>> once again elected to the specific numbers, sir. >> you have a ballpark? >> no, sir. >> to the mac. >> commissioner shays, which is the clear fascia and on again what i heard. we ask for those for examples. are we talking apples and apples. you've now said that they were probably done at the local level informally? >> the four examples -- >> you said you'd gone back, communicated four times how jude notified band and you're now clarifying that was it the same conversation or clarify if the lower levels and you don't know what -- lower level to meet -- you know, still the request don't stand. tell us each instance. ..

that -- >> not to my knowledge. >> do you have a question? >> thank you. first of all, to go back to a subject which gives no pain at all which is assuming hugh do when as you hope to the base plate support under the logcap iv if i refrain the question to you expect turmoil in half of iraq you would win if he were transitioning to yourself you wouldn't expect a lot of turmoil in that, what you? >> no sir. >> and we wouldn't expect a lot of turmoil. we would have to -- >> via understand, i know there is property and so forth. by the way i a understand the

project on government oversight is extending a letter to the department of defense on this issue of the potential canceling of competition for logcap iv. earlier there was a mention of protest as if there was a big problem in what is strung out the link of logcap iv going ahead. am i correct in the competition occurring in the logcap iv when no protests in kuwait there were no protests in afghanistan and on the cdp part of the logcap iv and iraq was a protest but it's in the drawing so in the task order competitions there have been no sustained protests have their? >> that is to but there's been no sustained protests.

>> earlier you were discussing the clss where there were these 11%, there was 11% underutilization figures. you discussed whether you had raised it, whether you had an opportunity to deal with the underutilization, and there is a lengthy discussion between you and the dcaa on the reports that parallels the order. so that's what the commissioners were reading from earlier and if i understand the dialogue between you and the dcaa, after they had the three months -- excuse me after they had the six month figure for the 11% underutilization, they, the government, the dcma, asked you

to put forth a proposal for dealing with underutilization, and you spoke to him as they instructed you it didn't have much affect the underutilization. >> could i direct the gentleman is 89% underutilization, he lived in% utilization. >> thanks. i am sorry i'm not being clear on that. 84% underutilization which is latin and in english we call it ogle charging while the work camano work is being done. and the response the dcaa has and i would like you to comment while the contractor takes the initiative that is the july 2008 stat our order determine the contract could have been more proactive based on discussions dcma and the command of the contractors lack of transparency

and initiative resulted in a missed opportunity for cost savings and there was more discussion of that and that in addition it could, pbr, could have proposed cost-saving initiatives as soon as it became apparent that so much idle time was being charged to the government. this is forward-looking and the contractor now has the opportunity to achieve significant savings by working with the government to right size the clss function. wasn't it within your power in august of 2009 not only to put forth a proposal that matched with the government asked you to but to put forth a proposal for the larger savings, and now that you have the statement of condition you have had for some time and will he make a proposal that would substantially cut the level of the underutilization and when would you hope to do so by?

>> first, mr. commissioner, in may of that year the third esc was developing a change to the method of operation for its maintenance support teams. that proposal was provided us i believe in june where we began based on their change to the organization and low utilization in effort to get higher utilization and this process was called maintenance support teams and these maintenance support teams reduced as you pointed out earlier in certain number of mechanics and positions that were there.

that operation went into effect in july of 2009, and that is the -- that is the system we are working under. but to the larger question, if that system or that reorganization as they directed is not and we continue to see underutilization, then yes, we will. >> time for one more question? >> i want to follow-up. the commissioner brought back -- i appreciate her doing so -- when she and i were in iraq there was a style of -- dialogue between mr. speaker us, her, cost, about 7100 people who hadn't been counted. in the description, mr. horn,

you left out this was originally brought to your attention -- it wasn't soft discovered. it was brought to your attention by the date offense contract agency and i see going back to the notes you did yourself know that. you brought it to your time. and i just want to check with you as i understand you didn't put the 7100 in your reports before the dcaa called you but before that you're willing to put them in which reminds me of the story about the man who said that yes it's true i was speaking before the officer called me but i am certainly willing to stop speeding. would you comment whether it is the case that the dcaa found this before you did? >> my answer to the question? >> sure. >> on the day that this happened, my deputy program manager for support, we prepare

a report every saturday we basically do the work on friday, saturday and then on sunday we finalize and present to the government on i think monday at 9:00. i don't know if it was saturday or sunday he brought to me and said basically we've got a problem. i said okay what's the problem? and looking at a camp that was closing, we saw that the number of people that we were counting for as they support the contract functions. i don't want to get too deep into the say that there was an additional number the was there that we hadn't seen before, which in essence was the subcontractors administrative people that provide him the

overhead to run his camps so the decision was to me what do you want to do? i said had we worked the numbers? had we looked at the numbers? do we know this is accurate? and the bottom line was on that day at that time i said report it because that is the proper thing to do. now in hindsight, i didn't have the time or didn't go back and do the detailed analysis i should have done, okay? and so, that's how the 7100 -- >> excuse me i still love and figured out did the dcaa communicate to you or not? >> nope. >> mr. speed, did you tell us the dcaa had? >> i don't believe it did. >> my notes of what you said and what the dcaa told us must both be wrong but we will leave it, it is a small point. thank you.

>> thank you. i won't use i think my full time. i thought it was a trifecta -- i thought it was the contractor oversized its work force and it's not a criticism, it is because it is going to lead to the issue that i am the most interested in which is how we deal with it. but the second thing was the failure of the government to act -- and julich the analyze the negotiated contractor work force and in the failure of the government to oversee, but it starts before that supply guess it is a super fact of. first of the government comes to you, correct, mr. horn, and says this is a service we would like you to provide and i'm talking about the maintenance facility. i mean, mr. laboa, i can go with you, and then my understanding is you then work up what you think those needs are and then the dod, the army

of the third part is going to look at work and say fine, go with it and then it's okay, you are operating and is there a proper oversight. do i have those four points pretty accurate? >> yes, sir. >> so, my question is when we -- and i'm going to say we because the government got it wrong, too, the underutilization -- excuse me, basically working ten to 15% of utilization instead of 85%. what should be the mechanism? if the mechanism isn't there what should the mechanism be to deal with it? because i am struck that it shouldn't be you'll contacting the folks in the field. it seems to me folks should say hey, boss, we aren't being used at all this is a waste of our

time and the government money. so, what would you be suggesting that we as a commission at our voice in trying to deal with this issue? >> mr. shays, the mechanism was there, it was not functioning. two things that were wrong -- >> tom with the mechanism is -- >> the mechanism is dcaa oversight for the administration of the contract and the second thing is of course the war you talked about earlier whether they were there or not -- >> let's say they saw the underutilization pretty early. would they be coming back to you saying we need to renegotiate the contract or is there a mechanism within the existing contract simply to say you need half the people or to third -- one-third of the folks?

>> yes, sir. >> what is it? >> could i just -- >> i want you to say whatever you want. >> yes, sir. >> there was another issue at this whole process where there was specific requirements to report to the customer the utilization rate and it was going to dcma and was going in the one case to the marine expeditionary force so the customer who should have been watching this probably didn't know it and as a result of that i am not sure how dcaa was working with it. i'm not sure whether they were telling or not telling. i don't know that. so we had the statement of work as we had was imprecise relates

to tell me about what you are doing, to pbr and here is the data i wish to see every month or every week by the functional areas. >> is your statement basically nothing needs to happen we just needed a better job of doing it? >> yes. >> now tell me, would it make sense -- of it struck me that it would -- wouldn't it make sense for there to be a requirement when you -- let me just make sure on this first of -- when you know what the service is that you need to provide door being asked basically to determine closely 85% utilization rate; is that in the country or is that a goal that is not in the contract? >> to my knowledge it is not in the contract. what is is the department of army goal -- >> you know what the goal is -- >> it's eda 5%.

it says in this kind of operation we would expect ideally to see a usage rate of 85%. >> when you do this you are saying let's figure this number at an 85% utilization rate. when you are being told -- >> yes, sir. >> by using the time i didn't think i would have to use. let me just asked both of you to answer any question you wish was asked and make any comment you wish to make about what ever is taking place at this hearing. mr. horn, we can start with you if you would like. >> we want to thank the commission for asking you to come today. a couple of key points i want to stress. the first is the unpredictability in the nature of the war that leads to a lot of uncertainty for the contractors you have on the battlefield. there is difficulty in applying the standard government contracting approach infil war zone because the inherent lack

of predictability in the day-to-day operations. we strongly believe speaking with one voice within the government is important. we think it assists and the efficient operations of these types of contracts. and while we have stated in today's hearing that we need better oversight -- i mean better insight and more details to the military plan for the drawdown, we fully understand why we have not gotten that level of detail to this date, and we do feel that when we absolutely need the information we will get the information. and that is the main point i would like to summarize. >> mr. laboa. >> i just got reminded i said

dcma -- dcaa has the oversight. just so you know my approach to what i am trying to do out there and what i am doing is to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the logcap iii operation. it's tough. it's a big operation. it has been there awhile. and we have done a number of things to improve the quality program and to begin the new beginning which is helping us do what you are asking us to do. we have proposed to the army and you will see in the briefings i think that you've already been given a number of proposals that we think they should consider as a part of the process that we can again now to cut back. we can reduce the number of the facts that are currently there and we have made those

proposals. we can reduce other areas which we have put forward to the army, and i must say they are increasing a good number of these. they are in the process of looking at all of that and an effort to reduce the cost of this contract to the american tax payer. i am driven by getting it done as efficiently and effectively as we can. i instituted the personnel reduction and realignment program which you know is part in effort to take a look at the lawyering and the number of people we have on the contract and apply some efficiency factors to look at reducing the size of this contract. so, in all of this discussion we haven't had a chance to really get into those things within

reasons of the time, but what i want you to know is kbr is in fact doing the work to improve the efficiency of the operation and as you ask us to come back and tell me, i'm sorry, mr. t galt, are there other areas i need to be looking at and we are doing that with the government right now. >> i think that is really important and when you put the documentation package together the -- those areas that you have provided to your customer and the that is, they will come over and be sure we understand them. >> thank you. i think the commission knows that it's impossible to be perfect. we tend to be more receptive to the folks who realize when they aren't perfect, when they make mistakes and how they are adjusting to the mistakes you can win a lot of friends when you go that direction. thank you, both, very much.

this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

now defense department briefing on the latest in afghanistan and iraq speaking via satellite from kuwait. lieutenant-general william webster discusses development in afghanistan following president obama as a visit last weekend as well as plans for reduced u.s. presence in iraq. this is about half an hour. >> [inaudible conversations] >> good morning and think you for joining us on good friday. general webster this is bryan of the pentagon. i take that you can hear us okay. >> i can hear you very good, thanks, bryan. >> thanks very much for joining this evening. this is lieutenant general william webster the commander of the army in kuwait. the firm has more than 50,000 military and civilians operating in 13 countries. general webster's area of responsibility is an area of more than 4.5 million square

miles, or about 1.5 times the size of the continent of the divided states, so a big job. he took command in may of last year and right now is sustaining the two current combat operations supporting both the responsible drawdown in iraq as well as the buildup in afghanistan and the army. so general webster, think you for taking the time and i understand you are going to give a bit of an overview before you take some questions. so let me turn right over to you. >> thanks very much. this is my second tour of duty in the the third army. i was a deputy commander for general mckiernan backend 02 and 03 when we initially attack into iraq and i commanded the third infantry division in baghdad with multinational baghdad in 05 to 06 and as you states and i

took the command last may and it's one of the things i've been able to conduct since taking command. i thought i would tell you first of all that our three main missions are first of all sustaining the current fights and afghanistan and iraq that includes the responsible drawdown from iraq as well as the buildup of forces in afghanistan. the second mission that we have is to be prepared to go to any of the other countries other than iraq and afghanistan if something should go wrong and we should have to conduct their operations. perhaps a natural disaster all the way up to combat operations. and the third mission we have is building the partners capacity in the region in centcom as we attempt to make them stronger and build our allies in the region. i've passed out i think our --

my opening statement so if you would like i can just go to questions or talk to you some more about what we are doing. >> it looks like they would like to get right into the questions, general, so we will do that. >> general, i wonder if you can clarify for us whether or not this is the largest movement of equipment and troops since world war ii or if it is comparable in any way to the gulf war and also if you can give a breakdown of the number of pieces of equipment that you are moving verses how much will stay behind in iraq. >> okay. this is the largest operation that we've been able to determine since the build up for world war ii. when we started this operation, we had about 2.8 million items of equipment in iraq along with about 88,000 containers containing some of that equipment, and some of them being used for other purposes as well as about 41,000 pieces of rolling stock that had to be

moved out, rolling stock meaning tracks and wheeled vehicles as well as trailers. and so we are about 35% through that now. we began, actually last june, moving equipment out of iraq, and we're sorting it out here in kuwait. some of it goes to afghanistan; some of it goes back to the army to be reset back in the depots and then returned to our soldiers or training backend conus. >> and sir, could you say how many pieces that are being left behind in iraq and will not go on to afghanistan? or is any equipment being left behind for the iraqi security forces? >> yes, there are a number of programs run by the department of defense and state department,