Contractors in Afghanistan Didn't Have to Prove Purchases Actually Occurred

[babylonsister]

:wow: :argh: :grr: It's our money...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004982.php


Contractors in Afghanistan Didn't Have to Prove Purchases Actually Occurred
By Spencer Ackerman - December 26, 2007, 4:50PM

More outrageous tales from the State Department car dealership: it turns out that contractor DynCorp didn't have to even prove that it in fact purchased dozens of SUVs for which it charged the government. Try to follow the money on this one.

{O}ne Civilian Police task order {on which DynCorp is the contractor} included a requirement for 68 armored Ford Excursions at a fixed price of $113,064. The Department was billed for 68 "armored vehicles" at a unit cost of $123,327. The property list contained 61 Ford Excursions, of which some were described as armored, others uparmored, and others had no notation of armoring. The costs shown on the property list for these 61 Ford Excursions ranged from $43,990 to $150,000 with nine at $122,190, seven with higher costs, and the remaining 45 with costs of $77,000 and below. Thus, OIG could not conclude that the 68 "armored vehicles" in the vouchers were the 68 armored Ford Excursions specified in the task order.

Let's just assume for a minute that they are. To do the math: 68 Excursions at the State Department contract's fixed unit price works out to $7,688,352. But 68 Excursions at the price DynCorp billed the department is $8,386,236. So that's an overcharge of almost $698,000. Nice.

But what the report's saying is that it has no way of knowing if DynCorp really spent the $8,386,236. It's not easy to work out the numbers given the vague way the report describes the expenses cited on the 61 Excursions DynCorp documented. But nine Excursions at $122,190 is $1,099,710. Add another 45 at $77,000 (the maximum cited here), and that's $3,465,000. Take a conservative estimate of the remaining seven with "higher costs" than the $122,190 -- let's say $122,200, a mere $10 more. That's $855,400. Add it all up and you get in the ballpark of $5,420,110.

And that means the State Department's lax bookkeeping requirements allowed DynCorp to, potentially, pocket around (by my calculation) $2,996,126. Whether that in fact happened is unclear by definition. But what's crystal clear is that State's shoddy accounting is practically an invitation to abuse. Why not just have the State Department open its petty cash drawers and save the inspector-general's office the trouble?

[Hydra]

1. Exactly as many of us suspected

right from the supplemental bills from Congress, straight into Bush's allies' pockets. They don't even have to return the goods after the fact to cash in.

Treasury rape has been taken to a new level.

[babylonsister]

2. I know we all have outrage overload, but this is truly outrageous. nt

[Hydra]

3. Outrage overload is the word

but that's like calling Niagara Falls a "water feature."

The absurd level of corruption is only surpassed by the information that our party has been playing in the mud, too.

[gratuitous]

4. Ah hell, what's $8.3 million?

By my calculation, that's less than 48 minutes of the continuing prosecution of two of George's excellent little foreign adventures.

[babylonsister]

6. Now that's just depressing... nt

[CorpGovActivist]

5. When Mark Penn Finally Resigns, Maybe He Can Become a Halliburton...

... accountant or internal auditor.

; )

- Dave

[sutz12]

7. Gee, I hope I can get that kind of oversight on my next auto loan. nt

[babylonsister]

8. How 'bout a free car? More outrage here:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004981.php

Wanna Buy a Car? Charge It To The State Department
By Spencer Ackerman - December 26, 2007, 3:39PM

For a moment, leave aside the question of missing property. The September 2007 State Department inspector general report provides a blueprint for how lax department rules let contractors in Afghanistan shoehorn all manner of purchases into their conctract costs -- regardless of whether the contract required those specific purchases. As they say on the streets, DynCorp, essentially, got to charge it to the game.

Take one example. On one of DynCorp's task orders for the Civilian Police training contract, the company bought $1.1 million worth of trucks, unspecified in its contract, and charged it to the government. And that was just the start.

Under one of the Civilian Police task orders, the vouchers included charges for 20 Ford F-250s, with a cost of $1.1 million, that were acquired before the modification authorizing their purchase was issued; 18 vehicles consisting of Ford Excursions, John Deere Gators, and Yamaha motorcycles, with a cost of $384,590, that were not specified in the task order; and an additional unknown quantity of John Deere Gators and Ford Excursions, with a cost of $1.4 million, that were not specified in the ask order.

That worked for DynCorp so well on the police contract, the company ran the same game on its ordnance-removal contract:

Although weapons and weapon accessories were not among the property specified for purchase under the WRAP contract, the vouchers included charges of $30,000.

The inspector general concedes that contractors might legitimately need to buy new property during the course of the contract. But the department's requirements -- apparently still in place -- don't allow outside observers enough visibility to determine what's a legitimate expense and what isn't. (Or, in the IG's words, "the Department should assess whether additional property items are needed to meet program requirements, approve new acquisitions before they are made, and modify the contract accordingly.") The absence of such protections is practically an invitation for a contractor to walk into a Ford dealership and hand over Condoleezza Rice's credit card -- which, incidentally, you pay for.