WhistleblowerSupporter

DSS Director Ignores DoD OIG Report and Recommendations: Why?

I hear through my sources that the DoD OIG completed a Title V investigation (Reprisal Office) and issued a report of findings in support of the federal employee whistleblower.  I have obtained a copy of this report from my sources in the DC area.  I am wading through it as we speak.  It would appear that Stanley Sims, DSS Director and Jay Freaude, DSS Counsel are purposefully refusing to acknowledge receipt of this report and responsibility to take constructive action to make the damaged employee whole, as directed by the DoD OIG. 

Is this how it will work?  Defense Security Service Director, Legal Department and Management will ignore investigative reports and pretend the investigation from DoD OIG simply does not exist and continue on their unethical and illegal path with impunity?  There are some very angry federal employees and civilian citizens regarding this cavalier attitude toward justice.  Not to mention questions about what appears to be DSS malfeasance in managing a federal agency and expenditure of taxpayer funds. 

If Defense Security Service oversight cannot be ethical in its own in-house matters, how can they be trusted to be ethical in doing their oversight job of policing government defense contracting and contractor corporations?

Anybody have more information or perspective? 

GFS

DSS Continues to Hold "All-Hands" Meetings, Despite OSD Policy Change

 

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose"   (The same can be said for things that do not smell so sweet.)

As an update on the problem of expensive "all-hands" meetings,  I received information from several people in the DC area in answer to some questions I posed to them some time ago.  Nothing seems to have changed on that front, but the window dressing. 

Errant DSS management has continued to hold these meetings, requiring employees to travel to attend what still is the same event.  Now, however, it seems DSS management is calling them "trainings" to avoid requesting official authorization for expenditure of these funds by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as is now required for "all-hands" meetings.

No matter what title is put on it, a lecture is a lecture is a lecture.  Even worse, sitting and watching managers argue with each other for hours is beyond the pale.

Demanding employees leave their assigned work, travel across the country, to sit in a large room for days as an audience to a group of managers, while being brow beaten by those managers (or being told things that could just have easily been sent out in an email or handled more efficiently via a teleconference), shows extreme bad judgment in this blogger's opinion.  Their dedication to find a way to try to get around policy put into place to stop this travesty shows their astounding stubborn resolve to do as they like, not as they are told.  Why is no one holding them responsible?  It is amazing how the failures of these managers, appears to have nearly totally taken down this agency in such a relatively brief amount of time.

 

Where in the World is Kathleen Watson, Part 2

Here is a follow up on an earlier post this week.  Follow the link to see the contract.  Ms Watson was formerly a lawyer with the CIA, in human resources I believe.  Her recent area of interest has appeared to be intel.  -GFS

 

G. Florence,
 
Where in the world is Kathleen Watson?
 
G Florence you are sailing on course.  McNeil Technologies was awarded a $500 million dollar defense contract in September 2010.  The U.S. Special Operations Command five year linguist support services contract award is public knowledge.
 
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4366
 
How is Kathleen Watson and the Defense Security Service connected?  Stay tuned.
 
The Old Navy Man

 

For those who want a quick view of the announcement:

Found on defense.gov on March 30, 2011 by GFS as advised by Old Navy Man on 3/29/11.

 

CONTRACTS

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

                McNeil Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Va., has been awarded a $500,000,000 maximum value, five-year indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity linguist support services contract by U.S. Special Operations Command.  The contractor will provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision/management, and other items and services necessary to provide foreign language interpretation, transcription, reporting, and translation services to support overseas contingency operations.  The initial obligation amount is $50,000,000 for the first task order.  The contract number is H92222-10-D-0007.

 

 

Where in the World is Former DSS Director, Kathleen Watson?

Former DSS Director, Kathleen Watson, accepts job with McNeil Technologies, Virgina

The word on the street is that she has quick as a bunny, hopped right over to a defense contractor and is now in their employ.  Doesn’t anyone have to adhere anymore to the six months to a year wait period before leaving a government oversight job and jumping right into a contract with a defense contractor?  I hear that a lucrative contract was awarded by the government the very same day Watson signed her new contract with the contractor. 

 

Check out her new digs at McNeil Technologies in Virginia:

 

http://www.mcneiltech.com/

 

 

 

Defense Logistics Agency Audits Found Lacking: They want to combine DSS with this one?

A contributor sent this in today.  Thanks!  I appreciate contributions from my readers.  It seems like I have heard nothing good about DSS for a very long time, other than the management has seemingly been successful at pulling the wool over any number of politicians eyes.  It is one long progression of bad decision after bad decision from this observer's perspective.  GFS

 

G. Florence-

Rumors on the contracting street back here in the beltway are that the Defense Security Service and its industrial security mission will be handed back to the Defense Logistics Agency.  Some agency employees have shared,  that the employee pay and benefits program has already been given back to the Defense Logistics Agency.  Handing a failing agency back to another failing agency doesn't seem like a very good idea to this old navy man.  Isn't it time for the agencies who actually own the programs to take back ownership of their programs?

 The Old Navy Man 

 

The Washington Post

Report criticizes defense agency’s auditing

By Robert O'Harrow Jr., Sunday, March 20, 6:54 PM

 

It is supposed to be an A Team that keeps a close eye on the Defense Logistics Agency, the $41 billion-a-year operation that supplies Meals Ready-to-Eat, uniforms, spare parts and just about everything else to troops around the world.

But the agency’s accountability office does F-grade work when it comes to conducting audits, according to a recent report by the Pentagon’s Inspector General.

Many of the audits are improperly performed. Investigators often do not have enough auditing experience and don’t follow generally accepted government auditing standards. In six of eight offices reviewed, planning was found to be deficient, according to the report.

 

“As a result of the significant deficiencies described . . . we are issuing a fail opinion on the DLA audit organization’s system of quality control,” said Randolph R. Stone, deputy inspector general for policy and oversight.

 

The DLA did not respond to requests for comment.

The IG report raises questions about the Pentagon’s ability to properly oversee contractors vital to its far-flung operations.

 

For years, Congress has heard testimony that the Pentagon’s logistics operations are hampered by questionable practices, poor planning and overpriced goods and services. The DLA’s accountability office contributes to the problem by failing in its oversight role, the findings conclude.

 

“The report confirms the alarming trend we are seeing where Pentagon management has relegated audits of contracts and internal controls to a back seat,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a private nonpartisan oversight organization that tracks Pentagon spending. “Despite rhetoric to the contrary, senior DOD leadership has been on a tear to reduce or even eliminate any type of audit oversight, whether related to contractors or DOD’s own internal controls.”

The DLA faces a mammoth task. Its 27,000 employees provide support to nearly 1,900 weapons systems and eight supply chains moving 5 million items. The wars in the Middle East have added to the strain.

 

The accountability office was formed in early 2008 to focus investigators and auditors on improving “efficiency, accountability and warfighter support.”

 

The IG criticism deals with the quality control of audits, which are crucial to identifying theft, fraud and other abuses. The IG report found an “absence of official quality control policies and procedures” and a lack of independence among auditors.

 

The report notes that only “one quality assurance auditor position” was established, in late 2009, but that person has not conducted “any reviews of DLA audit work and therefore could not provide any evidence of quality assurance monitoring.”

The IG made nine recommendations, including calling for revisions of the audit policies. The DLA agreed with all nine, the report said.

 

“We determined that the DLA audit organization did not exercise professional judgment due to the vast array of noncompliances,” the report said. “The DLA Accountability Office, Audit Division, and the DLA Disposition Services audit offices did not have a clear understanding of what constituted an audit.”

 

Link to original: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/report-criticizes-defense-agencys-auditing/2011/03/18/AB4kT02_story.html

 

DSS: Forced Overtime Continues

Some time ago, I posted information about complaints that DSS managers were forcing employees to work beyond their paid work hours with no additional pay.  DSS managers, including Richard Lawhorn, have denied the practice, and in fact have said that if they catch anyone working any unpaid overtime hours, they are in trouble. 

The reality is that with understaffed offices in many cases, and over-worked employees, the only way people can even hope to keep up with the paperwork is to work hours on nights and weekends that DSS managers refuse to pay for and don't want to hear about.  DSS managers do however want employees to be sure they meet statistical demands, no matter how unreasonable they may be.  So, beating up employees for not getting all that additional work assigned completed as fast as managers demand it be done, (work beyond what is reasonable for a standard workday or workweek), leaves many of them in fear to work unreported and unpaid overtime hours...lots of them.  And those that succumb to this kind of heavy handed manipulation and fearfully do the unpaid Forced Overtime, make it even harder for those who try to hold the line and restrict their hard work to paid working hours.  Employees must think this over and talk with each other.  It is typical of management to try to divide and conquer, often by picking a victim to be made an example of, in order to terrorize the other employees into doing as directed, even if it is illegal and wrong.  Be advised.   

I heard that some employees who brought this up in a meeting when a visiting manager was conducting a meeting were punished severely, for bringing up the subject in public.  I hope there will be an investigation into all of this, not only the forcing of unpaid overtime hours, but the lying about doing it.  If the talking heads like manager, Richard Lawhorn,  tell you there is no Forced Overtime, do not believe it.  DSS field employees know better and are living the hell that comes with loss of evening and weekend personal and family time.  There is no honor in pressuring and threatening employees, and stealing their time.  Trying to pretend that you are not doing this is even more despicable, DSS management!

GFS

 

While others tighten their belts, DSS management holds expensive “all-hands” meetings in resort locations

Here is an interesting pair of articles regarding DSS and their questionable judgment in spending no small amount of funds repeatedly on meetings, which require employees to travel over long distances, leave their work undone, and waste their time sitting in meetings listening to talking (and in some cases arguing) heads delivering messages that could just as easily have been sent out in an email or perhaps over teleconference, since no real discussion or questioning of said managers is ever allowed.   One would think that during these difficult economic times, where funds to even keep the government functioning, and people working are in short supply, DSS management would think twice about holding meetings that appear to be primarily about self-aggrandizement and further intimidation and harassment of employees and that do not add any appreciable value to the work efficiency and effectiveness of DSS employees who are already overworked and understaffed.  GFS

 

Wall Street Journal report:

 

http://onespot.wsj.com/politics/2011/02/23/8afd0/project-on-government-oversight-dss.

 

Original POGO article:  DSS Director: Defense Security Service "Remiss" in "Fundamental Oversight Responsibilities"

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/02/dss-director-defense-security-service-remiss-in-fundamental-oversight-responsibilities.html

 

I'm baaaaaaack!

Hello, all.  I apologize for being curiously missing for so long.  I had some family matters to deal with and ended up being back on the east coast for some time.  I’ve had all the snow I can take for this year.  Being back breathing the same air as the beltway bandits and their cronies has been quite informative.  I’ve had a chance to talk with numerous people with interesting information and perspectives.  I shall be working to catch up my blogs.  Thank you to those of you who’ve written wondering if I was well and still intending to continue blog support of whistleblowers and track stories of fraud, waste, abuse and other corruption, and wondering what was going on with the whistleblowers and situations that I’d left hanging. 

I have not given up my advocacy of those who make the choiceless choice.  I have been continuing to dig into a number of situations and issues.  I will be posting soon some links to some articles about yet another pod of problems within Defense Security Service (DSS).  From what I’ve learned during my absence, it appears it never will improve, until someone has the sense to pull the plug on those running this troubled agency.  More on that later.

In the mean time, I hope some of you are making progress and are prevailing in your struggle for justice, and a clean up of our government.  As always, I am pleased for you to comment or email if you have information or situations to talk about or share.  There are a lot of monumental things going on.  And in some cases, due to the many investigations, there are some people in positions of power and in some cases authority with a lot to hide who are struggling to keep some unethical and criminal behavior in the dark. 

My best advice for now is ….

Persist!

GFS

Oversight of Contracts Worth Billions and Billions is Broken

This is another article sent to me today.  Thank you reader!  GFS

 

G. Florence-

 

The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) is broken.  The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) is broken.  And the Defense Security Service (DSS) is broken.  It looks like the entire contracting and security oversight of defense contractors is broken.

 

 

An Old Navy Man

 

 

POGO

Pentagon Radically Reducing Oversight of Contracts Worth Tens of Billions

October 29, 2010  Nick Schwellenbach

The Pentagon has radically decreased the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s (DCAA) review of contracts, according to an October 18 DCAA memo obtained by POGO. DCAA’s job is to protect taxpayers from contractor overbilling.

“POGO has long feared contractors and their government allies would block DCAA from exposing contractor ripoffs,” said Nick Schwellenbach, POGO’s director of investigations.  “Why are billions of dollars being put at risk when Secretary Gates is demanding cost savings?”

According to the memo, contracting guidance “now limits contracting officer requests for audit services to Fixed-price proposals over $10 million and Cost-Type proposals over $100 million, unless there are exceptional circumstances.”

These audit services are reviews of cost data (referred to as “reviews”) and they entail an examination of a contractor’s cost proposal to the government.  In these proposals, contractors estimate how much it will cost them to accomplish work on a contract.

Previously, there was no dollar threshold for reviews on fixed-price contract proposals, but contracting officers would limit requests for DCAA reviews of proposals over a threshold tied to the submission of cost or pricing data, which is currently $700,000. The old threshold for reviews of cost-type proposals was $10 million, but could be lower if the contractor has systemic problems estimating costs.

In FY 2009, a total of at least $92 billion in Defense Department contracts fell between the old thresholds and the new ones, according to USAspending.gov.  The $92 billion figure is a conservative estimate – it reflects awarded and funded contracts, rather than contract proposals, which are often higher than the funded contract award amounts.

The guidance states that cost proposals below the new dollar thresholds for review may be sent instead to the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). DCMA is typically less thorough than DCAA, according to a 2009 Wartime Contracting Commission report.  The DCMA also does not specialize in examining and verifying cost and pricing data.

The reason for this new restriction is DCAA’s attempt to perfectly comply with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). With this standard, which requires meticulous documentation of findings, DCAA is unable to cover as much ground as they used to, thus the need to restrict “audits” as defined by GAGAS.  The number of DCAA reports produced annually has plunged: 33,801 in FY 2007 to 30,352 in FY 2008 to 21,276 reports in FY 2009.

Rather than subjecting reviews of cost or pricing data to GAGAS, DCAA should consider these reviews as financial advisory services, which are not subject to all GAGAS requirements.  This would better protect taxpayers and warfighters by allowing DCAA to review cost data and deliver advice to contracting officers in a timely fashion.

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that champions good government reforms. POGO's investigations into corruption, misconduct, and conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government.

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/contract-oversight/co-ca-20101029.html

 

POGO Reports: Federal Agencies Make Watchdog Investigations Difficult

This was sent to me from a reader today.   Well said, Mr. Schwellenbach.  Thank you  Old Navy Man for sending this.  GFS

 

G. Florence-

From my own personal experience, the Department of Defense Inspectors General office is the worst offending IG in existence.  But don’t take my word; look at their case track record for the past ten years.  The Department of Defense IG is useless.

An Old Navy Man

 

 

 

POGO

October 22, 2010

Watchdogs Battle Agencies Over Access to Records

Thirteen inspectors general (IGs) described their struggles with the government agencies they oversee in letters made public this week by Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. The two senators canvassed 69 IGs earlier this year asking whether they’ve run into problems in the course of their oversight.

“Inspectors General can’t conduct effective oversight of tax dollars and programs when the very agencies subject to the oversight impose delays, red tape, and roadblocks,” Grassley said. “To let this continue in the executive branch is letting the fox decide who gets in the henhouse.”

For instance, the Treasury Department’s IG, Eric Thorson, wrote in a September 10 letter that his office “is being denied unrestricted and unfettered access to information from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for use in investigations of possible fraud upon the OCC by failed financial institutions regulated by the OCC.” The OCC asserted the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) as justification for withholding info, according to Thorson. Thorson believes OCC is slanting its reading of the RFPA, and that it actually allows for Inspectors General to access this information. What it comes down to, according to Thorson, is OCC believes “it can determine the instances in which my office has investigative jurisdiction affecting OCC programs and operations.”

In another case, Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), says the State Department has dragged its feet in responding to repeated SIGIR requests for contract data. As of June, the SIGIR has been waiting over eleven months for the State Department to provide “complete data on the cost of the contract for providing trainers for the Iraqi Police Training Program” run by DynCorp International.

“Good government starts with good oversight.  When officials block investigations they do nothing more than protect the people and processes that waste billions of taxpayer dollars every year,” Coburn said

Nick Schwellenbach

 

Link to original post at POGO

[ http://pogoblog.typepad.com/ ]