« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Wanna Buy a Car? Charge It To The State Department
For a moment, leave aside the question of missing property. The September 2007 State Department inspector general report provides a blueprint for how lax department rules let contractors in Afghanistan shoehorn all manner of purchases into their conctract costs -- regardless of whether the contract required those specific purchases. As they say on the streets, DynCorp, essentially, got to charge it to the game.
Take one example. On one of DynCorp's task orders for the Civilian Police training contract, the company bought $1.1 million worth of trucks, unspecified in its contract, and charged it to the government. And that was just the start.
Under one of the Civilian Police task orders, the vouchers included charges for 20 Ford F-250s, with a cost of $1.1 million, that were acquired before the modification authorizing their purchase was issued; 18 vehicles consisting of Ford Excursions, John Deere Gators, and Yamaha motorcycles, with a cost of $384,590, that were not specified in the task order; and an additional unknown quantity of John Deere Gators and Ford Excursions, with a cost of $1.4 million, that were not specified in the ask order.
That worked for DynCorp so well on the police contract, the company ran the same game on its ordnance-removal contract:
Although weapons and weapon accessories were not among the property specified for purchase under the WRAP contract, the vouchers included charges of $30,000.
The inspector general concedes that contractors might legitimately need to buy new property during the course of the contract. But the department's requirements -- apparently still in place -- don't allow outside observers enough visibility to determine what's a legitimate expense and what isn't. (Or, in the IG's words, "the Department should assess whether additional property items are needed to meet program requirements, approve new acquisitions before they are made, and modify the contract accordingly.") The absence of such protections is practically an invitation for a contractor to walk into a Ford dealership and hand over Condoleezza Rice's credit card -- which, incidentally, you pay for.

Comments (6)
The Grandest Panjandrum wrote on December 26, 2007 4:44 PM:SHOCKING!
Who would have ever guessed that sweetheart deals for a bunch of thieving criminals, from a bunch of war criminals could go wrong? My, my what next? We gonna find out they be torturing people and wiretapping without warrants? No way!
George and Dick's Excellent Misadventure, continues ...
Stay tuned for upcoming scenes from the next episode of DOJ Gone Wild!
TrueCon wrote on December 26, 2007 7:18 PM:No surprise. Most Americans whine about their taxes but are too lazy to pay attention to what's being done with them.
Steve Elliott wrote on December 26, 2007 8:20 PM:And not one person will go to JAIL. Shop till you drop!
Persona non grata wrote on December 26, 2007 8:51 PM:When we're talking about war we're really talking about no-bid cost-plus contracts.
peachesNYC wrote on December 27, 2007 2:21 AM:I wonder if they got Yosemite Sam "Back Off" mud flaps for the Ford F-250s?
Yellow Dog wrote on December 27, 2007 10:47 AM:This has far less to do with SOP government slack oversight that with the specific intention of this administration to shovel as much taxpayer money as possible into the pockets of its corporate cronies.
I used to oversee federal contracts for a state agency and believe me, oversight was extremely strict. Crap like this would have gotten people clapped in prison immediately.
Maybe that's because the subcontractors were a state government agency and community non-profits - not exactly Ranger campaign donors.