Quid Pro Quo at the Department of Energy?

The Washington Post ran an article this morning [2] about Recovery Act funding for environmental clean-up being given to contractors with less than stellar performance records. The Department of Energy has started giving over $6 billion in stimulus funds to help clean up 18 nuclear sites around the country. This spending is more than double what is typically spent through the DOE's nuclear clean-up program, which has well documented historical problems of using contractors who experience cost overruns, safety violations, delays, and mismanagement of public funds. On the surface, this is yet another example of the desperate need for a fully public contractor misconduct database to help prevent awarding contracts to bad actors. But something else jumped out at me from the article that points to a larger problem that I don't think a misconduct database would solve: contractors and executive branch staff are far too cozy.

Clean-up contractors were lobbying Energy Department officials even before a Recovery Act bill was introduced in Congress - as far back at December according to the Post. The article alleges these contractors were integral in crafting the $6 billion plan and were able to exert influence over the spending before President Obama put lobbying restrictions [3] in place for Recovery Act funds. From the Post article:

[private contractors] have been involved from the beginning in shaping their piece of the stimulus. As far back as December, when it became clear that Obama would introduce a huge spending bill to create jobs, Energy Department staff members began meeting with the contractors, including representatives from Bechtel National, CH2M Hill and other large firms. A $6.4 billion plan was devised at the sessions and carried forward by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who incorporated the funding into the Senate bill.

In exchange for the contractors' consulting help, the Department of Energy announced they will negotiate with current contractors rather than awarding the contracts through a competitive bidding process - the very same contractors cited in oversight reports from the Government Accountability Office and Inspector General reports for safety violations, cost overruns, and project delays. This is happening despite explicit language in the Recovery Act that requires stimulus contracts to be competitively bid "to the maximum extent possible."

This is pretty shady stuff although there's no way to tell if this is a quid pro quo or not. One thing that would help though is better and more timely lobby disclosure. Instead of restricting federal lobbyists from engaging government on Recovery Act funds, the Obama administration should put in place more stringent disclosure and reporting requirements for anyone - lobbyist or non-lobbyist - meeting with administration officials or staff on any federal spending, subsidy, or targeted benefit. That way, in the future we'll be able to learn about meetings where contractors help design a $6 billion spending plan that they will personally benefit from down the line with sole-source contracts when those meetings occur instead of months later.

This would only be a first step in working to stamp out the rampant shenanigans that continue to plague the federal procurement process. But it would be an important step.

WP: Nuclear Cleanup Awards Questioned [4]

Image by Flickr user tico24 [5] used under a Creative Commons license.