Inside the Headquarters

Exactly how many disputed contract awards get GAO attention like the recent GAO investigation of the Air Force tanker deal? 

They don’t call it the GAO for nothin’. The recent and ongoing Boeing-Air Force flap aside, the GAO is the forum for “bidders and offerers seeking federal government contracts who believe that contracts have been, or are about to be, awarded in violation of the laws and regulations that govern contracting with the federal government.” Protests is filed, it is done so with the GAO, which will investigate and issue a “decision on whether the federal agency has complied with statutes and regulations controlling government procurement.” 

An unscientific review of decisions over the past two months revealed all but one GAO decision was either “denied” or “dismissed.” These opinions found in favor of the government and against the protester. That one decision that supported bidder claims with the words “Protest sustained,” delved into the Boeing allegations surrounding the Air Force award of the coveted $35 billion-plus aerial refueling tanker deal to European giant EADS its U.S. partner Northrop Grumman.With few exceptions, these filings appear to be dead on arrival, often because the bidder made some error, such as filing too late. As of June 25 there were 162 open docket cases. Here’s a case that piqued our interest: It appears Worldwide Primates Inc.’s case against the Army was dismissed. A recruiting issue? 

The GAO’s decision in the Boeing case seemed unusually hard-hitting when compared with language on past cases. A tough-but-thorough group? A high-vis case receiving closer scrutiny? An Air Force as riddled with challenges as portrayed? (How do they get through the day?) Was there pressure on the “watchdog” from certain defense officials and possibly FOBs (Friends of Boeing) on the Hill? 

The GAO has reported an increase in protests and has requested a budget boost to fund its master sleuths. 

Back to the Boeing decision: Though the GAO’s opinion is nonbinding, Joey the Clown is putting his money on a rebidding of the tanker contract. Stay tuned.

If a tree falls in the woods …If a memorial is built, and no one can get to it …

Thus was the vexing challenge posed by the proposed Pentagon Memorial to the victims killed there Sept. 11, 2001. The memorial will be dedicated Sept. 11, 2008, and is in what used to be off-limits to mortals and those without the correct credentials.

Families of the 184 who perished when American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the west side of the building that morning in 2001 were insistent that the memorial be at the crash site. Though visitors are anticipated to surpass the million man mark, memorial proponents’ desires prevailed beyond expectations — the site was approved and will be open ‘round the clock every day of the year. 

If the D.C. tour titans put the memorial on their itineraries, millions could be visiting each year, posing a challenge (headache) for Pentagon security. It won’t help much, but there will be not on-site parking (save for a few handicapped spots). Visitors will have to arrive at the Pentagon Metro or park about a half-mile away. Photography will be forbidden everywhere on the campus except for the memorial. (Good luck enforcing that one.) 

When the memorial was proposed, many had their doubts. A memorial already had been erected inside the building, accessible to the internal audience and Pentagon tour groups. But organizers have raised a large part of the private funds required for the $32 million project. Initial reports are positive. The two-acre plot has been transformed into a serene park-like setting. A bench with a reflecting pool beneath stands for each victim. The pools light up, affording a very different experience after dark, and night memorial cruising is a favorite pastime for locals and visitors alike. 

It is difficult to imagine all the family members bought into this idea. In an era when memorials have become all the rage, somehow “appropriate” and “fitting” are hollow sentiments. No one wants loved ones forgotten, and such efforts can take the disinterested hostage. Certainly people will shed tears at this memorial as they have at others that immortalize Vietnam, Korea, and World War II. The memorial to World War I, though local to D.C., might be the most elegant, a mark of a different time. 

The most poignant tribute to those who perished at the Pentagon might be the massive, charred block pulled from the rubble used as a base in the rebuilding of the destroyed section. Its beauty is in its simplicity. The clichéd “out of the ashes” idea applies. The stone lives on as does the building as does the memory of the 184 — park or no park.

It appears after nearly a decade of anti ”terrorist’ vigilance, the U.S. is unprepared for some attacks on U.S. soil. 

The House recently passed two bills to “remedy” this supposed sad state of affairs by — you guessed it — funding another office to oversee the matter, nearly seven years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. 

According to a release from the Hill, the National Bombing Prevention Act of 2008 (H.R. 4749), which amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002, seems to establish the Office of Bombing Prevention within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).According to the House bill, “The Office shall have the primary responsibility for enhancing the ability, and coordinating the efforts, of the United States to deter, detect, prevent, protect against, and respond to terrorist explosive attacks in the United States.”

But, if you go to the DHS Web site, the Office of Bombing Prevention already exists. Interesting. So the current Office of Bombing Prevention isn’t up to the job? (Has anyone contacted Jack Bauer?) 

The legislation targets improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other tactics that have not yet been a factor on U.S. soil, Oklahoma City aside. The London and Madrid bombings of recent years have been cited as factors in pushing this legislation, but one would think the U.S. already would have looked to the decades of domestic terror inflicted by the Irish Republican Army in Great Britain. 

If the bill is enacted in its current form, the DHS secretary has 90 days to produce a national prevention strategy (that we apparently don’t have). We’re years into this thing, so what’s the rush? Get this: the DHS secretary has been granted 270 days to come up with a pilot program for breeding explosives-detection dogs. 

In fact, this unusually detailed piece of legislation, reads like a wish list for special interests. From the “Elect Me to Another Term, My Disparate Friends” play book the bill mandates, among many other things, “… acquiring canines from animal shelters, rescue societies, and other not-for-profit entities.” (We’ll alert ferret rescue. We sense opportunity.) 

Additionally, no protected class is left behind. For example in the accompanying public awareness campaign, “… [Efforts are to be] understandable to underserved populations, including-persons with physical and mental disabilities, health problems, visual impairments, hearing impairments, limited English proficiency, and literacy barriers …” (We feel safer already.)

The bill now goes to the Senate. Will senators discover we already have a DHS Office of Bombing Prevention?

Would you buy a surveillance camera with unreliable power that took two hours to install in a hostile fire zone? It seems the Marine Corps wouldn’t either. 

It has been reported the Marine Corps has honchoed a four-year, failed effort to use hidden cameras to catch bad guys in Iraq doing bad things, such as planting roadside bombs that target America’s boys and girls on the ground. 

In a letter to Defense Secretary (and occasional superhero) Robert M. Gates, Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) and Joe Biden (D-Del.) accused a few of the proud of mismanaging the Tactical Conceal Video System, the brainchild of St. Louis-based Sentrus. (Did we mention Bond, Kit Bond, hails from the great state of Missouri? Coincidence?) 

The Marines asked for a concealed camera system in 2004 and awarded Sentrus a contract in 2005. The heat and motion detecting system was in theater by 2006, but end-users called for improvements. The Corps soon canx’d the deal. 

Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) the Corps’ equippers claimed the thing just did not work. Currently, most of these million-dollar babies (15 in all) sit, unused. MARCORSYSCOM says batteries burn out quickly and — get this — the system takes two hours to put in place. (We’d guess nullifying effectiveness, if reports are accurate.) 

According to one intel official with whom we spoke, the Corps’ demands for further demos and an open competition were met with hostility by the retired Marine general whom Sentrus had been working the deal. (Funny how that happens.) The clash with this “gray beard” made what would have been a typical contracting issue personal and ugly, according to our guy. 

On the other side of No-Man’s Land, Sentrus maintains the Marines knew what they were getting. Our guess is in 2004-05, companies were lining up to sell a wounded and desperate military any variety of snake oil. 

This near-fiasco begs the questions: Why wouldn’t the Joint IED Defeat office (JIEDDO), with the mission and budget, find and procure a proper system? JIEDDO officials knew the camera was a Marine Corps initiative but could not tell us why they did not handle the program. (The cameras were ordered by the Marine Corps before JIEDDO was in full bloom.) 

On it bright note, it appears the Marines have survived the blame game (for now). Despite congressional involvement and Superhero interest, the Corps will get its demo and open competition.According to a JIEDDO official, “JIEDDO is currently working Base Expeditionary Targeting Surveillance System-Combined and Ground Based Operational Surveillance System. Additionally, JIEDDO funded the Rapid Deployment Integrated Surveillance System for use at combat outposts.”

A rose might be a rose if one subscribes to the Bard’s philosophy, but what about the current conflict? 

It seems the Department of Homeland Security (DHS is a DoD brainchild) has urged a shift from current fave, the often used “war on terrorism.” This change has been discussed for some time by U.S. military leaders, government officials, members of congress, those who have hit the presidential campaign trail, and U.S. allies. 

It has been reported two memos cite the issue: The DHS “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims” and the National Counterterrorism Center’s titled “Words that Work and Words that Don’t.” One suggestion, “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress,” has been deemed a losing substitute. 

Regardless of direction, officials say it is important no reference to religion is made. Makes sense, though it seems one presidential candidate is fond of the term “Islamic Terrorism,” which seems accurate. Similar terms sometimes have been used to describe other groups in the U.S. that have a religious basis for their criminal actions. (Not all Italian Catholics are bad.) 

Putting this great debate aside, it is difficult to argue with history, and “war on terrorism” seems to have some classic staying power. It seems it first appearing in the New York Times in 1881. (Who knew?) Chances are it was not in reference to Islamists. 

What is a super power to do? It seems a contest to “Name this War’” might turn up some good ideas. Given the money being spent and the expansion of the armed forces, something a catchy seems in order. Song titles might be the best way to go, but we thought we’d start it off movie titles and some literary works. They don’t have to make sense; they just need to sound good. Here are some suggestions that could capture the essence of the entire conflict. Some might be better suited for individual operations. 

Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge over the River Kwai, A Bridge too Far, The Dirty Dozen, War of the Roses, The 100 Years War, Fatal Attraction, Zulu, Gallipoli, A Long Day’s Journey into Night, Much Ado About Nothing, A Street Car Named Desire, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Get Smart, Get Shorty, Fantasia, From Here to Eternity, Goodfellas, Robin Hood, Miracle on 34th Street, Dirty Harry, The Longest Day, Apocalypse Now, Stalag 17, The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, The Alamo. 

We’ll forward our ideas to DHS.

We’re talkin’ Victory in Iraq (again) Day. According to a source in the secretary of defense’s office, he and colleagues are confident that unrest in Iraq is fast-tracking to the “but-a-memory” category. “Things are at least three times better than what you read or see,” he said of print and broadcast coverage. In contrast, he admits Afghanistan is a different story, slipping away (possibly from a Western ideal), awash in an insurgency that the U.S., Afghan and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) forces cannot control. Pretty tough to trump a Taliban that brings improvement to daily life — something al-Qaida in Iraq has not been able to do.
Our defense official cited May’s low casualty figure in Iraq as proof, though a solitary marker for a single month may be an unreliable gauge. 

We found it odd that our defense friend passed the good news along. Was he hoping we’d pimp (as we are) what might be shakey information or overly optimistic (dare we guess) propaganda? Last month, CIA Director Michael Hayden reported the “near-strategic defeat” of al-Qaida in Iraq. Within two days of our conversation, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published a similar VI-2 theme. Kimberly Kagan, president of the Institute for the Study of War, and Frederick W. Kagan, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, gushed that Iraq’s security forces can claim victory over illegal Shiite militias (not to be confused with legal, independent thugs) and Iranian-back Special Groups (gangs of thugs). 

Their argument was unusually overstated (especially for the reliable WSJ), crediting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with the remarkable success — victories over al-Qaida in Anbar, Diyala, Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra and ridding Sadr City of the Iranian-backed thugs. If the Kagans’ description is accurate, can we expect Maliki to find a cure for cancer, solve the vexing Israeli-Palestinian puzzle, and correct the challenges of the U.S lending industry? In his spare time he maybe he could go mano a mano with an American soldier or Marine and cagefight for the forces, because they don’t seem to have much else to do — if the Kagans are accurate.

ISAF, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, which has become the bane of many an American’s existence, also has become the target of American military humor. As reported by U.S. News and World Report the “ISAF” acronym has taken on new meanings: “I Sunbathe at FOBs” (because I have a lot of time on my hands at these safe and uneventful forward operating bases), “I Saw Americans Fight” (because ISAF forces don’t or won’t), and “I S- – - at Fighting” (which is why the Americans have to do most of it). 

Can you feel the love? 

The underlying bitterness has existed for some time. There are myriad issues in play. The very mention of NATO’s “commitment” in Afghanistan caused noticeable stress in the voice of Army Gen. John Craddock, supreme allied commander, Europe, and one of two NATO strategic commanders, when interviewed by National Public Radio in the spring. The U.S. has been pushing for more NATO involvement, and not just the token European brigadier. Early on, it was planned the provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) would move from U.S. to ISAF control, though the preponderance of the manpower remains American and U.S. units remain in the more challenging areas. Admittedly, national or political requirements back at each nation’s mother ship keep their forces’ actions limited in scope, like Germany, for example. (Goes back to that whole Third Reich/take over the world/losing the war thing.) The Japanese and their Peace Constitution are not in Afghanistan. 

The relationship of the U.S. with its NATO brothers and sisters regarding Afghanistan is complex and contradictory. Diplomats and academics (and NATO wags) speak glowingly of NATO’s unwavering dedication to Afghanistan. U.S. politicos and warfighters, be they commanders or the Jay Leno’s of Paktika, convey tremendous angst over NATO’s consistent indifference to the region.

At least they can write home, “I Saw Americans Fight (while sunbathing).”

It is no surprise DoD is faced with billions in weapons contract overruns. One lawmaker thinks he has the solution — yet another oversight entity.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Sen. Carl Levin has announced he hopes to establish an office (to be mandated in an amended 2009 Defense Authorization Bill) that would control contract costs that have blasted past their original estimates by nearly $300 billion. 

The proposed office of the director for independent cost estimate (the pricing czar) would perform its own estimates on how much new military weapons programs would cost before major systems are given the go-ahead. It appears new program costs routinely are underestimated by 30 percent to 40 percent because of “limited knowledge of the critical technologies and optimistic assumptions.” A GAO report due out cites the services’ accepting unrealistically low cost estimates from contractors and program managers as a significant concern. 

Don’t confuse the price czar with any office that already exists to perform this function. One might recall contract cost control is a part of the mission of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). According to DCMA’s Web site:

“We are an independent combat support agency within the Department of Defense (DoD). We are the Department’s contract manager, responsible for ensuring Federal acquisition programs (systems, supplies, and services) are delivered on time, within projected cost or price, and meet performance requirements.” 

Hmmm. 

The pricing czar also should not be confused with the Pentagon’s acquisition czar and undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, John Young, who oversees DCMA. It seems it is not really up to that group to catch the reported 95 “major” weapons systems that blew past their original estimates. 

Apparently no one has clued in Levin or his cronies. 

Our guess is the services are getting exactly what they want and choose not to account for the budget-busting behaviors to which they are addicted. (Navy?) Fixed-price contracts amidst this service insanity? Just put the gun in the contractor’s mouth. Senator Levin and his well-meaning bipartisan crusaders want to correct a system plagued by vanity and the quest for perfection. Hanging out the “Cost Control” shingle won’t do it — as proved more than once. 

Program managers have been unable or unwilling to control the costs of their own programs. Without behavioral changes in the services, “control” might amount to miring or halting the acquisition process.

Gone may be the mud-wrestling at the military enlisted clubs and likewise the strippers from the officers’ clubs. The days of scantily clad women (and men as the night wore on), not to mention a whole lotta alcohol, are but a fuzzy memory. Ah, the narcissistic decadence of it all. 

Fast-forward a few years, and hello, mano a mano. 

“Ultimate Fighting” has been all the rage with young males on and off military installations and is touted as a pretty darn good recruiting-and-retention tool. (Narcissism is alive and well.) This sport, also referred to as mixed martial arts, was outlawed a decade ago as human cockfighting. With guidelines in place, it is now legit and big in warfighter circles. Give the target market what it craves and build cagefighters (uh, warriors) at the same time. It’s brilliant, efficient, and apparently effective on several levels. Why not, and why not more of it?! 

The Army has had the technique in its professional scope for some time. It established its Combatives School at Fort Benning, Ga., in 2001 and published FM 3-25 150 “Combatives” in 2002. The sport has evolved producing pro-worthy military fighters for the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). Commercial promoters also have gotten in on the frenzy and have sponsored events such as “GIs vs. Pros” (casino-based, of course). Will the next step be cagefighting? (That’s right, two guys in a cage.) It’s already happened at Fort Knox, Ky., and there have been military competitors in World Extreme Cagefighting. Who knew? (Someone should clue in Virginia Sen. Jim “Women Can’t Fight” Webb and Marine Gen. James “I Like Brawlin’ ” Mattis. These two are born cagefighters.) 

Ultimate Fighting is a smart move in a challenging market. If nothing else, it shows an understanding of a crucial younger audience. Where else can you fire weapons and fight legally (and often) except the U.S. military? The proud, the toned, and the tattooed have found a home. Score one for the body snatchers.

Few seem poised to sit idly by as the defense contracting world awaits the GAO report due later this month that probes into the Air Force’s awarding of a lucrative tanker contract. 

On Feb. 29, the Air Force announced the award of its multibillion dollar refueling tanker deal to European giant EADS and its American partner Northrop Grumman. Kicked to the curb was sentimental fave Seattle-based Boeing Corporation. 

What followed was the all-too-common wailing and gnashing of teeth. Boeing cried “Foul!” and challenged the decision. (The GAO has become so inundated with contract disputes in general, that it reportedly is seeking a $40 million increase in its budget.) 

But we digress. Everyone with a fuel probe in this fight is out to drum up support and influence the jury pool. Why not publish a “report” that claims to bring “true transparency” to the tanker contract saga? 

Recently the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) did just that, publishing a “comprehensive report” and press release. In one of the more unbalanced works available on the issue, the lobbying document skewers the Air Force decision and warns of the end of life as we know it unless Boeing gets the contract. 

Though it implies it has some independent importance in the industry, the IFPTE is an AFL-CIO affiliated labor union with 80,000-85,000 members, at least 20,000 of which work for — you guessed it — Boeing. This info is all courtesy of the union’s own Web site. The IFPTE has pulled out the stops. Here’s one zinger (with a couple of observations): 

“We must be able to trust that U.S. defense contractors will not export military secrets, won’t play politics with our military equipment, and will keep the U.S.’s best interests at heart. Based on its history of attempting to arm Iran, Venezuela, and China [The U.S. has sold lots of arms to these nations over the years.]; of bribing governments from Syria to Canada [Please … this from the AFL-CIO?]; and the fact that Russia is aggressively expanding its control over company shares, [Who isn’t?] EADS clearly fails the trust test.” — Paul Shearon IFPTE Secretary-Treasurer [He’s reliable?]

Maybe the report targets union members in the “See-what-we-are-doing-for-you-today” category. 

We’re sure more will follow.