BC-FOI-CONTRACTORS-COMMENTARY:MCT — op-ed (790 words)
Contractors reap benefits of government secrecy
FOCUS ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
(MCT)
The recent news that Halliburton could not account for $1.8 billion on a military support contract has left the public scratching its head. Where did the money go? What goods or services did the public receive? Unfortunately, answering those and many more questions proves difficult for the American taxpayer.
Contractors have, in recent years, launched a multi-pronged assault on the public's right to know about government check writing to large corporations. This assault has been fueled by campaign contributions, a spawning industry of lobbyists plying their political influence, and growing coziness with federal officials.
Given the increased government buying fueled by the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a need for transparency. Early unofficial estimates have federal contractors taking home a total approaching $400 billion in 2004, up from $250 billion in 2002. Last year alone, Halliburton saw its Pentagon contracts rise from $468 million to $3.92 billion, leaping to seventh-largest defense contractor from 37th.
But the public is increasingly being kept in the dark about the government's spending. For example, after a series of critical news articles, the government finally released its 2003 report on government buying. However, the report was just eight pages long, compared to a 191-page report in 2002. An introduction to the new report put an Orwellian spin on the 183-page difference, saying that because of ``enhanced reporting capability," the report ``does not include all of the various versions of data views published in prior years."
Among the types of information inexplicably left out was data showing how many contracts were awarded without full and open competition, a point of contention in the Iraq reconstruction awards.
Moreover, the revelation of Halliburton's irregular checkbook balancing might not have been made public at all were it not leaked to the media. Neither the public nor Congress is granted full access to government contracts and audits. For example, Halliburton's military support contract never saw the light of day until it was posted on the Internet by the Center for Public Integrity. However, that contract includes no actual costs or totals.
With less transparency, contractors have less incentive to keep costs as low as they would in a truly competitive and open marketplace. To solve this problem, contracts as well as task and delivery orders (smaller contracts that, when pieced together, make super-size contracts) should be posted on public Web sites if they exceed $25,000. Currently, information about billions of dollars in government spending is kept from the public and industry, a departure from long-standing and sound procurement principles.
Additional resources must also be provided for government oversight, which saves the taxpayer far more money than it costs and helps policy-makers identify problems in the contracting arena that would otherwise go unnoticed. That oversight prevents contractor fraud and waste when properly funded and staffed. ``Reforms," however, have cut oversight staff by up to 35 percent and budgets by up to 41 percent in some offices. Starving the government's oversight agencies allows contractors to pickpocket the taxpayer without the proverbial policeman to make an arrest.
Finally, contracting officers should be more aware of contractor misconduct when doling out government work. The federal government continues to conduct business with companies like Halliburton that repeatedly break laws and regulations, despite rules specifying that contractors have a satisfactory record of ``integrity and business ethics."
The government does so, in part, under a see-no-evil basis — it does not keep track of contractor misconduct or report it to the public. Until the Project On Government Oversight compiled the first database of misconduct cases, officials made their decisions in the dark. Yet, the public has the right to know when its tax dollars are being used to hire scofflaws.
Like many problems in Washington, the status quo will prevail until the public voices its concerns. Secrecy should be used in the cases of legitimate national security. But shrouding contracts in a veil of secrecy neither protects taxpayer interests nor the public's confidence in government.
———
ABOUT THE WRITER
Scott Amey is general counsel for Project on Government Oversight, an organization that ``investigates, exposes and seeks to remedy abuses of power, mismanagement and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests." Readers may write to the author at: Project on Government Oversight, 666 11th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20001; Web site: www.pogo.org.
This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service
subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this
column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent
the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
———
© 2004, Project on Government Oversight
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services