It's So
Government Inc. is rattled.
It turns out the problems at the Defense Contract Audit Agency are worse than even the GAO's critical report some weeks ago suggested.
Could the subversion of independence and objectivity and professional culture be as widespread as seems possible at the DCAA now?
In testimony today on Capitol Hill, witnesses spoke about how the DCAA, the hardcore agency responsible for rooting out and stopping fraud, waste and abuse, had come to think of itself as a partner of the federal agencies and, oh my goodness, even the contractors it is supposed to oversee.
Auditors and investigators told dark tales about DCAA supervisors pressing hard to meet deadlines at the expense of oversight; of changing audit findings repeatedly in favor of corporations; of punishment and harrassment for auditors who try to stand up to practices that violate auditing standards and federal acquisition regulations.
Here's a way to see prepared testimony of witnesses. Included are thoughts from the DCAA director April Stephenson, who acknowledged shortcomings identified by the GAO's inquiry.
"DCAA is committed to ensuring that the agency is above reproach -- that all of its audits are performed in accordance with auditing standards, that its culture promotes the kind of vigilance and quality that protects the interests of the American taxpayers," Stephenson said.
Here's a story from The Post today that also does not bode well.
Some excerpts:
"DCIS investigators found that managers deleted material from audits without auditors' knowledge. The managers issued "clean" audit reports without supporting documentation, according to material to be disclosed at the hearing. The DCIS investigators also confirmed that pressure to issue audits on deadline contributed to problems.
"The GAO probe found that three DCAA offices under scrutiny had repeatedly diverged from standard accounting practices in their audits. In some cases, agency supervisors allowed contract officials and contractors to subvert DCAA's independence and "improperly influenced" the scope and findings of audits. The GAO investigators also turned up evidence that managers had tried to intimidate or silence auditors, according to a recent report.
"Greg Kutz, GAO managing director for forensic audits and special investigations, said the problems at DCAA may be widespread. "It's clear that the issues go beyond the 14 audits that we investigated," he said in an interview."
Dear gentle readers, we're talking about dysfunction, even corruption, at the core of the government's oversight system.
Is the procurement system out of control? If you really want to get worked up, check out this memo from a DCAA boss to an auditor who testified at today's hearing.
By Robert O'Harrow |
September 10, 2008; 12:56 PM ET
Previous: British Insecurity |
Next: Boeing Tanker Wish Come True?
Posted by: Current DCAA Employee | September 11, 2008 10:53 AM
Kawamoto just signed the memo. You can be sure that DCAA WR legal, the Santa Anna Branch Manager, and RAM reviewed and approved it before it went out.
In fact, the memo was probably written by the BM or RAM (with edits with legal)- Kawamoto just did her job - like a good little flunky.
Posted by: DCAA Auditor | September 11, 2008 1:03 PM
The letter was written by John Farenish, General Counsel of DCAA.
Posted by: Legal Counsel | September 14, 2008 12:18 PM
While many of these issues clearly deserve remediation, the change in DCAA culture primarily dates to the 1990s, when Jacques Gansler, Stan Soloway and Steven Kelman, ruled the Federal procurement roost at DOD and OMB, respectively. Basically, they warned then DCAA Director, William Reed, to either get with the program of treating contractors with "softer gloves" or there would be no more DCAA.
Posted by: Legal Counsel | September 14, 2008 12:24 PM
Merely posting the Kawamoto memo without putting it in context does no one any good. While whistleblowing is certainly a protected activity, once the whistle is blown, there is a process for resolving those allegations. From reading the memo, I suspect that Mr. Le was attempting to go outside the process for resolving allegations he had made and the memo was an attempt to bring the matter back within the process that Congress and the Special Counsel have established. However, without a full explanation of the background and context of the memo, we cannot know for sure.
Posted by: novahorn | September 16, 2008 11:20 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Why is Kawamoto still employed, or at least demoted? The director was given the specifics and is party to the memo above yet no personnel action has been taken against her. Kawamoto has broken the law and violated our own personnel policies yet she is still supervising audits! Looks "like business as usual" is the phrase of the day here at DCAA!