?
Where are the contractor auditors which work for DoD: Does DCAA/DCMO say that they knew of problems with oversight, but have not mentioned this to Congress in any audit report?
IS there no cabinet-level cross flow of information between the STate Department and DoD?
What's been going on with DoJ-FBI investigations into alleged contracting issues that connect with either State or DoD: No DoJ sharing of allegations of fraudulent conduct; or is there something going on with the US Atty declinations of these cases?
Time for Judiciary Committee to ask the FBI for the 302s of interviews done on State-DoD employees/contractors who have been reporting information to law enforcement, or other investigative agencies.
Or is the IG saying it didn't bother to read the newspaper, nor did it listen to the telephone/emails/faxes related to allegations of fraud waste and abuse in tehse areas?
There is a bounty program. Who got the funds for providing informatoin related to this alleged fraud to FBI, DoJ, DoD IG, or other State Department officials?
CIA and Embassy personnel didn't provide anything to any State Department employee, contractor, or Ambassador at any time?
Not believable. Check the NSA intercepts from the DC-known French interest in the NSA intereception devise. French have been monotiroing the fiber optics. When did DoD and State know about this, and the FRench knolwedge of the alleged fraud in Afghanistan?
December 29, 2007 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's inexcusable to not have a contracting officer managing a multi million dollar contract. The bottom line in most government contracting abroad - I know nothing directly about domestic contracting - it is often too few staff stretched over too many contracts. Given that and limited travel budgets, it's virtually impossible to do intense quality checks. I don't think this is one of those cases but I see comments making broad strokes about general govt oversight duties and I think it's important to point out that it 1) would require increasing fed bureaucracy a lot more which few are in favor of and 2) as a result of 1 and travel would increase costs a lot more.
December 29, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This stuff drives me berserk. I've got good friends who work in government as civilians supervising contracts in Afghanistan, making a tenth of the money their non-government counterparts, and they can't get a damn file cabinet. Seriously, millions in contracts and logistics can't provide them with one freakin' file cabinet.
December 30, 2007 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks...
We have had over 200 years to get the audits, controls and checks over "We the People's" money sent to Washington, and NOT ONE party has ever decided to make an effort to have the same bookkeeping, controls, and checks (along with penalties) in place to protect our money.
Why are we now blaming the Republicans? It is the TWO PARTIES who are at fault. NEITHER PARTY cares one bit about protecting our funds.
If we vote the mobsters back in this next election, we are CONDONING the theft of our money.
Both the Reps and the Dems have been consistently and blatently destroying this country and it seems as though "We the People" are to fearful to change it...
We don't need Bush to send fear messages... we have them already built in to our psyches... and they keep telling us that our own party (be it Dem or Rep) needs to get in to save us.
Guess what folks.... this is nothing more than extreme disfunctional thinking... no more sane than believing you belong to a loving, caring family even though both parents are drunks and drug addicts. It is the way we "wish" things are, not the way things "factually" are, and continuing these insane pattertns will do nothing more than bring us more and more destuctive results (this means loss of our democracy, folks). IMHO
December 30, 2007 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
My nephew, who just graduated from college said, "Same old story". Which made me think, same old story if you look back to the Teapot Dome scandal. Just imagine if these dufuses were in charge during World War II: we'd be speaking German now.
December 30, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF is that What? or Where? or maybe it's Why? It could be When but it is sure aint Who. We know who... there's never been a year that I wanted to pass faster than 2008
happy new year folks!
dave
seattle
December 30, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute, Rice as NSC advisor wouldn't known about the DoD-related issues on audits.
Did she, when she moved to State, "forget" all the things DoD was doing or not doing in Afghanistan?
Rice doesn't appear to be immune to questions: She should've known as NSC advisor what was going on with the audits.
December 30, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 'fix' is pretty simple, wrench back TIGHT on the federal budget, and demand quid pro quo for our tax dollar, or at least demonstrable proof of any/all monies spent in the name of the Public, from the local dog catcher on up to NASA, and all points in between. Less money involved=less graft, less 'oops'.
9.14 trillion, and counting...$$$$$$$$$
If our national finances are all @@$@$@#
up, how can our policies not be?
January 2, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink