Yesterday morning, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) held a press conference to announce the reintroduction of legislation to phase out the government's use of private security contractors in war zones. The Stop Outsourcing Security Act, which Schakowsky and Sanders originally introduced in 2007, seeks to prevent contractors in war zones from performing "mission critical or emergency essential functions," including security, military and police training, interrogation, and intelligence.

During the press conference, Sanders explained the rationale for the bill thusly:

I believe that it is wrong and extremely dangerous for private companies to perform mission critical functions in the field of war. Private contractors do not operate within the traditional military chain of command. They are not subject to the same rigorous standards of vetting and training as are members of our armed forces. Most importantly, ... the function of a private corporation is to make as much money as possible, not to serve the best interests of the people of the United States or our policies.

Sen. Sanders hits the nail on the head. Time after time after time, private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown their inability to perform mission critical functions up to the military's standards by engaging in questionable conduct that severely damages the image of the United States abroad. Just as appalling, the offenders, more often than not, escape without sufficient reprimand, if they receive punishment at all. These events, both the abhorrent conduct and the lack of consequences, are even more harmful in the context of a counterinsurgency effort wherein the military is trying to protect and win over a foreign populous.

Phasing out security contractors, though, will likely prove a difficult task, both legislatively and logistically. Legislatively, the government contracting industry, especially the defense contracting industry – within which most security contractors reside – is an exceptionally powerful lobbying force. Faced with essentially the demise of their industry, the security contracting community, represented by influential groups such as the Professional Services Council and the Orwellian-named International Peace Operations Association, will fight tooth and nail against this bill.

Logistically, the government employed, at last count, roughly 22,000 security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a lot of personnel, and while the legislation grants the federal government until the end of the year to replace all security contractors and permits the president a temporary waiver for agencies that can't make the transition deadline, it would be difficult for the government to ramp up hiring to fill those positions that fast. Indeed, the Defense and State departments have gradually transitioned to the use of contractors mainly because they didn't have an adequate number of personnel to carry out their missions to begin with and they view security contractors as a cost-effective substitute.

Reintroduction of the outsourcing bill comes at a propitious moment for Schakowsky and Sanders, as the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing this morning to investigate charges of corruption against Blackwater/Xe, an infamous security contractor. Whether the increased attention to this issue will help boost the bill's chances of passage is debatable, but one would think that security contractors could create only so many high profile foreign policy headaches for the United States before Congress stepped in to cut them off. With that said, the first time Schakowsky and Sanders introduced their bill in 2007 they had the Nisour Square massacre providing impetus, but the bill never progressed beyond the committee level in either the House or Senate.

The use of contractors in war zones is nothing new. The United States has used contractors even before the inception of the country in the days of the American Revolution, but the unprecedented expansion of security contractors, both in their numbers and the roles that they play, is dangerous for the U.S. Even if the government finds it impossible to move beyond the use of security contractors in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe it's important for Congress to at least set down a set of policies for future contingency operations.

Image by Flickr user munir used under a Creative Commons license.

The office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) released its 24th quarterly report on Saturday. If you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on in Iraq recently, it's worth a read. Besides providing observations on what's happening in the country and detailing the sources and uses of reconstruction funds, the inspector general's report also describes their recent oversight activities and successes in rooting out corruption within government contracting overseas.

Among SIGIR's investigations this past quarter, several are worth mentioning (details of each case are available in the report):

• Major John Cockerham, Melissa Cockerham (his wife), Carolyn Blake (his sister), and Nyree Pettaway (his niece) were all sentenced in U.S. District Court for their participation in a bribery and money-laundering scheme related to bribes paid for contracts awarded in support of the Iraq war.
• A former DoD contracting officer was sentenced to 110 months in prison for filing false income tax returns in which he failed to report more than $2.4 million in income.
• A retired U.S. Army major was sentenced to 57 months in prison for his role in a bribery scheme involving DoD contracts.
• A Coalition partner citizen was arrested for money laundering involving a Coalition Provisional Authority contract.

That's a pretty diverse group of people, which shows you how broad SIGIR's reach extends. In addition to these convictions, the inspector general's office has debarred a number of individuals and contractors, and has saved almost $82 million while redirecting another $230 million to better use because of their investigations.

The inspector general's office is currently operating with a $30 million budget in FY 2010, double what they had in FY 2009, and President Obama has asked Congress for $22 million in FY 2011. As the U.S. begins to withdraw troops from Iraq over the next two years – a period in which our resources will be particularly vulnerable to fraud and waste – SIGIR's presence will become vitally important and it makes sense to invest adequately in their mission.

Image by Flickr user The U.S. Army used under a Creative Commons license.

The folks over at Government Executive.com have the scoop on the Commission on Wartime Contracting's (CWC) recent move to open two field offices in Southwest Asia. The Iraq office, which is currently staffed by one expert and awaiting a second, is located in central Baghdad. Two experts staff the Afghanistan office, located at Bagram Air Field, which is roughly 25 miles outside the capital of Kabul.

The article quotes Robert Dickson, the commission's executive director, as stating that the staffers hired for these overseas posts "have decades of experience in construction management, military contracting, development projects, policy analysis, program management, and other work that ties directly to our research areas."

The piece also quotes Dickson as saying that these new offices will allow the commission to "maintain liaison with agencies and commands in theater, fill data requests from stateside staff, directly observe events on the ground, and assist with commissioners' research visits to the region."

It's hard to say to what degree these offices will affect the commission's future work, but my hope is that it will allow the CWC to dig a little deeper into the messes that are our contingency contracting environments in the two theaters of war.

Image by Flickr user The U.S. Army used under a Creative Commons license.

On Tuesday, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested 22 executives from the military and police equipment industry on violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), they nabbed a number of individuals that work for companies that contract with the government. Of the 16 companies represented, at least half received federal dollars for products or services during fiscal year 2009, and most of them have had a relationship with the government stretching back several years.

Below is a list of those arrested individuals that work for companies that contract with the government. Through the magic of USASpending.gov, I've included how many contracts the company has recently received and the dollar value associated with those contracts. Voila:

• Daniel Alvirez, president of Als Technologies in Bull Shoals, AR, which, since 2001, has won 830 contracts worth over $5.2 million
• Helmie Ashiblie, founder and vice president of i-SHOT, Inc. in Woodbridge, VA, which, since 2005, has won 17 contracts worth over $1.3 million
• R. Patrick Caldwell, chief executive officer of Protective Products International in Sunrise, FL, which, since 2000, has won 358 contracts worth over $175 million
• Yochi Cohen, chief executive officer of Highcom Security in San Francisco, CA, which, since 2002, has won 57 contracts worth over $3.8 million
• Amaro Goncalves, vice president of Smith & Wesson in Springfield, MA, which, since 2002, has won 133 contracts worth over $24 million
• John and Jeana Mushriqui, director and manager, respectively, of Mushriqui Consulting in Upper Darby, PA, which, since 2005, has won 11 contracts worth over $466,000
• Michael Sacks and Wayne Weisler, co-chief executive officers of ArmorSheild USA in Stearns, KY, which, since 2006, has won six contracts worth over $139,000
• John Benson Wier III, president of SRT Supply in St. Petersburg, FL, which, since 2000, has won 99 contracts worth over $4.1 million

The contracts add up to over $200 million spent over the course of a decade for items like guns, ammunition, and body armor, from both large and small firms, some of which are quite well known.

As the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) notes on their blog, none of these companies has ever appeared in their Federal Contractor Misconduct Database, which POGO runs to keep track of transgressions by companies that contract with the government. And as of right now, the government has not implicated any of these companies in wrongdoing. But, the FBI investigation is ongoing and, as Professor Mike Koehler of Butler University states, "past FCPA enforcement actions demonstrate [that] corporate enforcement actions or investigations often, but not always, precede or follow individual enforcement actions."

The question is if these companies were somehow involved in a scheme to bribe a fictitious African minister of defense, should that have some bearing on whether they continue to receive taxpayer dollars through government contracts. I think most taxpayers would say yes. But, even if the government eventually charges these companies with some wrongdoing associated with this case, a federal contracting officer (CO) would likely never see this information in the future when attempting to make an award decision.

And that's because, along with being a fractured, siloed mess, the government's contractor performance databases don't reveal illicit behavior unless a company has admitted to it or accepted fault. This rarely happens, as most companies settle civil, criminal and administrative misconduct cases on the condition that they are absolved of any wrongdoing.

I'm not arguing that a company shouldn't receive a contract simply because it has broken the law in the past, but I believe a contracting officer should see all of a company's past so that the CO may make the most informed decision possible when awarding a contract. The wise spending of taxpayer dollars demands nothing less.

Image by Flickr user matthewbradley used under a Creative Commons license.