It's been a slow day here at the Budget Brigade, so I thought I'd bring your attention to the lastest round of quarterly "scores" agencies receive on the President's Management Agenda (PMA) scorecard. These scores measure the implementation of the PMA, or how well the major agencies are "executing the five government-wide management initiatives." Robert Brodsky from Government Executive Magazine has a rundown of the latest scores, which are not too good:

Many federal agencies have taken a step backward on the Bush administration's five major management initiatives, according to quarterly grades released on Thursday by the Office of Management and Budget.

There were 14 downgrades on the status section of OMB's management score card for the third quarter of 2008, which ended June 30. And there were only six instances in which grades improved.

The problems were limited to two areas of the President's Management Agenda: human capital and electronic government.

Clay Johnson, OMB's Deputy Director for Management, cautioned that the "scores" shouldn't be seen as "scores," but as opportunities for improvement.

"The score cards aren't about compliance or getting to a score -- it's about results that agencies are producing," Johnson said. "So, a dip in a score shouldn't always be viewed in the negative, but as a way to [make] progress and improve effectiveness."

Hmmmm...

P.S. For all you home-gamers out there, the administration's "competitive sourcing" initiative has been renamed to the new and improved Commercial Services Management initiative. Same waste of money, great new name.

The problems at the Defense Contract Audit Agency exposed in a GAO report last week that investigated various whistleblower complaints are apparently just the tip of the iceberg at the audit agency. Writing in Government Executive, Robert Brodsky and Elizabeth Newell find that quality problems at DCAA are widespread and that DCAA is a "broken" agency.

"They don't want findings. It makes waves and draws attention so they avoid those types of things so the higher ups don't come down on them," said one former auditor who spent nearly three years at DCAA's Minneapolis branch. "The goal is not to save taxpayers money. People are really too afraid about what they will have to do to back up their findings so they try to avoid them altogether."

The former employees cited a management structure that has sacrificed DCAA's oversight mission on the alter on performance management, rather than simple corruption or malfeasance, as the source of the agency's dysfunction.

"In my opinion, the end result was a massive bloated, soulless bureaucracy that totally lost touch with the taxpayer," the 25-year-employee said, adding that the pressure to close out jobs and produce clean metrics -- or green lights in the stoplight-style measurement system -- was intense and often distracted from efforts to question contractor costs.

"In the end, defense contractors big and small are getting away with murder because they know we at DCAA are slaves to the metrics," the former employee said.

The article reads like a script for "Dilbert Gone Wild", with bosses asking auditors "not to make waves" and to falsify documents because a deadline might otherwise slip. One hopes that congressional hearings are not far behind, because it sounds like there's something seriously wrong in one of the government's most important oversight agencies.

Photo taken by Ansgar Walk; used under a Creative Commons license.

Lurita Doan is back in the news. I know, I can't believe it either. But wait until you hear why and what she is saying now. It seems she is headlining a 15-minute segment on Federal News Radio (1050 AM in DC) where she will share her views on, get this, government leadership. I'm not making this up. That's like having Jack Abramoff lecture on ethical/legal congressional fundraising tactics. The segment, entitled "Leadership Matters," will run at 7:28 am on Tuesday mornings, according to this Federal Times article from last week.

Doan's got a snappy new photo (at least I think it is new) up on the Federal News Radio Leadership Matters website and she's gotten through two segments so far, both of which have some unbelievable jewels that I would be remiss if I didn't ridicule.

The first commentary was on business "guru" Peter Drucker and how to institute cuts to government programs, I mean management reform. The first thing about this commentary is that it seems Doan really believes government is a business. While there at least could be an argument that the General Services Administration, the agency she used to run, should be structured like a business, government is not a business. It isn't. Citizens are not "customers." And pretending these things are true and assuming you can apply successful business practices to government and things will work just fine isn't a good idea. For example, Doan says:

But with a little more Drucker, leaders at all levels can see the wisdom of taking the harder road of moving resources, both financial and human capital, to where they can bring the most value, to redeploy these resources to programs that offer the biggest possible value to American taxpayers, and terminating programs that have continued for years even thought they no longer deliver the originally promised results.

I almost don't know where to being here. This is just too ironic. Let me give it a shot - as Ms. Doan says, nothing happens until you commit to it.

Doan tried to "move resources" to where they can bring the "most value" while at GSA. She interfered twice with contract proceedings while heading up the agency, first to give a no-bid contract to her friend (see here and Washington Post coverage), and then to force the government to continue a contract with Sun Microsystems after evidence had been uncovered that Sun was overcharging the government (see here, here, and this excellent Washington Post coverage).

Doan also tried to "redeploy" resources away from the GSA Inspector General's office, a practically unprecedented move in government, because she was tired of that office launching investigations into her pretty blatant misconduct at GSA Administrator (see here, here and here). After being widely criticized for these actions, Doan fell back on the claim she was simply trying to cut the GSA's budget and save taxpayers money. Is this the type of cuts Doan is thinking of when she recommends the new administration "[put] the responsibility for cutting the budget squarely on the shoulders of each agency head" later in her commentary?

Finally, Doan went so far as to break federal law by attempting to use federal resources (both "financial" and "human") to help elect Republicans to federal office. (see here, here, here, and yet more Washington Post coverage).

None of these decisions were "wise," nor did they "bring the most value" to American taxpayers. Maybe that's why President Bush, of all people, ended up firing Doan with only a few months left in his presidency. You know things are bad when Bush won't stand up for you - case in point - he's still campaigning for indicted Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).

I'll have to save my reactions to Doan's second commentary for another post - there was just too much to say about the first. One final note. Doan references that there are "barely ten days" to accomplish a more disciplined federal budget at the very end of her commentary. I have no idea what ten days she is talking about here. If you have an idea and can help me out, shoot us an email at budgetblog (at) ombwatch.org.

(h/t to Neil Gordon over at POGO's blog)

Just before slipping out the door for summer recess, the Senate passed by unanimous consent an amended version of the Government Accountability Act of 2008 (HR 5683) on Aug. 1. The bill, approved by the House on June 9, would enact a retroactive pay raise for employees affected by a pay structure change implemented in 2006; establish an inspector general's office in the GAO; and require the GAO to report to Congress on how cooperative the Executive branch with GAO investigators and auditors.

And amendment offered by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to fund retirement contributions for the employees affected by the 2006 pay structure change was approved by the Senate will force the House to approve the modified version of the bill, which it is expected to do in September.

Congress is also on the way to approving legislation that would strengthen the GAO's ability to obtain information from the Exectutive branch. On July 29, the House passed by voice vote a bill that would give the GAO the ability to pursue civil action against the Executive branch in order to obtain information related to an investigation or audit. The Government Accountability Office Improvement Act (HR 6388) would also allow the GAO to interview federal employees under oath.

OMB Watch released new federal spending data on contracts and assistance spending on FedSpending.org yesterday. The site now has full spending data for federal contracts from FY 2000 through the first two quarters of FY 2008 and federal assistance data (grants, loans, and related spending) from FY 2000 through the first three quarters of FY 2007. The FedSpending.org database currently contains over $18.7 trillion in federal spending dating back to FY 2000. This update also made minor site improvements, including added advanced search functionality and bugs fixes.

The data update also marks an important milestone for FedSpending.org - 10 million searches - which occured at some point around July 1. The site is a bit less than two years old, but in that time, FedSpending.org has grown to process more than 1 million searches from approximately 400,000 unique visitors each month. On July 1, Alexa.com ranked FedSpending.org 32,259 in traffic among websites on the Internet. Yowza!

The site has continued to surpass all of our expectations that we held when we created it. I hope we can continue to make the site useful and relevant for users in the years to come.

FedSpending.org Reaches 10 Millionth Search

House Committee on Oversight Government Reform chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) has written a letter to Office of Special Council chief Scott Bloch asking him to resign. The letter follows months of allegations of misconduct by Bloch and assertions that Bloch's presence at the OSC is undermining its ability to carry out its mission of investigating personnel policy violations within the government.

Over the past several months, however, it has become clear OSC's mission is not being served as effectively as it could be. Earlier this month, your top deputy, James Byrne, the most senior career official at OSC, resigned his Senior Executive Service position. In Mr. Byrne's resignation letter, he stated that "the mission, independence, and very existence of the Office of Special Counsel are - and shall remain- at risk." He also called for your replacement.

The mission of the agency should be the paramount consideration. It is for this reason that I have concluded that OSC would be better served with new leadership and urge you to step down as the Special Counsel. Such a step would be in the best interests of the agency and federal employees it is charged to protect.

CongressDaily notes that Waxman's call for Bloch's resignation is noteworthy because, despite Republican calls for his ouster, Waxman has remained somewhat of a defender of Bloch. This, apparently, has changed.

Republicans like Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Tom Davis, R-Va., and Rep. Darrell Issa of California, have criticized Bloch's high-profile probes of alleged illegal political activity by Bush administration officials for more than a year, allowing Bloch's defenders to cast their calls for his exit as partisan. But due to his support for Bloch's investigations, Waxman has long defended Bloch, Davis has suggested.

Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Tester (D-MT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) have sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to formally investigate why the Army relived the Defense Contract Audit Agency of its duty to audit the Army's largest Iraq reconstruction contract.

The request for inquiry comes after the Senate Democratic Policy Committee heard testimony from Charles M. Smith, the former official in charge of overseeing the multi billion-dollar contract with KBR. Smith testified that when he refused to OK $1 billion in unsubstantiated charges from KBR, the Army reassigned him (effectively ending his career) and, in an unprecedented move, hired an inexperienced private contractor to perform the audit work.

We are troubled that the Army Sustainment Command would transfer the review of questioned costs on the single largest contract in the Iraq war from its own auditors to a private contractor. We are particularly disturbed that this would be done as part of an apparent effort to excuse KBR's performance problems.

[...]

Given the seriousness of the allegations raised by Mr. Smith, we urge you to promptly investigate the circumstances of the Army Sustainment Command's hiring of contractor RCI to replace DCAA in the review ofKBR's questioned costs. If this was part of an effort to protect KBR and make sure the company was paid for questionable costs, we urge you to take appropriate disciplinary action.

• Letter to Secretary Gates
• DPC Press Release

The Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction (SIGIR) has released a new audit report today concerning the work (or lack thereof) of Parsons Delaware, Inc., a contractor who was doing design and construction work on Iraqi prisons and civil justice infrastructure. Parsons is a major U.S. contractor, having received over $4.1 billion in contracts since 2000, according to the latest data from FedSpending.org.

The SIGIR report was picked up by the Associated Press, so hopefully the disturbing findings will gain wide attention. Here's the breakdown of what the taxpayer received from the $333 million that Parsons and other subcontractors received through May 21, 2008 on the contract, according to the SIGIR report:

Far less was accomplished under this contract than originally planned; only about one-third of the planned projects were completed. Although the failure to complete some of the work is understandable because of its complex nature and the unstable security environment in Iraq, millions of dollars in waste are likely associated with incomplete, terminated and abandoned projects under this contract. However, precise amounts of funds expended for projects that have not been completed are not easily aggregated because of the uncertain future of incomplete projects. Some measure of the funds expended for which there was not a usable facility is suggested by the fact that slightly more than $142 million, or almost 43% of the contract's disbursed funds, were spent on projects that were either terminated or canceled, although a number of projects were subsequently completed. Contract management weaknesses also played a key role in the contract outcomes.

One particular project funded under this contract was the Kahn Bani Sa'ad Corrections Facility, in Diyala Province (pictured above). The U.S. government canceled Parsons' funding for this project after repeated delays in construction and then attempted to finish the prison by using two separate subcontractors in Iraq. When security became too difficult to complete construction in June, 2007, the government walked away, having spent $40 million on a half finished prison that the Iraqi government has no plans to use. The efficiencies of the free market at work.

SIGIR sums up the problems pretty succinctly - not enough oversight and management of the contractors:

The reconstruction projects under this contract were executed in unstable security conditions and were beset by insufficient contract management and oversight personnel. Because of poor security conditions and limited personnel resources, it was difficult for responsible government officials to visit project sites, plan and define project requirements, and oversee contractor performance once construction began. These conditions created a high-risk contracting environment and approaches that ultimately led to a high level of project failure and waste.

The GAO has released a report written as part of its investigation into complaints that the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) acted improperly in making some contractor audit decisions. Specifically, GAO looked into whistleblower allegations that, in 14 audits of seven contractors, DCAA worked to suppress findings of contractor waste, fraud, and abuse.

...we substantiated the allegations and auditor concerns that (1) workpapers did not support reported opinions, (2) DCAA supervisors dropped findings and changed audit opinions without adequate audit evidence for their changes, and (3) sufficient audit work was not performed to support audit opinions and conclusions. In addition, we also found that contractor officials and the DOD contracting community improperly influenced the audit scope, conclusions, and opinions of some audits—a serious independence issue....Moreover, during our investigation, DCAA managers took actions against their staff at two locations, attempting to intimidate auditors, discouraging them from speaking with our investigators, and creating a generally abusive work environment.

Not only did DCAA supervisors work hand-in-hand with contractors to create audit findings favorable to the contractors, but they followed the military-industrial complex handbook to the letter by trying to keep whistleblowers from opening their big yaps. Of course there's really nothing new here. The Pentagon has made a habit of making life hard for those dedicated civil servants who would prefer not to see DoD turn into an outright racket.

But, hey, Magic of the Market^® and all that.