Sends letter to OMB over preliminary decision to reject Army’s own proposal to add 5 generals to scrutinize contractors and tax payer dollars
WASHINGTON, DC– U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) today sent a letter to the Director of the Office of Budget and Management, Jim Nussle, to express his disappointment over the recent decision to reject the U.S. Army’s plan to add five active-duty generals who would oversee purchasing practices and monitor contractor performance in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I cannot understand why a plan developed by the U.S. Army itself to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and improve the future oversight of contracts has been blocked by the Office of Management and Budget,” Senator Casey wrote.
He went onto write, “most importantly, ineffective contracting oversight endangers the lives of our young men and women serving in combat.”
According to the Army Criminal Investigation Command, since 2005, 168 investigations related to contract fraud were opened, resulting in indictments of nearly a dozen military and civilian Army personnel; and more than $15 million in bribes have been confirmed. Last fall, a panel of procurement experts, chaired by Jacques Gansler, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, issued a report declaring that “urgent reforms [are] required” to fix the massive logistical demands on U.S. Army contracting procedures that are now handled by only 75 contracting mangers. The report recommended bolstering the contracting capacity of the U.S. Army by adding over a thousand new personnel positions and creating five new general officer positions to provide leadership for a function that has been neglected in recent years.
Full text of the letter is below:
Dear Mr. Nussle,
I write to express my deep disappointment and concern with a preliminary decision of the Office of Management and Budget to reject a U.S. Army’s proposal to add five-active-duty generals to oversee purchasing practices and monitor contractor performance supporting the Army’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This initial judgment by the OMB was divulged in a recent U.S. Army report to the Congress.
In order to effectively wage the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and to maintain regular operations, as of 2007, the U.S. Army has employed approximately 160,000 contractors and spent over $112 billion in taxpayer dollars. As our soldiers continue to fight valiantly and put their lives on the line, reports of contracting abuses, cost overruns, and outright cases of fraud continue to emerge at an alarming rate. According to the Army Criminal Investigation Command, since 2005, 168 investigations related to contract fraud were opened, resulting in indictments of nearly a dozen military and civilian Army personnel; more than $15 million in bribes have been confirmed. These numbers do not represent just some isolated cases; rather, it is a disturbing pattern that wastes American taxpayer dollars and detracts from our ability to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last fall, a panel of procurement experts, chaired by Jacques Gansler, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, issued a report declaring that “urgent reforms [are] required” to fix the massive logistical demands on U.S. Army contracting procedures that are now handled by only 75 contracting mangers. The report recommended bolstering the contracting capacity of the U.S. Army by adding over a thousand new personnel positions and creating five new general officer positions to provide leadership for a function that has been neglected in recent years. The addition of five active duty general positions can not only reinforce the significance the U.S. Army attaches to implementing contracting procedures of the highest quality, it can also help attract qualified procurement personnel by demonstrating that contracting is a rewarding career path within the Army. As of now, there is not one Army General responsible for managing contracts and procurement. For all of these reasons, I cannot understand why a plan developed by the U.S. Army itself to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and improve the future oversight of contracts has been blocked by the Office of Management and Budget.
Most importantly, ineffective contracting oversight endangers the lives of our young men and women serving in combat. Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth of Shaler, Pennsylvania and at least eleven other soldiers have been electrocuted in U.S. Army facilities in Iraq, with suspicion focused on negligent maintenance performed by U.S. Army contractors as the underlying cause. We ask so much of our brave troops who serve their nation; it is only right that the private contractors who are tasked with supporting their operations be held to the strongest oversight and performance standards. For this reason, I request that the Office of Management and Budget carefully consider the appeal filed by the U.S. Army and recognize the importance of improving our contracting procedures to obtain the best equipment and services needed in a wartime environment.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Casey, Jr.
United States Senator
“I cannot understand why a plan developed by the U.S. Army itself to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and improve the future oversight of contracts has been blocked by the Office of Management and Budget,” Senator Casey wrote.
He went onto write, “most importantly, ineffective contracting oversight endangers the lives of our young men and women serving in combat.”
According to the Army Criminal Investigation Command, since 2005, 168 investigations related to contract fraud were opened, resulting in indictments of nearly a dozen military and civilian Army personnel; and more than $15 million in bribes have been confirmed. Last fall, a panel of procurement experts, chaired by Jacques Gansler, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, issued a report declaring that “urgent reforms [are] required” to fix the massive logistical demands on U.S. Army contracting procedures that are now handled by only 75 contracting mangers. The report recommended bolstering the contracting capacity of the U.S. Army by adding over a thousand new personnel positions and creating five new general officer positions to provide leadership for a function that has been neglected in recent years.
Full text of the letter is below:
Dear Mr. Nussle,
I write to express my deep disappointment and concern with a preliminary decision of the Office of Management and Budget to reject a U.S. Army’s proposal to add five-active-duty generals to oversee purchasing practices and monitor contractor performance supporting the Army’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This initial judgment by the OMB was divulged in a recent U.S. Army report to the Congress.
In order to effectively wage the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and to maintain regular operations, as of 2007, the U.S. Army has employed approximately 160,000 contractors and spent over $112 billion in taxpayer dollars. As our soldiers continue to fight valiantly and put their lives on the line, reports of contracting abuses, cost overruns, and outright cases of fraud continue to emerge at an alarming rate. According to the Army Criminal Investigation Command, since 2005, 168 investigations related to contract fraud were opened, resulting in indictments of nearly a dozen military and civilian Army personnel; more than $15 million in bribes have been confirmed. These numbers do not represent just some isolated cases; rather, it is a disturbing pattern that wastes American taxpayer dollars and detracts from our ability to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last fall, a panel of procurement experts, chaired by Jacques Gansler, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, issued a report declaring that “urgent reforms [are] required” to fix the massive logistical demands on U.S. Army contracting procedures that are now handled by only 75 contracting mangers. The report recommended bolstering the contracting capacity of the U.S. Army by adding over a thousand new personnel positions and creating five new general officer positions to provide leadership for a function that has been neglected in recent years. The addition of five active duty general positions can not only reinforce the significance the U.S. Army attaches to implementing contracting procedures of the highest quality, it can also help attract qualified procurement personnel by demonstrating that contracting is a rewarding career path within the Army. As of now, there is not one Army General responsible for managing contracts and procurement. For all of these reasons, I cannot understand why a plan developed by the U.S. Army itself to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and improve the future oversight of contracts has been blocked by the Office of Management and Budget.
Most importantly, ineffective contracting oversight endangers the lives of our young men and women serving in combat. Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth of Shaler, Pennsylvania and at least eleven other soldiers have been electrocuted in U.S. Army facilities in Iraq, with suspicion focused on negligent maintenance performed by U.S. Army contractors as the underlying cause. We ask so much of our brave troops who serve their nation; it is only right that the private contractors who are tasked with supporting their operations be held to the strongest oversight and performance standards. For this reason, I request that the Office of Management and Budget carefully consider the appeal filed by the U.S. Army and recognize the importance of improving our contracting procedures to obtain the best equipment and services needed in a wartime environment.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Casey, Jr.
United States Senator
