us. being an independent candidate was like running into a brick wall. in colorado major party candidates are permitted to raise double the amount of money that i could raise. if you go to court, you find that all of the election judges must be affiliated with one of the two major parties. election officials themselves will give voter data to major party candidates for free, but they are not obligated to provide that data to unaffiliated candidates. that's what we're called since we're kind of subhuman, unaffiliated candidates. this is just a short list. these are structural problems. i can't help but see this world through the eyes of a public official, so i feel very strongly that our elected officials must provide leadership on political reform. i was on the inside, i witnessed how this really works, i served as a committee chair, and i was second from the top. i know of what i speak.

i thought i could change this system from the inside, but it got to the point where staying inside meant i had to sacrifice my personal integrity; too big of a price to pay. i will run again, and next time i will win. i know my message -- [applause] >> yea. >> i know that my message as an independent is a good pit for the voters of colorado, and i know this is off script, but don't get worried. [laughter] i'd have to give you another dispatch. on friday we had a bill that died in the committee on a 5-4 vote to open up our primary system a little bit. it's a semiclosed telephone some people would say semiopen, i say closed, primary system to allow independents to vote without changing their registration. well, the bill died on a 5-4 vote count, and let me tell you

why it died. there's a fiscal note on the bill, and our state is broke. the fiscal note was there because the secretary of state found that there would be so much more participation in the election that it would cost us too much money and, therefore, the bill had to go down. that's what we're up against, that's what i'm going to change when i go back. thank you all for being here. [applause] >> thank you. and now it's my pleasure to introduce one of our not-so-secret weapons. he is our general counsel and the country's leading legal advocate on behalf of independent voters. he's litigating some of the top election law controversies around the country. with a 30-year history in the landmark cases involving ballot access, open debates, public financing and, of course, open primaries and nonpartisan elections.

please welcome harry kresky. [applause] okay. joining harry will be a host of today's conference, jackie salit, president of independent voting.org. for c-span viewers who are just joining us, independent voting.org is a national association of independent voters who now make up 38% of the country. independent voting.org has affiliates and activists in 45 states and is the national leader in nonpartisan political reform. please welcome back to the stage jackie salit. [applause] >> hello, everyone. >> hi.

>> let me ask our panelists to come up and join us here on stage. hi, john. >> thank you. >> good, nice to see you. yeah, great to have you. so nice to have you. james, hi. >> how are you? >> doing good. >> good. hey, rodney, how are you? [inaudible conversations] >> okay. so what i want to do to get i started is i want to introduce our distinguished panel here today. and then get our conversation going. so john avlon who you saw earlier today in that fantastic

video statement that he made about some of the issues and the problems of organizing around hate and the negative impact of that on our political culture is a senior political columnist for the daily beast. he's a cnn contributor, as you saw. he's the author of several books including "independent nation: how centrists can change american politics." he's also a founder of no labels which is the new organization that's dedicated to bipartisan cooperation, and in 2010 john led the citizens union task force that endorsed nonpartisan municipal elections for new york city, and i have to tell you that he played an absolutely crucial role in the citizens union voice in this whole process and was just really terrific, and we're just thrilled to have you with us. [applause]

teresa amato traveled here from chicago, and we're so glad a storm did not get in your way. [laughter] teresa has been holding government and corporate power accountable while building democracy as a public interest lawyer for over two decades. i think many of you have read her very eloquent expose of our electoral process which is called "grand illusion: the myth of voter choice in a two-party tyranny." this book was expired by -- inspired by her experience as the manager of ralph nader's 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. teresa is the founder of the i'll-based citizen advocacy center where she directs the fair contracts project to reform defined print in standard form contracts. any of you who have a contract problem can see her after the panel -- [laughter] and she's a wonderful person and has been so supportive of us,

and i really value our friendship and our partnership. teresa amato. [applause] jim who you also saw in the video, is the president and ceo of the st. johns well child and family center which is a network of ten health centers and school-based clinics that provide free medical, dental and mental health services to more than 125,000 children and adults in los angeles. he's the president of the board of the community clinic association of los angeles county. he chairs the board of strategic actions for a just economy, s.a.j.e., and the coalition for community health. he was a founder of the national reform party. he served as the party's first national secretary. he has been a leader in the independent movement for the last 20 years and is a wonderful friend and such an important voice on the west coast and nationally for independent politics. [applause]

jim mangia. next to jim is bradley tusk, the founder of tusk strategies, a political and strategic consulting firm. in 2009 bradley served as the campaign manager for mayor michael bloomberg's successful re-election bid. he was called by the new york press bloomberg's secret weapon. he served as deputy governor of the state of illinois from 2003 to 2006 where he oversaw the state budget, policy, legislation and operations. he's also a very, very passionate supporter of nonpartisan elections, and we had a great time working together during the 2009 campaign. bradley tusk. [applause] dr. lenore fellani rejoins us. [applause] she is, she is a co-founder of the all stars project, the country's leading

privately-funded youth development program. dr. fellani currently serves as the dean of ux which is a unique university-style development institution open to people of all ages. as we saw in the cnn clip earlier today, she's an outspoken advocate for nonpartisan elections, and she's popularized this reform in a broad mix of communities. she's probably best known in the arena of politics for challenging the traditional alignment of african-american voters with the democratic party. she's a founder of the new york independents party, lenore fellani. [applause] next to lenore is michael hardy. michael hardy is a civil rights attorney in new york city. his primary areas of practice include criminal defense litigation, not-for-profit organizations, employment and civil rights litigation. he is a founding member of the national action network and has

served as counsel to the network and to reverend al sharpton for over 15 years. michael's been in the forefront of the legal fight against police brew untilty -- brutality in new york city defending victims and their families in some of the city's most high profile cases. in the 2007 we were very fortunate to have michael defending the voting rights of members of the new york city independent party in state supreme court. an old friend, a longtime ally, michael hardy. [applause] kathy stewart is next to michael. kathy stewart, known to many of you, is a founder of the independents party of new york and chair of the manhattan organization. she serves as the citywide coordinator, and she runs the party's on-the-ground voter poll operations. in 2009 those efforts resulted in a record-breaking 150,000

votes on the independents party line for mayor bloomberg. cathy stewart is the founder of politics for the people, a free educational series designed for independents. she's my go-to girl, cathy stewart. [applause] and next to cathy, a wonderful friend and adviser, doug schoen, who is a founding partner in the consulting film of penn, schoen and berlin, and doug has been advising presidents, prime ministers and politicians including president bill clinton and mayor michael bloomberg for over three decades. and, by the way, this doesn't mention that you've also been advising me. [laughter] i know i don't rank with presidents, prime ministers and politicians -- [laughter] >> i beg to disagree. >> [laughter] doug keeps his finger on the independent pulse of the body politic, and he's one of the

smartest people out there that is looking at the importance and the e louis of the -- evolution of the independent movement and one of the most energy energeti. he's the author of many books including "declaring independence: the end of the two-party system." please welcome doug las schoen. [applause] so, mr. kresky, i turn the microphone over to you. >> good morning. it's great to be here with all of you. as our mie. becomes more national and hopefully more international, and one of my favorite movies is "my cousin vinny." litigating in the south carolina has given me a better understanding of what that's about. [laughter] so it's great to be here with our panel. we've been talking this morning and for months now and years about the ways that independent voters and the emerging independent movement are shaping the political scene in america.

independents, as we've seen, have determined and are determining the outcome of presidential and congressional elections. they've introduced a new political reform movement that seeks to address and do something about the problems of partisanship. i'd like to ask each of you from your points of view how you see independents changing the political dynamics today, what does that change look like today? do you want to start, john? >> sure. this is the single most important thing going on in american politics today, and the two parties are deeply in denial about it because they're scared about it. independent voters are the largest and fastest-growing sellingment of the electorate, and that's worth saying again, the largest and fastest-growing segment of the lek -- electorate. everything's presented as the this always false division between the far left and far right states, and we know that's a lie. briefly, it's very clear to me that it is in direct reaction to

the polarization of the two parties, unprecedented, that there is a mainstream neither the independent -- beneath the independent movement, but overwhelmingly generationally they're closer to republicans on economic issues, closer to democrats on social issues. fiscally conservative but socially liberal, and that's a generational no-brainer too. you've got a whole generation that's grown up with a multiplicity of choice in every area of their lives, and this is the one area in politics where we're supposed to be satisfied in the choice between brand a and brand b. it doesn't reflect the way we think. the two parties are deeply invested in the industrial age rules. they have not woken up to information and reality. that's something they're going to have to do. that's one of the reasons we're going to need to all fight and unify to try to expand the franchise. and the two things they've been using to rig the system is the rigged system of redistricting reform and closed partisan primaries. both are deeply undealt contact,

and i think they've forgotten that parties are not the purpose of our democracy. but we haven't, and that's why i think the independent movement growing is one of the most exciting, dynamic things happening in american politics today. [applause] >> good. go down. >> okay. is that on? can you hear me? well, i have a long list to add to the rigged system -- [laughter] in terribles of complaints. the networks of complaints. and not just the closed primaries and redistricting although those are major problems. but you also say ballot access. uni, one of the problems of -- you know, one of the problems of the two-party system, its entrenchment and its incumbency protection plan is they write the rules for everybody else. and it's hard to have a growing movement of independents if you can't also have independent candidates to vote for. and we have to open up the system in order to be able to say this is our candidate, not

that we're just going to be stuck with one of your two major party candidacies. [applause] that's not tolerable. it's not tolerable that 40% of the american people say, i'm, you can only vote for one of the two major parties. or you have to wait 18 months like you heard earlier today in order to be able to go out to run and get the votes of independent voters. we can't stand for that anymore in the united states, and that's not how we should define democracy here. [applause] >> i was thinking, i found myself thinking earlier, and i often do when i think about the role of independents and the changing political dynamics in the united states. i think about in public health we have this story about a river. so there's two folks walking along a river, two people. and there's a whole bunch of babies that are in the river

drowning. and one person jumps into the river to start saving these babies. and the other person starts running. and the person in the river looks at their friend and they say, what the hell are you doing? there's all these babies in the water. and that person says i'm going to go upstream and find out who's throwing the babies in the water. so i see our political system today as a situation where with there's a whole lot of babies in the water. and nobody is looked -- is going in to save the babies in the water, nor are they looking upstream to find out who's throwing the babies in the water. and i think what the independent movement has to offer, i think the independent movement is very focused on looking upstream and seeing who is throwing the babies in the water and what are the structural reforms that are necessary to change that dynamic? but i think the independent movement, i would like to

challenge us to, also, think about the babies that are currently in the water that are drowning. and i see this every day at the community clinics where i work where people are literally dying from the lack of health care, where children are being poisoned because they live in slum housing. we have a republican proposal coming out of the appropriations committee which would literally eliminate $100 billion in domestic spending without touching the military, without touching corporate tax breaks. so what is the role of progressive independents in not only looking upstream, but also in saving those babies that are drowning in the water right now? and i think i find myself as an independent as having both of those responsibilities. [applause] >> so there's really no question that the movement's growing. this event wouldn't be happening

today if that weren't the case. whether we're winning, yeah, i think there's progress, for sure. but i think really if you want to figure out how we can ultimately kind of defeat the entrenched interests that are currently in power, we've got to define ourselves a little more broadly than i think we do right now. so we tend to looking look at if political process. open primaries, nonpartisan elections, things like that. they matter deeply to everyone in this room. but in and of itself, what does that mean? a lawsuit here, an initiative there. an independent, at least to me, is broader than that, right? and if you look around the country right now you see other movements like education reform, pension reform, you see people rising up around the country in different forums to take on the same entrenched system that ultimately control legislative congress everywhere else. i think we've made some progress, but if we want to go further, quite frankly, we get excited when we win one, but we

spend a lot of time and money on one initiative. we've got to branch out and redefine what independent means, take all these different issues and say anyone who's trying to take on the status quo right now in government, take on the entrenched powers, that's what an independent really is. and i think when we we can do that and see that, you know, then we have the critical mass and the resources we need to win. so a lot of progress purely within the kind of political way that we, that we in this room kind of look at independents, but i think we've really got to take the next step if we're going to want to really win. in. [applause] >> bradley, yes, and this is something we teach the kids. [laughter] i agree with that. i think it's also important to help people who are fighting educational fights and health care fights and against all the ills of our society to recognize that these decisions are not made because people have good or bad hearts.

they are deeply connected to how the country and our political system and electoral system is structured. and in many cases you have people getting on buses, for example, and going up to albany and new york city to -- not even to demonstrate, to request from the people up there who have created the problem to then come out and join them in in the protests who they often times don't recognize that it is because of the structure in which those people are participating, how it's organized, that it keeps us from being able to move ahead. so i think, actually, independents and the independent movement are, includes americans, people identify themselves as independents or not, i think the people who don't go out and vote who are pissed off at the system who basically look at things and say i don't even know how i can participate in this thing because i can't impact. we're bigger and broader than we do define ourselves, but we also

have to educate our people to let them know why it is that the people that we elect don't do better. it's not because all of them are evil. [laughter] [applause] >> you know, i think i want to pick up maybe a little bit where dr. newman left off because, one, i think at least from where i come from i first recognize that there are a lot of people who are very much tied to the parties. and some for good reason. for instance, african-americans are very tied to the historic role that the parties played in their liberation, if you will. whether you're talking originally about emancipation or whether you're talking about civil rights. and so in some respects sort of like the declaration of independence you have to give due deference to the fact that there is a history there.

and sometimes people will bear the evil of it because, as fred was saying, they have not yet been liberated, and their voices have not been freed. and so, you know, i think the role that we play now is sort of like harriet tubman, that, you know, she said that, in other words, i could have freed many more slaves if they only knew that they were slaves. and so we have to free these voices of democracy and make them realize that they're in a situation now that has changed, and they need to be liberated. [applause] >> i think when i think about this question of how we're shaping or changing the political scene, one thing i think about is i think independents are changing the conversation in the country. and i think that's a very, very important role for us. and what i mean by that is if you just think back several years ago, the issue of open

primaries, nonpartisan elections, semiclosed primaries, this was lingo that was very much back room, a few states had it. it was not a major issue being debated in our democracy which meant that millions of americans, as you're describing, in many ways, millions of us our voices were stifled, and we weren't able to play a role in deciding who our or elected officials are. it's very hard in this country to change the political conversation, particularly for a movement that's labeled, not covered, talked about as just a swing force between the two major parties. so i think that that's a major accomplishment that's happening all over the country. i also think that what we're, what we're seeing is that as many panelists have spoken to, i think the parties are waking up in some interesting ways.

obviously, you have the situation you so eloquently laid out, jackie, in your presentation of the process that our president has been through. and his going to a very, very partisan town and his own party and getting very caught up in the partisanship and seeing what happens and how independents respond. and i think that's very important, and i also think probably the most important thing that we're doing and the most important place we're changing the conversation in american politics is with our neighbors. it's on the college campus. it's in every telephone call we make. the most important conversations happening right now are those that are happening as independents are reaching out to fellow independents, to fellow americans who, as you so eloquently say, are still trapped inside the two parties. many of those americans are only registered democrat or republican because they want the right to vote in the election that matters, but they're with us, and they're independent-minded. so i think that work, that

from-the-bomb, changing -- from the bottom changing piece by piece is critical in changing the kinds of solutions, the kinds of conversations that get had about what's even viable, where are the innovations in education and health care? we've got to change the whole process, soup to nuts, and it starts by changing the conversation among the american people. [applause] >> i'd like to, jackie, make three points. first one, a personal one. and as you know, i've come in a variety of different capacities, participated in, i guess, three or four of these national conferences. and when i began, jackie, i started as a hard core, mainstream if not particularly something of a dissident democrat, and i come here today where most people who watch and listen to me say, god, you moved to the right, you sound like an

independent, and truth be known while i'm still a registered member of the democratic party and will probably participate in democratic primaries for the reasons cathy mentioned, my orientation is much more that of an independent now than a mainstream democrat. [applause] and that's something i'm proud to to say. i don't think i could ever become a republican because they're abhorrent in a lot of their views, but essential to the governance of the country. i mean, you can trash 'em, but if they are controlling one house substantively and another house perhaps idealogically in the congress, it's hard to cast them aside. the other side of it is what cathy said is an issue, and it also ties in with what lenora is saying, that process does matter. and if you can't run, you can't participate, you can't make a difference. but i want to conclude by just

echoing something bradley tusk said because he said something profound. which i think everybody here has to understand. the system is now so closed that if you want to effect change, while what you're doing is very important, it necessarily -- because you're focusing so much on a closed process -- requires a lot of work that doesn't interest people the way issues do as dr. newman suggested. so what bradley said, and i think it deserves to be underscored, is that if people are working on education reform, health care reform and, i dare say, issues like fiscal reform because we are in an unsustainable economic condition where the two parties are not at all talking in a way that is constructive, and whether you're for more money for health care or less money for health care, i can tell you if we bankrupt the

federal government, bankrupt states, there's going to be no money for anything. so i would tell you that what bradley said is where i would conclude. we have to be inclusive of people who are working on issues and concerns of importance to bring them in whether they participate directly in processes like this or just continue to work on their issue is really unimportant. and i would, finally, conclude by saying, jackie, if you take my example as sort of illustrative, the level of success you have when you expose people to the broader ideas that john avlon has written about so eloquently is a very good, positive one. thank you. [applause] >> thank you all for those opening remarks. i have a number of thoughts that i want to follow up on, but i just want to say one thing to doug. see, i think you moved left and became an independent.

[laughter] but we'll talk about that. [laughter] um, okay. so a number -- part of what i'm hearing is a number of you raised the issue of needing to more broadly define ourselves. doug says this in his remarks, jim i think directly referenced this, bradley referenced this, i hear in your comments, michael, as well. perhaps another way to come at that issue which i think is a very, very important issue is can i ask each of you to share your thoughts on whether you see a connection between political reform and social reform? in other words, in this first round we've kind of talked about them, if you will, as perhaps separate things. there's kind of political reform, and then there's social reform, and we have to broad b our definition. -- broaden our definition. that's what some people are advocates. but, i guess, i'm going to

advocate that there's a connection between those things, and i wonder if everyone on the panel could speak to that. if you see that and how you see that and what does that look like from your, your vantage point? we can go in any order here. >> i'll start. i just, i would say it's -- only because it may be in the news right now, just take a look at cairo. that's a combination of social reform and political, and political reform. i mean, and so even here, you know, we look -- if you were to look at what's happening inside the parties, it's almost like there are millions of more people who are outside of that. and at some point they're going to realize, wait a second -- [laughter] what's going on here? we've got to change this dynamic, and i think that happens both as part of social reform and changing the political process. >> uh-huh. >> and i'd add to that, i mean, what's going on in cairo right now is still unfolding, but it was an extraordinary moment,

unlike any we've seen since 1989 and the fall of the bear-in wall. but what's really -- berlin wall. but what's really different, the role that technology played. the internet, twitter, facebook. in fact, there was a google employee in egypt that spurred that technology. and i think that has dramatic potential generally for aggregating the political movement in a way that's never existed before. the two parties are joined by activists, folks who predominantly define themselves as partisans. the vast majority of americans believe you can be a good patriot but not a hard-core partisan. this gives us the ability to aggregate independents across the spectrum in a way that's never been possible before, and that helps change the power equation, and that's really exciting. >> uh-huh. >> jackie, i think the point that you're making about the connection between political reform and social reform is a critical one. i think, you know, if you look at just recently the happenings

in the congress, you know, there was polling that was done recently that showed that when asked how we should plug the hole in the deficit, 80% of the american people felt that we should increase taxes on the rich. and what you had was increasing tax breaks for the rich and a bigger hole being put into the deficit, and where are they going to take that money from? those social progress, social justice initiatives that keep, that reduce the disparity of wealth between americans. and, you know, it was interesting that we watched robert reich on the video earlier because he just published a book which i read called "after shock" in which he talks about the disparity in income is directly related to downturns in the economy.

because when you -- middle class, the middle class spends a lot more money on, on goods and items. than the rich. so the more money you put in the hands of the rich, the less consumer spending there is, the less economic development there is, the less economic movement there is. and so the more there's a disparity in wealth, the more dangerous and the more significant the economic crisis will become. and what we are continuing to see is an increasing maldistribution of wealth in the united states, and i think that's directly related to your point because if it was up to the american people and the american people had the opportunity and had the choice and had the voice to run this economy the way they thought it should be run or at least impact in some way, it would not be -- they certainly wouldn't have allowed wall street to do what it did, and i can't imagine -- [applause] and they department support the

tax cuts for the top billionaires in the country at the expense of the poorest in the country. [applause] >> uh-huh. .. >> they look at you, pollsters will look at independence and say, how are these independents going to break wrecks are they going to break for the republicans or are they going to

break for the democrats? you know what i'm talking about, right. so in order to get reform you have to say i'm not going to break for either one of the two parties. i'm going to vote for somebody who represents independence. [applause] >> if we don't vote for the two parties and candidates who represent the independent voice in the united states, the two parties are going to continue to do what they have always done, and take your votes for granted. and not get punished for the votes they make or fail to make in washington, d.c., to change the policies jackie was talking about. [applause] >> a couple things i would add to what you are saying, i think that i agree with what we've been saying here. i see an absolute direct connection between political reform, reforming our process

and social reform. but i think that the one challenge, the one thing i would say, teresa, maybe as an anti-what you're saying is i think the critical thing for independents to do is to vote in ways that great new opportunities, new challenges to the system, and support candidates who support reform, be they democrat, republican or independent. i think the idea that just because you're an independent means you're the right candidate. we have to challenge our own partisanship and we have to look at trying to break out of that as well. that's a very, very important. i think a couple things that i would adhere, some of our experience with the new york city independence party in a state that allows fusion, which is you can support the best candidate however they are registered, be they registered democrat, republican or

independent. it's only cloud and i think seven states in the country. it is still laws written fully within the framework of the two major political parties who want to keep minor parties and third parties and independents regulated to a stepchild position. that said, i think what we been able to do in new york city is make very good creative use of that. here i'm thinking of the partnership with mike bloomberg. he is a mayor of new york city. without the newark city independents of party and independent voters working with the african-american community, working throughout the communities in the city. but there was a new engine created. and while i don't agree with mayor bloomberg on a whole host of things, what it did give new york city the opportunity to experience was a less partisan mayor. am if it didn't come up through the party system, doesn't owe any political party anything and was able to govern in a way that i think many new yorkers saw some real benefit from, this is

what it means to have someone who's not operating based on party loyalties to assist in the affected grow up through forever. and i might add, the mayor became a registered independent and i think we had a lot to do with it. pat toomey has been helpful experience of independents being both tactically smart and looking for a partnership that can put the issue of nonpartisan elections in full voting line on the table. i think we have to really recognize voting rights come independents having the right to cast a meaningful vote, it's a very fundamental. we don't have that in the city close to 1 million voters. their votes literally do not play a role in who wins the elections, city council, state senate, state assembly. and that really means that their political connection between our desires and those elected officials. and i think that the point earlier that many good people get elected and meanwhile, i'm thinking of what our colleagues

from colorado were sharing, their experience of getting elected having good ideas and going to serve in a legislator that is not run on straight democratic principles. it's run by two political parties. so it totally change some of that, or couple that to educating americans about the connection between the process you go through and the outcome you get. our public policy remains fairly backwards, uncreative, not up-to-date with the current scientific breakthroughs happening all over the world, and our country in health care and education. i'm a nurse. i was supremely apolitical as i went through my nursing education and began public service, until i realized this huge disconnect between capacity and how our health care system was structured, and that that delivery system was going to have to be changed to the political process. so just to add to some of our conversation. >> let me make one quick point --

[applause] >> i think there's consensus on that political reform and social reform are linked. but let me make hope for a larger point. if you look at what just happened yesterday in egypt, you look at what happened in tunisia, if you look at the so-called color revolutions in eastern and central europe. it's hard to escape the conclusion that political independents produce that change. that is, people who are underlined with a system who would basically if they heard this conversation be pounding their fists and joint and say, that's why we're doing it. you type and with the technological change and having written about the obama movement, independents and the tea parties, the commonality is technology bringing people together in ways that the mainstream media doesn't

understand. so what i would say is ultimately it is a worldwide movement towards exactly what we're talking about, political freedom, social justice. and ultimately i think what we have to see, jack eagen is that this is really both part of and in the vanguard of a degree of broad-based social change that is fundamental to understanding our world today. [applause] >> one thing i think you're seeing as a common element here is the time has come for us to pull the curtain back. instead, we've all been basically in doctrine one way or another with a lot of labels, frankly, and definitions that don't fit the reality of what's going on in america. or around the world. this is an evolutionary process, but when you tell people that there are more independents and democrats and republicans, that starts to shake up tomorrow

because they had been led to believe, i have forced a deciding of a country of false choice between the far right and far left that they have to choose between. the parties want to keep it that way. but then you start showing them that it's growing, when you struggling offense from the center and saying guess what, only 50% of americans say they are conservative republicans and only 11% say they are liberal democrats. that starts to shake up their mind. would you say registered independents outnumber republicans and democrats in 10 states, that starts changing laws. and really say this whole left right divide in politics is a liberal conservative choices that we are given, do not reflect the reality in america. it hasn't always been this way. go back to the progressive reform of the 100 yours ago. a way to analyze politics in is useful on social change. they said the choice was between radicals reactionaries and reformers are progressives. and i think that choice also creates the sense of balance,

the wider view of our politics which says the reactionaries want no choice. radicals want radical change that creates massive backlash. the focus should be on the tv on the two parties, thinking be on the labels trying to focus on the common ground that exists in moving towards political reforms that can help liberate full participation because it's in saying this only districts in this country that don't have general elections. that should outrage us but i thinks -- the city of new york, they just think it's normal that they don't have local elections on election day. the elections are decided, and we need to pull the curtain back and say that's insane. you should be outraged. that's not democracy. [applause] >> i want to respond to this from the vantage point of being a psychologist and an educator who literally became political became i realize that that was the way we had to engage what was wrong with this country.

the first time a voter i voted for myself running for lieutenant governor. the reason why we need political reforms is because we want to respond to partisan, how partisan, the two-party system is. and what partisanship is is corrosion. it's the way the corruption in this country lies. and that's not saying every democrat and republican person or elected official is that, but that's corrosion. and the partisanship is responsible for the failure in our health care system, our housing crisis, and in our education system or as far as i'm concerned, the staff on the graduation rates which are awful in the failure for poor blacks and latinos kids can be directly traced to the partisanship of our political system. and it's not a measure of our

kids. it's a measure of the failure of the leaders, political leaders, and educational leaders. partisanship is anti-american, is anti-poor, is anti-innovation come is anti-middle-class, it's anti-people. and the outrage of all of this that we have to deeply embrace is that there are solutions, solutions to all kinds of things, including the failing rate of black and latino young people in this country. people are discovering and have made all kinds of discoveries internationally. just on the internet, it's in the world. that are making changes and talking about ways in which we can grow people. fred newman and i just put out a paper called let's pretend which we hope, lets people see innovation is very, very important, but you can't touch innovation when you have these

institutions that say we're not interested interested in your opinions. if you don't belong to this club or that club, you'd cannot be a part of it. so i think it's important for us to recognize, and i think the thing that i find so upsetting as i watch our young people suffer and are humiliated, and community's are suffered and are humiliated, and we could be bigger and smarter is that we know how to do some of these things. we've made discoveries. there are innovators year but you can't innovate or you can't get it in front of the public in ways that we actually should be able to because of partisanship. is the relationship between political reform and social issues? absolutely, and the american people have to take this on but i don't care what your registered, and stand up to the forces that make it impossible for us to put innovation just on the map and on the ground. people have made discoveries, and we should be able to make it easier for them so our young

people can be smart, so they can develop and so that they can learn. [applause] >> i think we need to be somewhat careful about not being solely focused on elections and a lock to change but if you think about what edward said over the last 10 minutes or so there's three main levers here. one is that are more independent voters now. to is this incredible disenfranchisement, anger, frustration among the american people. three is there's technology now that unite people and galvanize them in the way we never could before. ultimately, fundamentally we need national reform. doesn't question about that. with that said a lot happens between elections. too much of that is too important to wait for the next cycle, the next referendum. i work for politicians all the time. that's what i do. [inaudible] >> it's not that hard ultimately to use some of these things

intelligently to motivate him to do the right things now. not even waiting for the next election. you know, they either, they tend to either react in one of two ways. they do something to unmask local gain or avoid political are. if you can leverage the frustration and use the technology to show them that now, i don't think you have -- i'm all for the electoral process you been talking about but i think you would be limiting ourselves to wait for the. we can look at the issues right now, need to be improved and force change, probably not to the extent you saw in egypt, but nonetheless it will change. that could matter now, and i think in some ways we are selling ourselves short if we just focus on kind of political process. every issue has its own sort of answers and issues and approaches. but we need to be thinking about in every focus in every type of issue in legislatures, a local and not just every four years. that's where we fall short.

>> one of the -- [applause] >> thank you. one of the things that john's comments and others as well unmaking, i think egypt in many ways is so instructive come in egypt you couldn't identify any political party in that movement. you had a coalition of muslim brotherhood, a google executive and young people who were tuned into the internet, poor people who saw this as a way to give self-expression to themselves as human beings and address some of the tremendous inequities in egypt society. and technology obviously is a way to create new ways of communicating. and i guess what it raises for me, and i think for us, is, can

you do politics without parties? and we're is, where to go with this because one of the things that's happening, i'm involved in litigation, is the american people get with the parties, the parties get more aggression is -- more aggressive. to exist and to run things. that's in some way what this is about. so is the politics without parties? in the 21st century, and people all over the world are capable of getting beyond this, or is that a pipe dream? and if you're talking pipedreams you're talking ideology and parties, where are we going with all this? >> year is a great point because the parties are i think it sort of a defensive crouch. they are lashing out because

they realize the ground has shifted. if you got more and more people registering independent, just arizona came out in the last decade, they know this trend is coming. it scares the hell out of them because there are folks are deeply invested, personally and professionally and hyper partisanship. that's how they know the rules of the game were. they're scared to death about change. of the rule change, immediately find a budget enterprising soul to figure out again that sense, too. i think a larger change driving all around the world if you take a big step back, i think one of the things that is happening is you that an expansion of freedom around the world since 1989. you have individualism has taken hold. people define themselves as individuals outside own private identities. and i think in reaction to that the folks who hold dearly to those identities have been in defensive crouch and they have been lashing out. that's what you see in the

political parties, these party purification rituals. is writing a hunting and dino hunting. you start to see a same kind of in the democratic party as well. the larger dynamic that they're scared to death. >> what do others think about this? >> look, john is exactly right. and what i think the larger question here, following on really all the comments, is to define objectives of what you're trying to achieve and use both the political process as it is s and changing it, and social reform in whatever way you can impact it to achieve objectives. so, are we trying to fix health care, elect a president, create jobs? and i'm struck by lenore's

point, or lenore's question. and it's one that i wrote a piece earlier this year, this is a trivial story by want to make it, about basically the same issues that lenore raise which as i said, we've had a national emergency. which is black and latino kids can't get jobs, can't get educated, can't get ahead. it is a huge national crisis. now, you could come at this from the right. you could come at it from the left with a whole host of different solutions, which we could agree about or disagree about. but what is so startling to me is that having raised the issue, which is outside the mainstream of john, with the rhinos or, with the republicans or the democrats are willing to talk about, for a variety of different reasons. nobody was interested. i mean, when i say no interest,

i mean, just nobody. so for my way of thinking it is a fundamentally definitional question. bradley is absolutely right. we've got to think broader. but it's what are the goals, what are we trying to achieve because ultimately and less we focus on a few large initiatives, and use bipartisanship and independent politics to achieve those goals come ultimately not only does the movement lose, but the larger loss is the citizenry who does not achieve the benefits of addressing issues that are central to the well being of our democracy. let's be very clear. it is not written in sand that the constitutional principles that we've all grown up with and taken for granted, it's not written in the sand that they will be there forever. >> can't i just, i want to respond to, doug, you're saying some people were not interested

in whether or not the crises in a country amongst black and latino students could be resolved? >> i am say they were not interested -- i posited a simple point, lenore. i said with a black teenage unemployment about 35 for 40%, with the educational system largely failing them and not training them, that however you want to look at the problem from the perspective of conservative republican, and instrumental centrist, or a liberal democrat who believes in large care social welfare spending, how are you going to look at, that problem remains unaddressed because it's not part of the agenda of the two major parties. and that creates for us a national crisis that i would argue, national emergency because you know what? windows kids get mobilize, angry, frustrated, whatever it is come and take to the streets, we will have potentially calamitous unrest like we had in the '60s.

[applause] >> lenora? before you answer, i just want to say we have to wrap up in like two minutes, so your comments and then for others who haven't commented, i want to ask you to keep them brief and we will wrap up. >> i mean, this takes me back to the point fred newman was making earlier today, which is there are many people who come from many different walks of life. we've been working with hundreds of thousands of kids over the last 30 years, and their parents and the community, and also key people in the business community and in the cultural worldview in new york you're interested, who are caring, who are givers. and we created solutions. the issue is getting the stage on which you can express and share those solutions beyond what we are immediately doing when you have partisan politics guarding the doors of dialogue. so lots of people care, and a

lot, there's tons of thousands of young people who are not taking to the streets, which, i mean come time for the streets, but they are taking to development and growth. and we offer it to them and when you create the circumstances for them, they grow and develop your it exists. call me a. i want to you exactly what to do and we can end the educational crises because there are solutions. [applause] >> going directly to harry's question, and parking back to the kentucky, the portion, the senator in kentucky who said, you know, if you don't like the way we run the country -- the fact of the matter is, the notion of political parties running government is what is un-american. if you look at what happens inside --

[applause] >> if you look at what happens, families are not run based on parties. they are run based on the best interest of the families. corporations on the run based on parties. they are run based on the best interest of the company. and so, i think the short answer is, yes, we can effectively run government without parties. and we have to try to get there. [applause] >> we have 30 seconds. >> i will be quick. i think i do have a slight disagreement from some of the things that were said, because i really don't the democratic party's capture by the ultraleft, i wish it was. because, frankly, there is no political force that is moving to dialogue to the left. i think everything is weighted to the right. and i think that's what partisanship breeds but i think that local system that we currently are in an avidly moves everything to the right. and so, that's the goal of the

political parties because the center keeps shifting to the right and they keep trying to capture the center. so as a leftist the reason i'm an independent is because i believe that the two-party system and the partisanship that results from it has carved a serious move to the right in the united states, over the course of many, many years. [applause] >> we will be this event and go now live to capitol hill for the commission on wartime contracting is continuing its examination of how u.s. tax dollars are being spent in iraq and afghanistan. now government contractors are rated in suspended. the commission is expected to issue a final report to congress in july. live coverage on c-span2. it is just getting under way. >> these concerns, those concerns may sound like quibbles, but they're very important. if past performance information is a record in a federal database, then there is no

shared official record to consider it in awarding new contract. and the suspensions and departments are impeded by bureaucratic decisions or inertia in companies that have committed fraud may continue receiving taxpayer funds. in either case, untrustworthy contractors can continue profiting from government work responsible businesses may be denied opportunities. the cost to taxpayers climb. appreciate are concerned, consider these points, samplings of contingency contract data inn the federal procurement data system suggests that more than 90%, not 90%, more than 90% of contracts have not had required past performance data entered. the office of federal procurement policy and more than 75% of past performance reports that were made still lack adequate narratives on contractors cost control

efforts. according to the project in government oversight, from 2007 through 2009, more than 200 department of defense contractors who incurred judgments are made settlements for fraud charges were awarded 280 billion in dod contracts. the commission has discussed this concern and our second report to convict released last thursday, that report titled at what cost correcting over reliance on and contingency operation, contains 32 what we consider recommendations for legislative and policy reforms to improve contingency contracting now and in the future. we encourage you to examine the report which is posted on the website wartimecontracting.gov. in the at risk report contains six recommendations on today's hearing.

they are numbers 20-25 in our report, recommendation 20, about contractors to respond to but not appeal agency performance assessment. recommendation 21, a line past performance assessments with time contractor proposals. recommendation 22, require agencies to certify used of the past performance database. recommendation 23, require a written rationale for not pursuing a proposed suspension or debarment. recommendation 24, increase use of suspensions and trans. and, finally, recommendation 25, revise regulations to lower procurement barriers contingency suspensions and debarments. these recommendations discussed more fully in our report are intended to pressure the past performance data are entered and used. and that suspension debarment that take place more

effectively, that they take place more effectively, and that suspensions are applied automatically if a government contractor is indicted for procurement related crime. these are important matters. tools are no good if they are not used to and behaviors will not change if consequences never appear. today's hearing will add to our stock of information on these matters, which will continue -- which we will continue to receive commission of tension as we work toward our final report to congress in july. we have two panels of well-informed witnesses to help us. and the one has four witnesses. rear admiral robert gilbeau come u.s. navy commander, defense contract management agency international. michael carroll, deputy inspector general, u.s. agency for international development, we refer to as usaid.

captain timothy harrington, u.s. navy commanding officer, naval sea logistics center, and scott amey, general counsel for project on government oversight. panel to have six witnesses. dan gordon, administrator, office of federal procurement policy, deputy director of contingency contract and acquisition policy defense procurement and acquisition policy, department of defense, cori, procurement executive department of state, maureen shauket, chief acquisition officer u.s. agency for international development. and blalock, u.s. navy council and chairman, and chair, internet, enter agency suspension and debarment committee. and uldric fiore, director office of the judge advocate general, u.s. army. we have asked our witnesses to offer five minutes summaries

other testimony. the full text of the written statements will be entered into the hearing record and posted on the commission's website. we also ask that witnesses provide within 15 business days responses to any questions for the record, and any additional information they may offer to provide. on behalf of the commission, we thank all of our witnesses today for participating what we believe will be a very important hearing their so now, if i could i would ask you to rise and we will swear you in as we do all our witnesses. raising the right hands, do solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony will give before this commission will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? know for the record all of our witnesses have responded in the affirmative. and let me just thank you for your service, for our country, both in the public and private sector. thank you, gentlemen. admiral, we will start with you. >> thank you, sir. good morning, chairman thibault, chairman shays and commissioners.

my name is where admiral robert gilbeau and i'm the commander of international director for the defense contract management agency, or dcma. thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearings regarding contractor has performance and the suspension and debarment process. i'm would like to say that i think accountability is very important and i take it to heart as a navy supply corps officer. in our contract administration role, the dcma conducts reviews, cost of liability determinations and past performance information for field level contract operations to activities such as the u.s. central command joint theater contracting command, and the army contracting command at rock island. we also provide comprehensive contract administration services for the army's logistics civil augmentation program, or logcap, and air force contract augmentation program, or ascap. as was other delicate contracts throughout a contingency a program offices and procure

contracting offices, or pcl's interchanges are input to assess contractor performs and make a determination. if requested by the procuring contracting officer, our dcma contingency is the most, contract managing offices can input data into the do the contracting performance assessment reporting system, and a joint contingency contracting system or the jcc has. our inputs rely on cost performance reports, customer comments, quality audit examinations, or process reviews, technical interchange meetings, production management reviews, contract operations reviews, and functional performance evaluations. it is used for us-based contractors were as jcc has issues for non-us contractors? >> when requested we uploaded these are going to pcl input requirements, typically every 12 months for contracts with performs in excess of one year, and at the end of every

contract. dcma afghanistan inputting data into c. par four large -- logcap iv. contingency cmo is also provided by monthly performance evaluation port reports based on monthly audits, focusing on toward the evaluation criteria, technical costs and management. for the logcap iii contract and a logcap iv contract in afghanistan and kuwait. these oddities inputs from dcma quality assurance represent as an appointed contracting officer representatives. ecma corrective action requests, administered contracting officers, customers, usually the camp of mayors, and the contractors of self-assessment. the tvs are compiled into an award field evaluation board every six months and embraced to the theater logcap pm representative. ecma also provides a weekly report on cars issued for the previous 90 days to the logcap program office and we participate in quarterly logcap where we breathe the program

office and pco on performance trends for the preceding 90 days. d.c. images and provide support to the pc owes at the contractor corporate level for logcap, on matters such as contractocontractor system reduce, cost a liability determinations and past performance information. they also provide pc owes with past performance data associate with the contractors centralized systems such as current business systems, financial capability, and summarize or targeted information. in regards to suspension and the debarment, art mission is contracted ministers. as such a function to hit by the suspension debarment officer. the we provide information to the military services and defense agencies that may support suspension and/or debarment proceeded having said that, dcma employers are required to report any instance of possible fraud or other irregular he by a contractor. dcma employers are provided

fraud awareness training, and the dcma legal team works with our contracting staff, dod criminal investigators, federal prosecutors and contracting office is supporting appropriate judicial or administrative sanctions against contractors. in closing, i would like the commission to know that dcma understands the value of contractor past performance and the rule of suspension and debarment and takes as its mission in the context. we remain committed to our warfightewar fighters, sewing employees, contractors and the american taxpayer to provide quality products and services delivered at a fair and reasonable price where and when they are needed. i welcome your questions. >> thank you, admiral. mr. carroll. >> good morning. co-chairman shays, chairman thibault, distinguished numbers of the panel, commission, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear today to discuss our views and opinions on the current state of u.s. 80

suspension and debarment program. i think the best way to do that is go back to the audit in 2009 on the agency suspension and debarment pro ram, a process and that audit covered the five year period of 2003-2007. and if i could summarize the findings and basically four major ones, the first found the agency didn't have a systematic process for considering suspension and debarment actions but they didn't have a dedicated staff. it was rather ad hoc process. documentation when they did take procurement, suspension and debarment actions, the process was a good -- a bit ad hoc estrus document the process. and the use of the contractor performance database was marginally effective, both in inputting timely and accurate data, and also extracting data when making procurement decisions for the future.

and so you wouldn't be surprised that based on those findings between 2003-2007, the agency only took, i say only, that's our point of view, only took 17 suspension and debarment actions over that five figure. that was then, and this is now. the audit made 12 recommendations to improve the process. we reached management decision and final action on all 12. and i'm happy to say that the agency really has embraced the audit as a way to move forward and improve the process. and to demonstrate that, just quantitatively, from 2008, post audit through today, currently, they have taken 37, so more than double the amount they took in the five years, they have taken in the last two years basically, and that of those 37, within the last year they have taken 28

suspension and debarment actions. so i think that really reflects a renewed commitment and interest in contractor accountability. so i think we give the agency credit for that. in reference to what they have done to address our recommendations, i think one of the major steps they have taken is to create what they call the compliance in oversight of partner performance division within all in a, the office of acquisition and assistance. it's going to dedicated solely to considering contractor accountability and suspension, debarment actions i think that's a major step the agency has taken. the processes are improving dramatically. they are supported very well by the office of general counsel within a.i.d., and we've even changed our philosophy in the way we operate. we share information, investigative findings much more quickly, in real-time so the

agency can make informed decisions if they need to prior to any kind of referral for prosecution to the department of justice. and i think, you may of heard in speeches that the administrator has given that there is a renewed emphasis on contractor accountability. and i'd like to just give one example, if i could in the time i have left, of a successfully that we feel is a success story. the agency feels is a success story that maybe we'll be talking later on. that's a recent suspension of the academy for educational development, aed. we opened the case on them in pakistan, in late 2009, based on evidence we had on the case, the contracting officer in pakistan cancel the contract for cause based on our evidence locally in afghanistan and pakistan. and then when we expanded the investigation to include the corporate entity, we found enough there and we're sharing

this all with the agency, and they moved to suspend aed. now, that decision has major implications for the agency. they are huge implement partner in both afghanistan and pakistan. and around the world. so for the agency to take that step was huge, but we felt like the evidence, the evidence supported that decision and they took that decision. so i would consider that sort of an example of how the agency has moved forward from the audit carried that we looked at in early 2002 where we are today. now, to conclude, i work in oig, we're entirely skeptical, but at least somewhat we have seen and the steps that the agency has taken post our audit, we are relatively confident that they're moving in the right direction. that concludes my remarks and i would be happy to ask -- answer any question. >> captain harrington?

>> good morning. chairman thibault, chairman shays and dissing which limits of the commission, i'm captain tim harrington, the commanding officer of the naval sea logistics center. i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak about contractor past performance, information systems and specifically the contractor performed assessment reporting system. the past performance information retrieval system and the federal integrity information system. under my command stewardship, both cpars and peepers have migrated from being and navy and duty solution and repository solution to being a solution is currently by all federal agencies. my command is responsible for manus and availability enhancements and updates, help desk support, and user training. while my command is trusted with

their management, we are not responsible for past performance policy, nor do we enforce compliance with use of these systems. like avril, my employees take what they do very seriously and are dedicated to its management. having served on board five ships and twice been stationed overseas, i'd have appreciative of the work the commission is doing to support our mission overseas. and my fellow service members in peter. mr. co-chairman, i am honored to be here to thank you for interest and i can take any questions. spent thank you, captain harrington. we appreciate that. >> i want to thank the commission for asking the project on government oversight to testify about the issues of contractor accountability and how past performance information and to suspension and debarment system can be used and continues see operation of the government has estimated that $177 billion

has been spent on contracts and grants to support u.s. operations in afghanistan and iraq since 2001. according to the search of you is a spinning there were nearly 50,000 contract transactions for $21 billion in fiscal year 2010. i cannot overstate how important contractor accountability issues are in a line together to operate and accomplish its mission is important to remember that contractor account of irresponsibility are not isolated. they usher between acquisition contract, program, oversight, and enforcement officers and inside agencies, a.i.d.'s and the department of justice. federal contracting law state that contracts are only supposed to be awarded to responsible contractor, no purchase or award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. and contractor shall have, shall have a satisfactory performance record and a satisfactory record of integrity in business ethics.

in an effort to place a spotlight on contractor accountability issues, pogo created a database in 2002. we have over 1000 civil, criminal and administrative people involving the 150 top contractors. the instances cited have resulted in $38.2 billion in fines, pills, so and restitution state since 1999. those include allegations of fraud, bribery, overcharging, poor performance and contracts terminated for default or cause. the lack of contractor accountabaccountability data was the subject of virginia report of the department of defense entire report to congress on contracting fraud, which examined the extent to which the pentagon awarded contracts to countries that have defrauded the government. the report found from 2007-2009, dod awarded almost $270 billion in contracts to 91 contractors that were found liable in fraud

cases, $682 million to 30 contractors convicted of criminal fraud. it also then companies prohibited from federal contracts continue to receive millions in taxpayer dollars. that said, i think that the system is likely to improve in the near future. laster the government unveiled a federal a warty performance and integrity information system -- it is modeled after pogo database. it compiles annual set of information that helps government officials determine if contractors or grantees are responsible or risky. up until that point, that information wasn't readily in the hands of contracting officers pre-award. today you might hear about, i would counter with names like gtsi, actually, blackwater, are also known, formally known as blackwater. dyncorp, halliburton and kbr dignity of those companies are

familiar contractors to the commission, and three of them hold all or a piece of logcap iii and logcap iv. the government inability to hold contractors accountable begs the question, is the government so reliant on large contractors that the actors are necessary evil? the answer to some contractor accountability questions were supposed to be answered by the interagency suspension and debarment committed pursuant to law it is required to submit the contract and annual report on the progress of the suspension and debarment system despite multiple requests to the i is here, william blalock in 2010. pogo hasn't seen any annual report or received a reply from the isd sea as to its status. this is actually troubling considering the sharp decline in suspension and debarment through the years. and a congressional inquiry into doj possible interferes in to suspension debarment proceedings. even when it has been used to

the years, it hasn't been used very effectively, especially against large contractors. boeing received three waivers when it was suspended. we've also seen ibm and gtsi suspend for a matter of days. world, suspension was lifted only days prior to the next long distance documentations contract. and was also seen other questionable contracts and activities, in order to promote competition. and i think that's what you probably most likely here in a a lot of your q&a with his band and with the second panel come is there's a problem with the reliance on contractors and, therefore, it gives us 10 and, are you eliminating effective competition? that's a real problem. but the real, i think for this is the fact that the government is not providing and accountability agenda in normal government operations and, therefore, how will they do in a contingency operation when time and mission of congressmen are critical. i thank you for inviting me to

testify today, and i look forward to working with the commission to further explore how the government can hold contractors accountable. thank you. >> thank you, mr. amey, and thank all of you for your testimony and for staying within the five minute rule. i appreciate that, and we're going to have questions. we each have eight minutes and it will be first co-chair mr. thibault. >> thank you, mr. co-chairman. thank you, gentlemen for being up there. i have to thank the audience because sitting here thinking about this, when you say fapiis, cpars and all that, and it's a whole new world that it continues. >> it's kind of scary to some people are nodding their heads. >> yet. they're being polite maybe. before i start, the restaurant my questions i want to acknowledge a couple of things. admiral gilbeau, thank you for being here. i thank all of you, but whenever i have acquisition executive with a purple heart, you know, in simple sense it means spilled

blood answers to the country. i thank you for that but i think the point to be made is in a war today where everybody is integrated so closely, acquisition officials, in your case iraq, put their lives in jeopardy, too. and i think it's an important part both for the government and the contractors. because i think there are sacrifices being made. i need to acknowledge something that occurred yesterday that has nothing to do with this hearing, but the contractors program manager for the pentagon parking lot, everybody knows about it because traffic has been redirected, is a personal friend, he had a heart attack last night and died. he was 51 years old. i used to call him every morning, not a business because he had nothing to do with the work i was doing, but i would call him because i knew he had to get up and get to the pentagon by like 5:00 because of the way they do the arrangements to try to slow traffic.

he's one of the most selfless, when you say he's a friend of mine, he's one of the three or four people that i consider a personal friend. the most personal friends had grown up with him, and i want to acknowledge his contribution and his contribution of himself was contribution to the last thing i have to say, and then i will get on with it, i will take it from a serious blow to a lighter mode. i want to acknowledge mr. amey's magna cum laude at the baltimore law school. i think you all understand the staff understands they do a lottery, they each put a buck or something together and to try to predict how long it will be before professor tiefer mentions the university of baltimore law school. so whoever has the shortest tenure on that lottery is the winner, but we now have two distinguished alumni from there. our participants with the school. admiral gilbeau, i found your

testimony, or your testimony, your statement very helpful in certain areas. you lay out that you begin using cpars -- i want is a couple of weeks ago, but january 2011, 30 days. and is currently consider inputs for two logcap task orders for the period of performance, july '09, july 2010. you took the initiative, but then he went on, and there's a question about why did it take so long and want to ask that question, and i realize someone maybe should have come to you and you took the initiative. but then you say we've not been requested to input cpars for logcap iii or for contractors, and that's essentially the way it is arranged to help. it's very heavy, kbr their and dina floor where we are doing this in afghanistan. you have not been requested to input cpars for the two large programs and you continue to support the pco's request as

you, but when you talk about army sustainment command are what we refer to as rock island, it's not something a financial process, and if they're not asking you for your testimony, my question is, is why not? what's going on here that you had to finally take the initiative and they can say well, it's important what they can say, we do important input on the award fee, and i say you get input on the awardee but that's not the process. can you help us understand them and i'm a fan of dcma, totally. but, you know, my sense is it's wrong, you were asked in this late date, you had to take the initiative. why are you not being asked? >> yes, sir. first and foremost, it's not just me that made this finally happened. my team was working on it, and i was just in this particular case, i did provide a little bit of perhaps forcing function to

get it working. i just had a meeting, actually the logcap aide who was held on wednesday of this last week. and i sat down with the program office, without question, we all agreed that my organization shouldn't be putting in the performance reviews, performance information into cpars for logcap iv. now, logcap iii, the issue is, there's a little bit of a dual responsibility within a dcma, with our houston group and with my group. and we are working very closely with the houston group to ensure that we properly document past performance for even logcap iii is currently being executed.

in iraq, we are starting to input data as well. i want to say about, probably about 50% of the data that we've been asked now to -- >> let me stop you there. i commend the current initiatives and indirectly you have answered the question and i'm going to move on. which is, you have taken the initiative. it just seems to me wrong. ..

>> mr. carroll, you're kind of stuck in the middle, and you said you were inherently middle. you used word like they're marginally effective and they embrace the audits, and yet your report, like, you use this exduded party system, another epls, and you said two-thirds of the cases they didn't put in the data. and i guess they found religion, and you say they hadn't consistently used available, used available information. and it kind of fits the same theme that i'm trying to explore with admiral gilbeau. what the heck took so long? i mean, really, you know, this is about accountability, and the ig's doing their job and looking at it and bringing things, and the best you can say -- and i understand what you say is they

embrace the audit. that means they they've told you everything's going to be okay, and we're inherently skeptical. can you tell me what took so long for usaid to step to the plate and start asking the question, where are our contractors that aren't presently responsible? >> i can only speculate. based on what we've seen over the years, but i would say that they might describe the problem as staffing, as iraq and afghanistan were getting off the ground there are tremendous responsibility that aid had for implementing programs, and they weren't getting the adequate resources that were tracking as far as personnel and contracting officers and things like that. i would think they felt like that. i'm going to take a little bit, just a little bit of responsibility ourselves in that historically on our investigations we were reticent about sharing information with

ongoing investigations until such time as it was complete, and it was referred to the department of justice for prosecution, then simultaneously the agency would get it and be able to make a decision on suspension and department, and we've changed that philosophy now and, you know, i think that resulted in the aid case. i'm inherently skeptical because i work in the ig, and we're sort of pleased with what the agency's doing going forward. >> i understand. >> the decision to do the audit, actually, was based on our frustration with some referrals we made to the agency for suspension and debarment that they didn't act on and rather than continue to grind our teeth on that, we decided to find out what the problem was -- >> my time is up, but maybe i'll explore it a little more later. commissioner? >> thank you. we'll like to know sometime if you ever got responses as to why your recommendations were not made. and at this point we'll go to

mr. green, commissioner green. >> thank you. again, let me welcome all of you and thank you for your service. i'd like to follow up just very briefly, mr. carroll, with the line of questioning that commissioner think bow was --ty bow was following before he stopped. i, like you, am skeptical. i have watched aid's management for a number of years, and i think it in the one recommendation or the one finding -- and i commend the audit report, and i commend your boss' testimony a year or so later. i think it aired a lot of dirty linen that needed to be aired. but when we say usaid's decision making progress for suspension debarment, debarment actions

contains flaws and constraints that prevent it from operating effectively, to me, that is senior management. and my question to you, very quickly, is aid's leadership and others have now said we're going to fix this problem, don't worry about it. you're skeptical, i'm skeptical. what are you going to do, what is the ig office going to do to insure follow-up? >> well, what we're going to do in 2012 is do a follow-up audit on the process to see where they've come from then to now, and in addition to that in just working with them on a regular basis between our investigators and our auditors and the office of acquisition and assistance we'll just get inherently a sense of how they're moving forward. and, you know, to say again, i

really do think under, under administrator shaw there has seemed to be a cultural shift in contractor accountability. >> i hope so. thank you. all of you in one way or another in your opening statements talked about accountability, the fact it's important, that past performance is important, you take it seriously, but a fairly recent -- 2009 -- gao report indicated that 60% of contracting officers they called it, contracting personnel don't factor in past performance in the selection process. we all understand reasons for that. i mean, it can go back to, you know, the focus for a shorthanded contracting community is getting the next

contract out, it's not necessarily closing out the old ones to include follow-up and indicating past performance. there are objective factors that they feel are more important. sometimes they're reluctant to upset the apple cart with a contractor, particularly when there are few contractors that might be able to perform that mission. there's fear of protest and, very frankly, sometimes it's hard to separate the contract's fault from the government's fault. now, all that being said, is past performance important, and how do we fix it? admiral gilbeau? >> yes, sir. i'd like to say that i think we've come a long way in fixing it, and i think it is extremely

important. and virtually everybody i've talked to over the last sex months since i've been in this job understand the criticality of documenting and getting good past performance information. i believe continuing our efforts in improving the database, improving accessibility and improving the input is going to take us a long way in achieving the results that we all want which is giving the pco access to unfettered information that will show the true performance of contracts whether it's in a contingency environment or not. thank you. >> mr. carroll, any comment? >> from an ig perspective, we think it's huge. but that perspective comes from a real accountability perspective. we don't take into account that the agency still has to get the work done, and i'm not saying

that's the reason why you should overlook contractor past performance. you absolutely should overlook contractor past performance. but i would say that the past and the present could be two different thicks. -- things. and if these organizations based on our audits, investigates or -- investigations or whatever action taken, if their current situation reflects a change in attitude, change in focus, change in performance, then i wouldn't see why you wouldn't use a contractor going forward if they have made changes in their processes for accountability. >> i guess one of the things that bothers me, and i have difficulty coming to grips with is that if you hired somebody to paint the inside of your house and they tracked paint all over your carpet, you probably wouldn't hire them again. and you might even negotiate a price with them less than what you originally had agreed to.

but that's money coming out of your pocket. what, what i'm concerned with, one thing i'm concerned with is the fact that we may see this as just free money. it's coming out of some big treasury pot that doesn't really impact us. and so we don't treat these contractors the same way you would treat a contractor doing work in your house, for example. >> yes, and e i agree with that. -- and i agree with that. we're better consumers and shoppers in our personal lives, and i think -- than i think the overall federal government is. to answer your question, yes, it is very important. i'm going to add one on why now, it's because the dod ig came out with a report criticizing the databases back in 2008. gao followed it up in 2009. it's a topic of discussion now, and it wasn't before.

how to fix it? i would say we need genuine evaluations. i've heard too many stories about grade inflation where you give the lowest possible grade that avoids a protest or a complaint from a contractor, and timeliness and accuracy in that data that provides a genuine tool for a contracting officer, suspension debarment official, whoever it may be, the igs, you know, to have a genuine grade in front of them or at least factors in front of them that make them make better decisions preaward. >> thank you. one last point, not a question. another of my major concerns is we have gone through various hearings and written our reports, how do we maintain this? how do we maintain this interest that exists today, to whatever level it exists, how do we maintain that interest when we're no longer in iraq, we're no longer in afghanistan, we've

disappeared? how do we, how do we do that? i don't want an answer, i just want you to think about it, and i may come back in the second round and solicit your ideas. thank you. >> thank you, mr. green. mr. tiefer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to mention i've pointed out before that in the 2000s our co-chair, mr. think ball, was part of a leading group of auditors in the government who were trying to keep contractors like kbr accountable against major head winds. i don't think i fully understood what an uphill task that was until our preparation for today's hearing when i found that the past performance systems were closed. not just virtually closed,

literally closed to entries of bad ratings for kbr performance. it was like you were banging on a locked door, mr. chairman. and i congratulate you for your work. although i'm shocked to discover that gambling is going on in this place about my mentioning of the university of baltimore law school. now we all agree you'll menace it quickly -- mention it quickly. mr. amey, you're the custodian of the, the enormous database, unique cay that base about -- database about contractor misconduct, and i want to try to flesh out. we've heard the anonymous but gigantic figure of $280 billion in new contracts given out to contractors who have criminal convictions or civil judgments for things like fraud. and i want to, i want to ask you

about what i would call the flagrant five, the five contractors i would ask you to draw on your database for because your database is about all the contractors of the government, and we're interested in the ones that do wartime work in iraq and afghanistan. the first would naturally be kbr which you mentioned in many your, your testimony. what -- i don't want to use my whole time up just on them, but they have been sole sourced billions of dollars in if contracts in iraq in recent years. what's their record? >> we have approximately 23 instances of misconduct. i think it's actually 24 because i think there was a doj intervention in a civil false claims act last week which includes six government contract cases and eight guilty pleas. >> okay. another contractor that you mentioned in your testimony is

agility which is renamed, used to be called public warehouse company. now, they did get suspended. was that the end of their getting new contracts? >> no. that's the only instance that we have many our federal contractor misconduct base, but they have received two extensions that i'm aware of that currently go until august of 2011. so once again, despite the government holding them accountable, there's been, you know, an exception to the rule that they have been able to stay on the contract for another eight or ten months. >> i'm beginning to get the picture that bad performance can be good business. let's go on to louis bear jay or -- louis berger. i want to stay with you with. i know that this book just this

past december, there is a criminal conviction of their chief financial officer, a criminal conviction of their controller. the company -- not just individuals somewhere down in the ranks, but the company was falsifying its cost-plus contracting which strikes at the very heart of what we employ these contractors in theater to do. what do you have on them? >> nothing. unfortunately, they are not one of the top 100 government contractors, and through the years we've expanded that because people have jumped in and out of the top 100, so we have about 150, and they're not in our list. >> well, let me ask, the noteworthy feature is they were not suspended because they did a guilty plea, technically called a deferred prosecution agreement. what do you think about a company which has, basically, pleads guilty to felony-level charges not getting suspended? >> oh, they would be in our database if they had criteria.

the deferred prosecution is a problem was you're weighing the department of justice and what they're doing to punish a company against what a suspension and debarment officer may do to protect the taxpayers from from awarding future contracts to that contractor. so they're supposed to be different animals, but the problem is in that case i would say somebody that entered a deferred prosecution, i think some length of a suspension to make sure that they have all their systems in place, have improved their management and their culture is needed. >> indeed. let me, a fourth company is familiar to the commission. we actually had a hearing which somewhat concerned it, and it was a witness at that hearing. as we went into at that time, they had a manager who was convicted felony level for a kickback-related offenses in kuwait and iraq. their witness was still not cooperating with us, the dcaa,

the company's still not cooperating with us, they still will not provide the records for us to find out whether the company was paying for the kickbacks or the manager was just doing it out of the company's spirit from his own resources. although you can understand why one would have been interested in looking at the company books. what do you think about a contractor like that mymy who has gone on to receive lucrative contracts? >> again, it's not in our database. kickbacks is a problem. the -- it's often excused with one bad apple theory, but at that point you need to still look at overall corporate culture. i'm probably more concerned by the latter part of your comment, and that is that they didn't -- aren't cooperating with dcaa or this commission in providing information as a government contractor. i would probably consider them nonresponsible, and at that point they shouldn't be eligible for contracts whether it's a suspension, debarment or a de

facto suspension in the fact that that should be something that's taken a look at during an award decision. >> i, i can't -- i remember our frustration when they wouldn't give us the records. the fifth on my flagrant five list is the first kuwaiti company, a construction company which became famous or infamous for its work on the new embassy for the united states in baghdad. are you, are you at all -- does it ring any bells with you? >> well, it does. again, they're not in pogo's contractor database, but i have seen issues at the embassy and, therefore -- that would be something that would get entered into our database if they met the criteria because we do include investigative findings in trying to present a full, complete track record of the

companies that are doing business with the government. >> well, the specifics of -- you mentioned the inspector general report at the state department who found that they owe the united states $132 million for their embassy work, that's how bad it was. yet they are still receiving new construction work. they were in the news receiving something for us in saudi arabia. do you think that should be made difficult for them? >> i would say so, yes. that and being deliberate on your -- delinquent on your taxes, if people owe the federal government money, i would think the government would think twice before they do business with them. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. tiefer, commissioner tiefer. commissioner henke. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank all of our witnesses for being here today. you know, mr. amey, i'm looking at your statement, and it's probably one of the clearest i've seen in a long time, and i thank you for that. there are some points i want to highlight while the staff puts up a board here that i'll talk about later. your statement makes a very

clear accusation, i guess, that the federal government, quoting, the federal government is shirking its responsibility to protect its constituents. and later in your statement you say the suspension and debarment system is riddled with problems and, as a result, speed and convenience frequently trump accountability and oversight. those are all from your statement, mr. amey? is. >> yes, sir. >> of course, you still stand by them? >> yes, sir. >> another quos on page 5 of your -- quote on page 5 of your testimony is this: government officials who are making a decision about contracting are at a disadvantage because they do not have the time to sufficiently assess a contractor's history of performance and responsibility. they do not have the time to sufficiently assess a contractor's responsibility? i would make the observation if they don't have the time to do it, they don't have the time to make that contract. would you react to that? >> i would, i would agree. unfortunately, the work force has been stretched thin, you

know, if you had a list of the amount in this contract dollars that have been awarded through the years and the level of the acquisition work force through the years, you know, like there's a big difference between those two lines on the line chart. >> dramatic difference. >> dramatic difference. you have, you know, two wars going on, so at that point speed, you know, who wants to be the person that slows down the process and is blamed for that. >> right. >> so those two things go hand in hand, you know? the government needed things yesterday. >> right. >> and at that point you don't want to be the one, well, hold on, check all the boxes and give a true, genuine assessment of responsibility because at that point, you know, some service or good is needed in the field. >> i'd like to ask each of the witnesses, it seems to me that accountability mechanisms that past performance, tools, rigorous performance evaluations, active suspension debarments, active oversight by both the contracting community and the ig community is

important in peacetime, but it's doubly important in wartime. we're moving faster, we're spending money faster, we're trying to get things done more quickly. there's a lot more risk. just a quick yes or no from each of you. would you agree that these accountability tools are more important or less important in wartime? admiral gilbeau? >> i think it's important in wartime and in peacetime because -- >> is it more important in wartime when you're on cost-plus contracts and you're trying to spend billions of dollars quickly? >> yes. >> mr. carroll? >> i'd say the same, yes. >> captain harrington? >> yes, i would. >> mr. amey? >> yes, and not only because of mission accomplishment, but also lives are at risk right now. if you're buying defective weapons or, you know, there's a product substitution case, you know, you could be putting, you know, u.s. men and women in, you know, at risk. >> now, it seems to me with regards to past performance you

need three things. you need to have the reports in the system, you've got to have input, they've got to be well written, they have to be quality reports, and then later on someone has to use them. the point isn't to collect the information and put it in a file, the point is to use it later to make better decisions. would you all agree with that? i think the witnesses are indicating they yee with that -- agree with that. so the point is to use this information, but first you have to have it in the system. second, it has to be good information that you can act on. and number three, you have to use it going forward as a discriminator on whether you use that contractor again. our staff took a look at, the chart here, we created this chart working with the detention department and captain harrington's office. we took a look at just 2009 and just three agencies. from are our analysis -- from

our analysis we can tell that the first column -- the middle column, rather, those are the number of contract actions cut by that agency in 2009. 1485 for dod, 93 for state and 81 for usaid. and the contracting data system automatically sends something over to the past performance system to know it's out there. we could not find any reports for state department performance reports, for state department or usaid. zero. and we found less than 10% compliance at dod. so we're cutting 1485 contracts, and this is -- we put it back in '09 to give it some distance. by now those should have had at least one evaluation cycle, and we found fewer than 10% of those contracts had a report in the past performance database.

so i would make the statement here that with these kind of results, everyone's convinced it's important. everyone says it's important, we have to do better, we have to do -- and,, mr. amey, e i get it about the work force. they're some of the most overworked people out there. i get it. they need to be a larger, more deployable work force. but until we start having meaningful outcomes, there's no point in doing it. we can have meetings, we can set up committees, we can set up task forces, but until we start moving the meter on having useful reports -- and i'm not even talking about quality reports here or using the reports, i'm just talking about step number one which is put reports in the database, okay? can you react to this chart, admiral gilbeau, each of you, please? >> yes, sir. obviously, i can't substantiate the numbers or anything there, but i agree with what you just said in that you have to be able to use the information before there will be a self-impetus to

put it in, not just a driven requirement to put it in. >> right. >> and i think we've come a long way to getting that repository accessible and usable. we've got a long way to go, but the key is having a capability to deliver a finished product at the end -- >> okay. >> -- so that we can, the time we invest will be worthwhile. >> mr. carroll? >> we didn't specifically look at the system on our 2009 audit. >> right. >> but based on this information we will, clearly, include it in the audit we do on the follow-up. >> okay. mr. harrington? captain harrington, excuse me. >> yes. my office did compile this data, it was taken from fbds, and we used it and provided that information. i would tell you that from the assistant administration side and what we do since 2008 over 16,000 people have been trained

on -- [inaudible] >> okay. mr. amey? >> two words: mission failure. less than 10%, they're not performing their mission. >> commissioner, can i -- >> sure. >> i have a question, captain harrington, right on that line which is you said you provided that information. it shows gaps, and we all acknowledge an issue. who did you provide it to, and when you say provided it, who do you provide it to? >> sir, we provided that information to osd, tnl, and i do not conduct any analysis on it. we just provided the information. we did the data mining. >> so you're not aware of what they -- you're not aware of how they've used this data in the present mode? >> no, sir. >> okay. >> captain harrington, what i think we're getting at here is that your system allows the users, dod, the agencies, contracting offices to do this analysis themselves. is that accurate? they could, they could look at this and say i've got 20 things

in fdps and i've got zero things in cpars. >> currently upon request from each agency we will provide this data to them. in the future there's an initiative out there, april 15th, they'll be able to pull this off the web site. >> and, in fact, when you told us that you -- your staff in working up this hearing, you told us you prepopulate the database. you take the contracting database, and you send it into the performance database, and you open up reports which is why we can get this kind of data. so you're making it easy to do this, and you're providing a lot of training. >> yes, sir. >> okay. mr. amey, you put it well. you said mission failure, we're not doing it, we don't take it seriously. would you react to this characterization? there's no real accountability, and it's business as usual. >> i would agree. i'm hoping that based on these reports and attention like today's hearing provides the issue that it will improve, but i'm skeptical.

you know, why has it taken this long? we were $200 billion in contracts two years ago, now we're over $500 billion. >> thank you. i'm out of time. >> thank you, commissioner henke. commissioner, dr. zackon. >> thanks very much, mr. co-chairman. first of all, to the folks in the government, thank you for your service, and to mr. amey, thank you for yours too. and if you're associated with my colleague here to my left, so much the better for you. i'm also concerned with implementation and with measuring implementation. i haven't heard very much about measuring implementation maybe because there isn't much to begin with as commissioner henke just said. it reminds me of the agencies that gave their sesers 90% better than average. think about that for a second. so you have great inflation when you enter grades at all, then

nobody seems to pay attention to the grades anyway. i'm struck, admiral gilbeau, could you clarify for me, you guys in dcma have the ability to furnish information for cpars, correct? >> in some instances, yes, sir. >> do you provide that information 100% of the time when you do have the information? >> we would provide it -- we are suppose today provide it 100% of the time when asked to do it. >> why don't you -- i mean, i was in government on both sides of the river, actually. people take the initiative. after ten years in afghanistan, why do you not see the need given that you have the information to provide it as a matter of course all the time? >> again, it's not a matter of my personal opinion not thinking that we -- >> no, no, no, i'm asking you as direct -- in your capacity. if dcma has the information --

>> yes, sir. >> -- why wait, given what you've heard? and this isn't exactly new news. after all's been said and done there's been aid reports, pogo's been driving the government crazy. why after all these years you do not feel the absolute imperative to provide every ounce of information available to you whether it was requested or not? >> yes, sir. i would respond by saying i do feel that imperative. however, there is policy that exists that we are actually currently reviewing to see if we can change that limits our ability to input that data. >> what kind of policy, could you specify, please, and who made the policy, and when was it made? >> i don't know when it was made. i'm -- and i believe it is a local policy, either dcma or perhaps dod, and i'm not positive there. >> you mean you're a senior official at dcma, and you don't know if you've made policy? is that what you're telling me? >> nono, sir, i would know if i

made policy. >> i know you personally, but you wouldn't know whether it was the deputy secretary or whoever on something as important as this where lives and taxpayer dollars are both at stake? >> at this point, yes, sir. it -- caveat to say the policy exists. it's -- i have a dcma policy on it, and we're researching it to insure we can follow the string to make sure we can make appropriate changes to put the proper emphasis on filling. >> i don't get it. when i was in government and if my shop had made a policy and i wanted to change the policy, the policy was changed. it was as simple as that. that's what senior government positions are all about. and to somehow, i mean, this is, this is the classic passive verb form. mistakes were made. who made 'em? god knows. maybe god made 'em. but i that is just, to me, a totally unsatisfactory answer, with respect. let me ask you something else, and i'd like to ask mr. amey as well. the contingency contracting

handbook says that cpars is too complex and too time consuming for contingencies. now, i've been a contractor about half my professional life, the other half i was in government. i'm no longer either. and i've seen cpars. they're no more nor less complex than any other government document. they're no more come mention than an oer, for example. -- complex than an oer, for example. so why isn't it time consuming, why isn't it mandatory even in contingency environments? why -- what's the logic behind this, admiral gilbeau? >> yes, sir. as of two months ago, again, when per the policy that we were just discussing, when we are asked to do it, it is required that my folk put it in. now, i can tell you because of bandwidth issues and sometimes connectivity issues it is sometimes difficult, and we are

working to try to figure mechanisms where it's just inputting on a spread sheet that we can get access, we're working those issues. but there are some technological problems that we're trying to overcome. >> well, and by the way, i'm not picking on you because you're you. whoever was sitting there would get this from me. i mean, it comes from the territory as i learned to my regret when i used to have to testify. but i've got to ask you, you say connectivity problems? i mean, come on, let's be specific. what is the problem, how long has it been, why hasn't it been rectified? give me some details, please. >> i can't tell you how long the problem's been going on. i'd assume it's been going on the whole time we've been in this contingency environment. example would be if you're sitting on fob fenty and you don't have a good signal to connect, and you're trying to put in the data, you're not going to put it in. and in some cases if you're sitting in kabul, it is easy, and we are doing it. but i can't tell you that i -- my organization can do it 100

president of the time -- 100 % of the time because of issues like that. >> would you say when it has been easy you've done it 100 president of the time? >> i can tell you since january we've done it 100% of the time period in afghanistan and 50% of the time in iraq. >> and when can we expect to see it 100% of the time in iraq, sir? >> i don't have an exact answer, but as soon as humanly possible, i can tell you that. >> okay. mr. amey, i'd like your comments on my minor outburst here. >> i think it boils down to this type of work has been considered red tape. i think this is the kind of, you know, it's been a procedural burden, and that's kind of the reputation it has, and at that point this is the kind of work that's being gutted out of the system. both from a preawards side of thing, a contract administration and oversight side of things that has been gutted from the system that makes it a lot more difficult to hold contractors accountable. and also agencies accountable. >> okay, thank you.

mr. carroll, i have a very special sympathy for igs. they worked very closely with me when i was in government. you mentioned in your testimony that there were four entities omitted from the excluded parties' list. who were they? and let me ask you since your team is checking on this, who were they, did they get new contracts, are they still contractors, and what was done as follow-up? and maybe if you don't have that now, perhaps you can get back to me on the second round on that one. whatever's easier for you. >> probably on the second round. >> okay. then one last question. you say that there have been 28 suspensions and debarment l actions over the past year with aid. now, aid in particular strikes me given that it's been an organization that's relied

heavily on contracting for at least a decade, the improvement is late, o put it mildly. -- to put it mildly. but just as here you see up there how many actions are we talking about? 28 suspensions, debarment out of how many cases? could you tell me that, please? >> out of how many cases as in -- >> as in number of contractors. is the number there, the 81 that's up on that chart or what? what's the base when you say 28? 28 out of how many? >> i couldn't say specifically. i'll get back -- i'll get you the information, but the point i was trying to make was the improvement and just because there's a contract, a number of contracts doesn't mean ha they're poorly performing or there's fraud or criminality. >> oh, absolutely, i couldn't agree more, but there's no way of knowing that if you don't complete a report as commissioner henke said. you know, you've got to start at stage one, and it just seems to

me to say we're doing better or that we're doing anything at all is very difficult when you don't have reports completed. and i think part of the difficulty that at least i find with so much of the testimony i'm hearing and that i've read is that everything's about process and very little is about outcome. and government is great at process. in fact, government is best at defending whatever it does or doesn't do as opposed to actually dealing with what the outcomes ought to be. thank you. >> thank you, dr. zakheim. sometimes when something is so outrageous, it has less impact. because it's hard to get your, your mind around it. so admittedly, it's just a sampling, but in our statement, our joint statement -- and, by the way, republicans and democrats up here, we hardly remember who's who, and sometimes our biggest

disagreements are with staff and not among ourselves. and it's a healthy disagreement. we have a lot of practitioners who sometimes say, yes, but, you know, we're in the system, we know how it works. the whole reason why it's good we're not in the system is we can look at it from the outside. so if you were the general public and you are aware that samplings of contingency contracting data in the federal procurement system suggests that more than 90% of contracts have not had required past performance data entered and then you're in the general public and say, well, if 90% haven't been entered, how in the heck can you judge them on past performance? and then, admittedly, it's a different sample base, but the office of federal procurement policy has found more than 75% of past performance reports that were made still lack adequate narratives on contractor cost-control efforts. so is it because you're in the system and you all make excuses

and you understand, well, the people are overworked? what is it that's going on in government that accepts this for, literally, decades? and, and doesn't do anything about it? admiral, explain to me why, why this is happening. because to the outside and to us it's really outrageous. >> yes, sir. and i can see where especially given some of the testimony given here it could seem outrageous. one of the problems that i think we are well on our way to fixing is, again, in my environment as dcma i provide that past performance data, and i do this routinely, not just the cpars piece, to the procurement contracting officers, to the pcos and to the program offices. the way our policy that i was discussing currently lays out the pcos are the ones that are

responsible to put in that performance data. in some instances i'm probably the closest, my organization is the closest to observing and surveying the contract performance, and that's why we've changed recently to have us put directly into cpars. so i think some of it is the way the system was developed, and i believe the people that developed the system previous to us did a good job putting something out there, but we need to make it better. >> well, what it describes, the fact that you used the word seem is distressing was -- because it doesn't seem outrageous, it is outrageous. that's the bottom line, that's the whole point. mr. carroll? the question is, this is so outrageous, what do you hear within the system that kind of justifies the fact that this can exist as outrageous as it is? >> well, from are our point of view, chairman shays, we don't accept it, and while we did the

audit and we're going to continue -- >> what kind of excuses do you hear? give me one or two of the top two excuses why this didn't happensome. >> it's going to be staff. >> yeah. captain? >> sir, in my environment i provide the data, and we provide that user training. >> when you provide the data, the data, do you begin to think, like, what's the point? because you've been providing the data, and nothing's been happening. >> where well, the programs -- well, the programs, cpars has been a program, federal program since october. i don't do any analysis of it, no. >> okay. mr. amey? >> i think this is why your 23rd recommendation in your report you released last week that talks about a written rationale for not pursuing proposed suspension and debarment is vital. we've seen multiple instances in just using contingency operations, kbr had over a billion dollars of unsupported

costs. i'm not claiming that was all waste, fraud or abuse, but we couldn't support them, so we're not sure how money was spent. well, you know, the dca wanted to take some moves, wanted to initiate a withhold, and they backed down from the department of defense. we have seen it with bp as a contractor. everybody, obviously, knows their record in the gulf coast, but they, obviously, supply a lot of petroleum to the air force. >> yeah. one of the challenges we have is since so many people have their finger on it, nobody's ultimately held accountable, so no one gets blamed. ibm has this wonderful system that even once someone's retired, they look at a successful program, and if it's successful, they go back to the retiree and give them a bonus of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a decision they made. there's this sense of accountability even that follows you once you retire. recommendation one allows contractor to respond but not appeal agency performance assessment. do you gentlemen understand why we made this recommendation?

can one of the four of you explain what the logic is behind this? it's pretty logical. i'm just curious if you think about it. it's one of the things that we encountered. allow contractors to respond to but not appeal agency performance. assessments. what's the problem with the appeal? >> well, i'll jump in. >> sure. >> did response alter -- you know, the decision should come from a government agent, not from discussion with the government or with a contractor. >> and the appeal can take months, maybe a year, and you're held in limbo, and yet you're in a contingency environment? we relate this to contingency environment. you have to have a decision made soon enough. align past assessment with contractor proposals. we want to make sure that a contractor isn't claiming that they did something well when, in fact, they didn't, and be there's no counterrecord to

contradict it. what's the sense of this? why would we want to suggest this? could any of you tell us why? do you think about it? admiral? >> yes, sir. i just think it makes common sense, and i agree with that recommendation. >> and if -- thank you. and it holds people accountable. just let me go through the few others. require a written ration male for not pursuing a proposed suggestion or debarment. this was a question that i wanted hanging for you, mr. carroll. i don't understand how we could see an agency -- we don't, the commission -- without a justification for not agreeing to a recommendation of being disbarred or suspended. >> well, we, we present the evidence to the agency to make a suspension and debarment decision. sometimes that's in parallel

with the referral to -- >> and dcaa sometimes does the same, and -- >> yeah. >> and then they still get the award, and there's nothing written that explains why the recommendation notwithstanding was still decided. >> true. >> do you agree with that recommendation? >> whole heartedly. >> captain harrington, can you, can you speak to this recommendation and whether you agree to it or not or think it makes sense? >> if i could ask you to repeat the question, sir. >> our recommendation 23 is require a written rationale for not pursuing a proposed suspension or debarment when it's been recommended by an inspector general or recommended by dcaa. or -- >> or senior employee of that organization. >> or a senior employee of that organization. >> sir, in my capacity i think that if there are programming changes or inputs or things that need to be changed to the system, i will be able to provide that. our -- >> i hear you, captain.

admiral, could you speak to that recommendation? whether there should be some kind of written -- not some kind, a written rationale for not pursuing a proposed suspension or debarment when it's recommended. >> yes, sir. my interaction with suspension and debarment is extremely limited. from what i do know, personally, my own opinion is i think it's a good recommendation. i think it's something that should be taken forward. but, again, i am not in the suspension or debarment officer realm. >> okay. well, let me just say i'll read the other two, and my time is up -- >> chairman. >> but we want an increased use in suspension and debarments. we think if you're not going to be suspended or debarred, there's no accountability. it's what's the point of even recording past performance if you don't, don't act on it? and revise regulations to lower procedural barriers to contingency suspensions and debarment. we just think that the process in a wartime environment is absurd if process can take

literally years. then what's the point? and, you know, we waste money, we get bad performance, and we put our men and women who are on the front line in danger. so we really want you all to go back and look at these recommendations because we think this is an important, essential part of what needs to take place in the reforms. and we're going to start the next order o, and we'll go to you for five minutes, commissioner thibau lurk t. >> thank you, commissioner shays. i want to explore something that commissioner shays read very briefly and just get a yes or a no. there's a recommendation, i think, we're popping numbers, number 22 that says agencies certify, require agencies to certify the use of past performance database. require agencies to certify the use. does anyone on, up there think that that's without merit?

all right. well, it seems to me then that the next part of that is the accountability that commissioner shays brought up which is if you do that, right now it's a whole lot of -- and we're doing it, it's in the testimony, well, we're doing this to improve it -- but there's none of this, here's where the failure occurred or senior management accountability. well, if you require the agencies to certify that they're effectively using it consistent with the requirements and the regulations, then at least you can evaluate the process that they're using. but if as you see in the chart there you get all those zeros or less than so %, you've -- 10%, you've got nothing to evaluate. so it would seem to me if you implemented that, you could turn to the head of agencies in forums like this and say, what's going on? and it seems to me then there would be a scrambling on the side of the government to get

this done the way we all would like to. is anybody up there disagreeing with what i've said so far? okay, now let me get to a point that's sort of near and dear to me that i wanted to bring up which is the cost of these corrective action plans and the suspension and debarment work too. many of these contractors that have that we bring up, i like professor tiefer's flagrant five. i found that a good way to reinforce it, but many of them that we bring up are valued providers of certain goods and services. so people in a government make a decision, you know, and we can criticize it in some cases, and we are. we need to continue their support. but it seems to me that the question that hasn't been asked is, so, who's going to pay for this? in the example of -- or who should pay for this? i'm going to start with mr. amey and work my way down, but in a most egregious example, clearest

understood example where there was life lost in this electrical problem where we were wiring living quarters and other quarters inappropriately. well, in that particular case we, the government, devised all sorts of project safety-type situations where it was all fixed. it's a cost-type contract. it's not. if it was a fixed-price contract and a contractor agreed to perform against a certain standard and didn't and you put a cost improvement program, corrective action plan together and they had to do it, guess who pays for it? the company pays for it if government's been doing their job and documenting. in a cost type, we have been out in the field and gone through a lot of these in the semi-remote, the shanks and airbornes of the world, you know, we've been to them. there they want a plan and a responsible contractor will fix it. but if it's egregious and they didn't build a building so it couldn't be inhabited, the real

question is why in that environment do we continue, you know, should we be changing the regulation that if it's worthy of a level three corrective action plan or however we're referring to it, who should pay there are this? and we're changing the regulation on business systems saying you take a withholding until they get it done. and i'd go a step further and say ask the question, you take this withholding, it's that important on a corrective action plan also, and then the question is, who pays for it, mr. amey? who should -- you know, when you get right down to the business world that we're try to be like, who should pay for that? >> obviously, it should be the contractors to either provide the goods or services that were promised to an adequate level based on the requirements of the contract, but, unfortunately, i think most of the time the taxpayer pays for it. >> okay. captain harrington? do you have anything different? >> from where i sit for funding, i look at the system, and i am funded -- >> so you're a user of the system, and it's not really down your lane.

mr. carroll? you've got a usaid contractor that's failed. you've got a bunch of money being spent. it's an irreversible contract. right now we're paying for it. should we be considering a change in either the regulation or the law that requires that where it's egregious, you know, they're going to continue to do business. they've made all these fixes, but who's going to pay for the fix? >> i agree with you 100% on what you're proposing, and i would just say two things. for the agency, for example, to fix that they're going to put eight fte into a new unit, so you've got to give them credit for that. secondly, i know mr. tiefer is a fan of lbg, but they are paying for their corrective actions, you know, civil settlement -- >> part of their justice settlement all of the corrective action plans? >> we, exactly. >> and justice can do that, and they've done it. kind of rare, but they've done it. all of my history which makes me

older than all of you, justice effectively does that sometimes. they don't always do it in this case. >> right. and in addition to that where we find egregious instances where contractors didn't perform, we'll make a recommendation to the agency that they can't sustain that cost and to recover the cost. so it's the contractor, clearly. >> yes, sir. admiral? >> i would always say contractors have equitable adjustment capability against the government, i would love to see a law that would allow us to have equitable adjustment. >> well, i think that would maybe -- my instant reaction is to agree, but i would say that would be contradictory and very difficult. but the concept of simply saying in the regulation that if a corrective action plan at a certain level, the contracting have the authority with the advice of his or her advisers to say to the company, that's one you're paying for. because i think then the company will be more attentive, and i think the government will be

more attentive as long as you have agencies certifying the proper use of past performance database. because then the head of the agency is going to have to put his reputation or her reputation on the line. mr. amey, you have a quick comment? >> and then we need to move on. >> yes, sir. this kind of gets into the weeds, but it may also be on the competition side is that you need a competitive multi-award idiq so if that contractor isn't performing well, then you can turn somewhere else, someone has already been preapproved, so at that point you could bring them in, and there's that threat you could lose that contract. that may be a remedy. >> good point. good point. >> thank you, my co-chair. we'll now go to mr. green. >> thank you. not, not really the focus specifically of this hearing, but my closing comment in the first round now that you've all had time to think about it, and i'd like to take advantage whenever we get some smart folks up here to sort of pick their

brain. you know, commissions like ours just come and go. and some do good work, some don't do terribly useful work. i hope that some of the things that we have done over the past couple years before we close out will prove to be useful. unfortunately, many of the recommendations just die a slow death. so back to my earlier comment. the war's over, the troops come home, they're focusing on training, they're focusing on maintenance, they're focusing on exercises. senior osb leadership goes away. joint staff turns over. senior service leadership goes away. cigar goes away, we go away, you guys maybe all go away except igs survive forever. what would you do if you were

king to insure that the progress that i think we've made -- and i think you all agree there's been progress made -- what do we do to insure that that lives? anybody? >> sir, i'll take it first. >> i want to ask all of you. >> yes, sir. i think i would say that you'd have to insure that we institutionalize the operationallization of these sorts of things, and we need to drive it just into our culture, and we also need to make sure there's a proper metric that is agreed to and corinne into the -- driven into the process. it's, it will be difficult to keep track of these things. i'm sure that there were same instances of this in the vietnam era, and we're looking at it again now. so the key is how do we institutionalize it, and that's something that we have to take a focus on. >> in your area do you see it being institutionalized, whatever that means? >> yes, sir.

i do. i see -- we are writing sops, we are measuring, we are insuring that it gets into our culture. >> mr. carroll? >> well, i would say it's incumbent upon the igs, as you stated, to maintain the momentum and to continue holding the agencies accountable for contractor performance. and i think that's, you know, even when the special igs go away you still have the statutory igs for defense department, state and aid to be able to carry the torch forward. so i would say from my point of view we're fully prepared to continue doing what we do to make sure the agency holds contractors accountable. >> well, i think the pressure will come on the igs, and i hope that when the special igs go away, if they do, and whatever, whatever form follows them, if any, they will also have certain responsibilities.

but short of that and short of really taking that seriously, i'm skeptical as all of you have seen recommendations, studies just collect dust. and i think that some important work has been done here, and i think we're moving in the right direction. but we've got to, we've gotta stick with it. captain harrington. ..

>> unfortunately, or fortunately, administradministration and policy policymakers go a >> unfortunately, or fortunately, administradministration and policy policymakers go away as well so i think you need to codify this, get congress to pass legislation that will enhance what's currently in the federal acquisition regulation as well as the dfar. i wouldn't expect it just to come from the management side of things with policy memos. >> thank you. my time is up. >> thank you, commissioner green. mr. tiefer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to go back to a couple of my favorites among the flagrant five, and ask admiral gilbeau, i know that you

carefully said in your statement that as far as logcap iii and logcap iv, enormous logistical contracts in iraq and afghanistan, there had not been entries made by dcma. i'm not talking about currently, i'm going back and kill the reason ask made by dcma, i want to take it one step further and ask about that. our staff look to see whether somebody else made entries and found that there had been no entry for kbr in logcap iii or logcap iv, which means the expenses history described that you could describe on the pogo database doesn't have anything corresponding in a government database. and i want to ask, how could this have been true, or why would this have been true in the

most what i think is the most famous incident of kbr wrongdoing, which was at the electrocutions in iraq, the electrocutions of soldiers and others because of faulty work on the wiring. and i think you at dcma did yeoman's work, you establish a thing called a level three core active action which is a very serious sanction. why didn't get -- why didn't i get into the database? >> this would just be speculation but my guess is because of that handoff from the dcma activity to the procuring contracting organization, to give all that information in seven volumes, seven big volumes of information, and then the oversight trail from my perspective is suffered once i hand it over to the pco. >> thank you.

i have a question about what i believe is a major game that the contract with bad performance have succeeded at, and that we have a recommendation at, and that is, number one comic isn't it the case now that even if there is no for a contract in the database, there's no past performance entry, that a contractor may cite that work on the contract as past experience in seeking to be evaluated favorably for new contract where best value, 30% is often what they have done before. and if we recommended that that should not be the case, that contractors could only take credit for performance that has been rated, would that lead to a better rating system?

>> i'm not sure. at the onset i think it sounds like a positive idea. however, i would have to look at what kind of experience was being built, what kind expense did they have, when would they ask execute a contract and then be competing for another contract. >> but is the case now that contractor who does not have past performance leads into therefore may have given a poor or even unsatisfactory performance may cite as past experience, they can work on a contract? >> yes, sir. i can't get quality information as to the crankcase because i don't have pcos. i can say what i did manage pcos back in iraq in 2007-2008 timeframe, you are absolutely right. >> thank you. mr. carroll, your statement explained that you could build the case that a.i.d. ig had built case on louis berger to which they later pled guilty,

and i've no criticism, only praise for the case that you bill. is an impressive accomplishment. i want to know, could earlier on, not at the end when louis berger had taken a lot of measures and looking to make a plea agreement, but early on could you have made a recommendation for a.i.d. to consider suspension and debarment? >> i'm not sure that we could have because the fraud was so complex and so difficult to prove, it took us an extraordinary long time to conduct the investigation and then to write the affidavit alleges the indictment, that led to the civil settlement. so in retrospect, it wasn't nearly as easy as it was with add, where we had clear fraud early on and we present that to the agency.

so would we have liked to have seen something more punitive with lpg from a law-enforcement perspective? i think i could probably say inherently yes. but -- >> my time has expired. that's okay. >> i thank you, mr. tiefer. commissioner henke. >> thank you, mr. chairman. captain carrington, your offices is responsible providing past performance training on the systems you manage, right? >> yes, sir. >> and you provide, he said 16,000 users, different levels of training to provide the training, i guess you do site visits, youtube video telecom to? >> we do online training. if you're a registered user we do site and we do go to for instance, a perfect sample is next month we're going to be in huntsville, alabama, we expect to train up to five other people. >> you also hold past performance conferences. we sent some of our staff last year and they said it was pretty good. my question to you as you do a

lot of training. you seem to produce a lot of steps, and a lot of access to training. so with all that training going on, what do you attribute these kinds of results to? people are trained but not using the system. what's missing? >> we've taken -- we've listened to users, and we tailored our training to that, and we've provided in our training, those tools like i said earlier, the tools in the toolbox to the users, you know, for good example would be the narratives. we stress that and say you should do that all the way through the whole contract. >> so to what you attribute the kind of results when looking at here with 10% are completed or zero are completed? what's missing? is it a will to use the system? >> i'll be honest, sir, in my capacity i don't analyze that data. >> is a frustrating few to provide that training and see these kinds of results of?

>> yes, sir. >> mr. amey come in your statement you mentioned interagency suspension debarment committee. there's about 50 departments and agencies that have been around since 1985, six, whatever. there's a piece of law past two years ago that requires them to report to congress. it was passed in the end of 2008, have you seen the 2009 report? >> i haven't seen any of the reports. >> have you seen the 2010 report? >> no, sir. >> have been reported by law to congress? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> have you asked them? what heavyset? >> i have written. i sent two letters multiple e-mails, and multiple voicemails, and have received no response. i take that back. i did receive one response from someone that was the former vice

chair, she said she was no longer on the isdc, and, therefore, i had to take it up with mr. blalock. >> okay. but you contacted in? >> i did but i never actually have spoken with them, but i have contacted him and i've never heard back from him. >> he is here today. he is on our second panel. if you would make a point to meet with mr. blalock after hitting to open up dialogue, i would like to introduce the two of you. >> thank you. >> mr. carroll come you said, you used the word on suspension and debarment deferrals, the ig's make to the procurement house, you said you were frankly quote frustrated that you are making referrals, but the agency wasn't acting on them. what happened to them? them? did they go into a blackhole? was there ever a revolution on them? >> well, to use your term and to the black hole, if we're not going to get a criminal

prosecution, then it comes back administratively. we refer to the agency. the agency will take some particular action. when they take that action they get back to us and we close the case. so it's not -- >> that action may be -- >> it could be they chose not to act. that could be one of the actions they took. >> and literally can agency we chose not to act? do they have to document for you? >> no. it's very informal like that. they really don't have to give us a rationale for why they chose not to act. >> okay. >> so your recommendation to force them to do that i think would be outstanding. >> the recommendation is that it would be approved by the agency head, so if you say this contractor is a bad actor, you should suspend of our debar them come if they disagree they got to run it up to the administrator or the secretary to get that level of visit -- level of visibility to it. >> i think it's an outstanding

idea. >> admiral gilbeau, you said something i'm interested in pursuing. you said you're not in the suspension and debarment realm. and i'm curious because dcma is the dod's lead agency on contract administration. >> yes, sir. we provide input to icann, the pco. i don't have any authorities to suspend our debar. i do provide input. i do provide surveillance entity provide some sort of oversight. >> thank you, commissioner henke. now we'll go to dr. zakheim. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, mr. carroll you're going to get me some answers on those four entities. that were left out and whether they got any new contracts, whether they are still contractors. >> the four entities were related to one company, and i can't definitively as to whether they got follow-up contracts,

but i will get back to for sure when we get back to the office. >> which company was that? >> it's called dan x. >> i appreciate that. captain harrington, geoff twice in sag don't analyze the data. this is what you said about what your office does. you manage, you oversee. you do proper database management, configuration management, customer support and training. but if you don't analyze the outcome how do you know what you're supposed to be doing? could you tell me, please? >> we have an moaa through dla and osd. and we adhere to the moaa. the memorandum of agreement -- >> i know what that means. my folks take that very strictly. >> tell me, but you have a memorandum of agreement, but do

you get specifics on the outcome of your training on whether you have configured these, whether the systems are properly configured? you get numbers. do you get outcomes? >> we compile monthly metrics about the system, yes, sir. >> you do. so you have numbers and outcomes on all these systems, on all the training you're even -- you are able to evaluate how well you train people? somebody takes a course at the university, they're going to take a test. he will pass, fail, get great. and somebody takes what your training courses how do you know they weren't watching tv at the same time? >> do we have a formalized, formalized feedback system? >> yes. >> no, we do not. >> so, if i was taking a course and if it's a typical computer-based course, what

happens is you get the question wrong, you try the question again and you can keep trying until you get it right. so i could be watching the super bowl and taking your course, and finishing -- how long do these courses last by the way? each section of it. >> one day. spare and how long does it take what is it an eight hour course? >> its approximate eight hours. >> so i could be doing something else, and taking your course at the same time and you have no way of knowing whether i've absorbed any of this, correct? correct? >> yes, sir. >> are you come, without? >> sir, i think that there are areas that in my capacity that we are exploring to make the system better for customer feedback. i think that's an important aspect of it, and we are exploring that. >> can you give me details? we been doing this, we been at war and continues to now for 10 years. we may have other contingencies.

give me examples of what you're doing, and also when you expect to have been done. because one of the things i noticed in government is -- all you guys, we are on, we're working the problem, but nobody ever says when the problem will be work. so give me examples of what you're doing and giving a timetable of when you're going to complete whatever it is you're trying to do. do. >> sir, i think for that question i would like to take that for the record. >> that's fine. i will accept that. mr. amey, i want to point out a couple of things. first, this is more generally just an observation. this bad apples excuse whenever a contractor does something wrong to say well, it was some individual that did. but i can tell you what you get a bad cpars rating, everybody make sure that whoever messed it up is probably going to be kicked out pretty quickly. and so, the absence of a cpars rating is frankly and i think you are from all my colleagues, i think the word my kosher menus

was outrageous. is probably an understatement. but let me ask you, mr. amey, have you or pogo generally looked at or have any sense of the fact that possibly those who rate for cpars because some of the input comes from what's called in the business the client might then go over to work for the very contractor they rate? >> in messenger describing the revolving door? >> that's one way to put it. >> we have not in this context, a few years ago pogo did publish a report on the revolving door. we took a look at senior government officials that worked for the top 20, or that were former senior government officials, went to work for -- >> this is different because here we're talking about the gs 12, 13 our '04, '05 reader who is going to inflate the cpars, retired and then go to work for the very company that they have

inflated. have you looked at that? and if not, i recommend you do. >> i wish i could. i have not come and the reason being is we don't have the capability. there is a dvd kind of revolving door database that has been created but it's not publicly available and it does track certain contracting officials that move to the private sector. but we don't have access to that data. >> who would? does anybody on the panel know who's in charge of that so we could find out why there's no access? anybody on the panel know? thank you. >> i have one question before we allow you all to make a final statement without our responding to it. but i may have more than one question depending on your answer. i'd like to know what would be your number one recommendation, each of you, what would be your number one recommendation to

make the past performance and contingency reporting system work more effectively? and so, what would be your number one recommendation? it could be the ones where they come it could be other ones. but what is your number one recommendation to meet the system work better in a contingency environment. admiral gilbeau, let's start with you. >> yes, sir. i think my top recommendation would be to ensure there is a separation of reporting from the program office, and in my case, dcma, the contract management administrators. and i think ensuring that we are a programming resource, whether it is i.t. resource our personnel resource, input the performance data directly would be a good thing. >> thank you, admiral. mr. carroll? >> for me it is a tie between

the certification of use of the systems and in providing a written rationale for decisions made for suspension and a barber, yes or no. >> thank you. captain? >> the systems evolve, my office and my command is standing by to make those changes to keep it going forward and -- >> let me say you are too integrally involved in this not have an opinion of the best way to improve the system. and what i'm asking is for you to give us your best judgment. that's a request that people around you would expect you to answer. >> i know that the vjc cs that they are working to make it a little bit easier for the person in the field. so that would be your number one recommendation? >> yes, sir.

>> mr. amey? >> i will defer to the other panelists. i think that they pointed out the top three or four issues as far as the performance data. >> i would think that one of the most important things is that senior leaders focus on this as something that they want done. what i've noticed in my observations of military in particular is when the senior folks want it done, it gets done. and if they have other priorities, so i would think, frankly, that one of your answers might have been that it be given a priority over other things. this is the bottom line, and let me just make a comment. in our at what risk, our first report was at what cost. we have in five session. the contractors become the default option. this section two, agencies do

not treat contingency contracting as a core function. the third is an agency organization structures do not support contingency operations. the fourth is policies and practices hamper contingency competition. and the last one, section five, is enforcement policy and controls failed to ensure contractor accountability. all of us would stand by these headings and then the recommendations within it. so three of our recommendations came under policy and practices, as it relates to this issue. and then we had three in the enforcement policy and control scale. to ensure contractor accountability. so, the bottom line for me is and i think my colleagues come is that 90% of the past performance are basically ignored. give or take. may be more are ignored, maybe a little us. the second is contractors can

claim good performance and does nothing to disputed because 90% is recorded. the third point is we focus on the 10% where performance is recorded, and even then we don't use it. to ultimate suspend or debar or simply not move forward with that contractor, at least not give them as many points. maybe they should still be allowed to compete but not score as well. is a 30% past performance? >> yes. >> what a joke. 30% is past performance. the contractors as i'm doing great, so they get scored well. and we have no way to counter it. and then so, so we often renew contracts when performance is bad. we get new contracts to former bad performers. that's what happens. and we rarely use suspension or debarment.

and it's not a punishment. it's just we don't want it to do the work. for existing a new contract. we basically ignore this important tool. that's the bottom line of this hearing. and admiral, i just want to say to you that, and you know this but i just want to say it to you frankly, someone in your position, if this isn't the highest priority or one of the highest priorities, this is going to discontinue. and we really would respectfully ask that you all take a good look at this report. we spent frankly two years trying to sort this out, and these are our conclusions, and, frankly, they are very important conclusions. so i got to make the last statement on this side. you each get to make whatever statement you want without any intervention from any of us. and we will let you, admiral, coal last to get the last word and we will start with mr. amey. >> thank you very much, and i

appreciate you holding this hearing because i do think it is critical to making government operations work better. my final statement would be just three basic recommendations. one is transparency. when i include transparency i include government sharing. unfortunate i have been told by one suspension and debarment official if you know that contractor had entered into multiple administrative agreements with other agencies he wouldn't have been the next. expanding fapiis to include items that are related to contracts and grants. most of what we're talking about may not be entered into those databases and, therefore, isn't going to give us the push that we need when it comes to better contractor accountability measures. and also the increased use of suspension and debarment. we could have in the case of bp, i thought that the epa should have suspended bp. however, the air force came back and said no, no. , we decided we needed to participate and the question is

to grant him a winner but let's hold him accountable. let's improve processes and let some shine some light on what the track record is so, therefore, we can help them improve and help the federal government. thank you. >> thank you mr. amey. captain herington? >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for providing me the opportunity to sit and testify today. i do appreciate it. my command as we have, stands ready as we discussed provide the training, put those tools in the toolbox for our users of the systems. and standing by to evolve the systems to make it better for each and every one of us spent thank you, captain. mr. carroll? >> i appreciate everything the commission is doing and has done over the years. we are both in the oversight business, and whatever you can do to promote accountability

helps us. many other recommendations will help us do our job, help us keep the agency accountable. so we appreciate everything. we support everything you'd are doing going forward. >> thank you, mr. carroll. admiral? >> thank you commissioners. i would start to say that i believe this is on leadership's desk, at the very top of the things to do to improve oversight. i can tell you it's very important to my boss, mr. williams. i can tell you that a lot of interaction with the folks at dod, it is important. it's certainly very high on my list. i really think the committee for focusing on this, and it does allow us to get some direct answers to an issue that i think we need to get better on. i'll tell you right now, four months ago i couldn't give you a

statistic on where my folks in afghanistan and iraq are with respect to how many contracts are requested to have data put in. today, we are. we are measuring that. i can tell you in iraq and afghanistan this month, 100%, we will be properly annotated into the right system. so, we are effectively managing from the senior leadership at dcma, and i think things will improve. i will say i do think we have a ways to go to institutionalize it, and i would also like to say that i was very impressed at the logcap data data which allows report of major general fontaine, the asc commander, and mr. tommy marx, the new logcap program manager, we had to very for it and quite honestly good discussion as to how we can all work together to improve this process of ensuring prior past performances is properly taken into consideration for the future. thank you, sir. >> thank you, admiral, very

much. we think all of you for your testimony and cooperation with this committee. and also, frankly that we didn't hear any complaints about having a nongovernment person be on the same day with government. helps us have a better dialogue and that's helpful to us. so we're very grateful for all four of you. thank you very much. and we're going to not recess. will go right into the next panel right now. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] spirit that now they are all comfortable he said i'm going to ask you to stand up to swear you in. by the way, thank you for waiting for the first panel. ratio right hand, do solemnly swear or affirm that the test when you will give before this

commission is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? know for the record all of the witnesses responded in the affirmative. and we're going to start, just go right down the line, mr. gordon, and will ask you to stay within your five minutes. i will kind of let you know if you are coming over a little long. just because we have a lot of panelists. so we thank you for that and we thank you for being here. mr. gordon, you may testify. >> chairman shays, chairman thibault, other members of the commission, i'm honored that you invited me to testify today, the second time i've appeared before this distinguished panel. i've read with great interest the commission second interim report which issued late last week. and while all of us will need to study and reflect on the recommendations in that interim report, more carefully than time has allowed so far, i thought it might be useful to offer a few initial thoughts. first, i commend the commission

on producing a thought-provoking report on extremely important topics. the report gives us much to consider as we move forward with their the acquisition improvement efforts. you're focused on over reliance on contractors in particular, such as acquisition and security, resonates with the presidents and administrations concerned about over dependence on contractors, especially in critical functions. second, i particularly appreciated of the report's call for strengthening the federal acquisition workforce. and increasing the attention paid acquisition planning and contract management. we have been calling for this from the beginning of this administration, and it has been my watchword since i became the administrator for federal procurement policy in november 2009. that said, let me turn to the

narrower and more operational topics that are the subject of today's hearing. as we work to protect the half a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that we spend on goods and services each year, we must work harder to do business with contractors that place a premium on performance and quality, and not do business with those whose track record indicates that they cannot be trusted with public funds. the two tools that are the subject of today's hearing, the use of past performance information, and the suspension and debarment process can both help agencies need the schools. over the past two years, as outlined in my written statement and as you have heard from some of the witnesses in their first panel, and you'll be hearing from my colleagues on this panel shortly, the administration has taken steps to strengthen both the way we use past performance information and the suspension and debarment process.

the steps are being reinforced by an overall increased emphasis on acquisition planning and contract management. for too long been focused so much on who gets the contract, that we've neglected what must come before and after the signing of a contract. sound acquisition planning and inconsistent contract management. now after years of inattention, we are finally strengthening the acquisition workforce, restoring the capacity of contract specialists, to plan effectively and negotiate aggressively, and building the capability of those responsible for contract management, including program and project managers, contracting officers representatives, to ensure that contractors meet their contractual promises. i'll leave discussion of specifics to our question and answer come into my colleagues on the panel. who can offer their hands on

experience from their work at agencies heavily engaged in contingency contracting. but before i conclude my brief oral statement, i thought it would offer a couple of notes of caution to the commission in terms of the recommendation in the second interim report with respect to the two topics today. first, unlike the broad area of over reliance on contractors and the need to build the agency's organic capacity, the two topics of today's hearing are largely nuts and bolts operational areas. when we must think very carefully about the burden and effectiveness of one size fits all recommendations. real-life concerns in different contexts, including in the contingency environment, might weigh in favor of alternative approaches. second, both topics in front of you today are areas where there

has been substantial change over the past two years, which i hope the commission will take into careful consideration before you issue your final report this summer. that said, let me close by again expressing appreciation for the commission's important work. we look forward to seeing your final report as we in the administration worked to strengthen the federal acquisition workforce, reinforce fiscal responsibility in our acquisitions, and assure that contractors are used only when appropriate. and not as the default option to use the language of your interim report which i quite liked. and that federal employees always conduct consistent, meaningful oversight so that taxpayers interests are protected. i am happy to answer any questions the commission may have. thank you. >> thank you mr. gordon. mr. ginman.

>> chairman shays, chairman thibault, this thing which numbers of the commission, good morning. i served as the deputy director of defense there, and acquisition policy, one of my areas of responsibility is contingency contracting. i just like to take a minute and thank the commission for your support of our troops and all that you've done to help with the mission. and also to thank the men and women who serve this great nation, not only our military, but the civil servants, the coalition forces and industry partners as well. none of us could get the job done without all of us together. you asked me to discuss past performance and suspension and debarment today. i have prepared a statement, and rather than repeat or summarize it, i will send ask that it be included for the record, and i am ready to answer questions. >> thank you, sir. do i pronounce your name -- i got right. mr. rindner, thank you for being here. >> thank you. members of commission, i

appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony before you today. i am corey rindner and they serve as the procurement executive at the department of state. i've been there at seven years and previous it was at the departmendepartment treasure but i'm pleased to speak you today about ensuring contractor accountability, past performance and suspension and debarment. as is released to the department of state. as the, executive am responsible for trade policy and oversight for the procurement function and also serve as the suspension and debarment official. for the departed on procurement matters. departments to determine operations are most decentralized in the office of acquisition management. a washington-based office, anti-regional procurement support offices for overseas. until recently department of state contracting personnel and assist them reported in the nih contractor performance system, and we're now using cpars. the department it is contractor past performance information into cpars, past performance is checked in pprs, and we have fapiis as a model in pprs with

events such as contract terminations for default or not responsibility determinations, recorded by contracting officers in fapiis as they occur. atm is our main acquisition office has been training personnel on cpars in pprs. we have had the navy development group make presentations both in person and via videoconference it when the processor can the navy cpars manual to fit department of state needs. we are very appreciative of the effort in this regard. the department is also anxious to transit workforce in fapiis and we look forward to fai training in that regard. the department state continually strives to improve its contractor oversight including feedback and other agency reviews, both bp sample some performance assessments in cpars from 10 agencies, and i see you have the results up there. suffice it to say that department state acknowledges and needs to improve and we will take actions to improve our reporting of the past

performance. department of state contracting officers reviewed the pprs database to determine if a proposed contractor is on the excluded parties list as the department and official i rely on the office of inspector general and front-line contracting officers to identify and refer potential candidates for the barn and suspension. my office has no independent investigative capability. in the past year i have suspended three entities in afghanistan penny department of justice investigations. i find our oig referrals to be thorough and well documented. with a collaborative relationship that works well on department and suspension. the present system or by the separation of duty between investigation, contracted and efficient adjudication. this provides due process and a fresh review of investigative evidence. in conclusion, the department of state uses the dod past performance is sensitive and will improve our documentation and use of that system. will continue to use suspension and debarment as necessary to

protect the interest of the department state and the rest of government by preventing the award of contracts to contractors who did not possess the integrity or responsibility they perform. thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. >> thank you. ms. shauket? >> thank you chairman shays. chairman thibault and members of the commission, for the opportunity to appear before you today. to discuss contractor accountability, past performance, suspension and debarment. i am maureen shauket, the chief acquisition officer and suspension and debarment official for usaid. usaid's mission is an important one. our humanitarian and development work serves as a pillar for national security by building stronger economies and more stable democracies. we are committed to invest in u.s. taxpayer funds wisely at each phase of the procurement process. to yield sustainable long-term results. have realized his commitment to usaid forward and our reform to improve the way we do business.

we are holding ourselves more accountable and we expect the same from our contractors and grantees. we expect our contractors to be good stewards of taxpayer funds. we expect contractors to act with integrity, and we're holding them accountable when they fall short. we are on the right track, but i will say frankly you say frankly usaid needs to do better, especially as it relates to past performance reporting. on the positive side, u.s.a. consistently used its past performance as an evaluation factor in our new procurement. for awards over $25 million, our contract review board ensures compliance with as many. when it comes to completing past performance reports, however, we have not been as successful. we estimate a 10% completion rate. clearly this is unacceptable. investing in skilled contract administrators is critical for us to turn the situation around. for this reason we have dramatically increased the

number of contracting officers in afghanistan from three in 2007, denying in 2010. the past performance rate for afghanistan is 38% currently. during most my most recent trip to afghanistan, we established a new positions, administrative contracting officer positions. these officers will focus of their attention exclusively on post-award administration and monitoring contractor performance. i am happy to report a better success story on suspension and debarment. when i took this job in late 2007, the challenges we faced in suspension and debarment were evident, as indicated by mike carroll in his testimony prior to this. one of the key recommendations to come from the ig report was to dedicate full-time staff to suspension and debarment, and we agreed. by the time the report was issued in october 2009, we had

already made great strides forward. and in the past two months alone we have taken suspension or debarment actions against 31 individuals or entities. this has been mainly to our newly established compliance and oversight of partner performance division, a unit devoted to accountability of our contractors and our grantees. this unit manages suspension and debarment and past performance. i'm excited to tell you, this unit will be watching for performance trends, contracted by contractor. this unit will also collaborate closely with usaid's i.t. and the general counsel's office for we have to get much of our recent success to close coordination with these teams. we have made great progress but there is more to be done to improve our accountability and oversight. i believe we can get there. we have expert contract professionals worldwide, especially in afghanistan and iraq, who are dedicated to the strong stewardship of taxpayer

funds. we depend on these cios and costars to manage multi-marriage contracts under some of the most trying conditions. i am extremely proud of their dedication and the sacrifices they're making. as a usaid foreign service officer myself, i have spent over 15 years of my career in asia, africa and eastern europe. a highlight of my crew was building the capacity of to local women's organizations that were pioneers in the fight against trafficking of women and children in bangladesh. as a department of the professional, i feel a deep responsibility to carry out our programs efficiently and effectively, and with integrity. i take fraud, mismanaged and waste of our funds as a serious affront to the mission of our agency, and the trust of the u.s. taxpayer and the beneficiaries of our programs. i think the commission for your attention to these important issues. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and i'm

happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, ms. shauket. mr. blaylock. >> good morning commissioner's. and thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your questions about the role of the inner agency suspension and debarment committee. suspension and debarment system. as indicated in my written statement previously submitted, we believe the current suspension and debarment authorities of regulations are adequate to ensure contractor responsibility and accountability, if utilized. they have observed improved and increased activity by a number of member agencies. i outlined some of those examples in my written statement -- britain's david. each agency manages its responsibilities for suspension and debarment differently based on its own statutory and functional responsibilities, some agencies like those most active within the department of defense have a centralized

system with a single suspending the bar and official but others like department home at the to become a department of transportation, department of agriculture have multiple, for each of those major components. department of homeland security has nine s. deal to department of transportation has 16 s.b. goes. department of agriculture is 16. some agencies have stos are dedicated full-time to the agency suspension and debarment system but many agencies have senior leaders for whom they have response but as a collateral duty. each agency makes its own decision on the approach structure of its own suspension and debarment system. as noted previously, the suspension and debarment system only works if it is used. the only function to protect the agencies from conducting business transaction for contractors alike present responsibility of agency personnel are willing and able to suspend and debar firms that are demonstrated, they are not responsible. fortunately, many isdc member

agencies like the department of army have the will and space to utilize the system integrate innovative approaches for holding contractors responsible. it is increasingly using fact-based actions because there is essentially no functioning judicial system either contingency environment. other member agencies continue to institute improvements to the suspension and debarment practices. for instance, the department of homeland security as a result of its 2009 oig report for the suspension and debarment assessment committee to review procedures within other agencies and to recommend improvements. that committee visited numerous other agencies to learn about best practices, and in may 2010, the committee recommended that the suspension and debarment process be centralized into a single department of homeland security s.b. oh and to establish a full-time suspension and debarment division, to

process? that recommendation has been improved, has been approved within the agency and is being insulated this year. the isdc understands that improvements could be made to the existing system to ensure contractor responsibility. we agree with many of the national procurement fraud task force recommendations on suspension and debarment. we're awaiting publication of the council inspector general's on integrity, serving on suspension and debarment. the co-chairs of the committee conducting a survey briefed the isdc in its february meeting on the status of the survey. the system will undoubtedly be more effective if each agency had a dedicated full-time suspension and debarment staff to process cases. however, each isdc member agency has to have the discretion, to structure ecosystem because each member agency is in the best position to know what will work, or it. the fact is that the level of

acquisition fraud will be different at the department of defense that it is at the pension benefit guarantee corporation on the institute for museum and library services, both of which are members of the isdc. because of those differences the isdc position is that each executive branch agency must have the discretion to start a suspension and debarment process appropriate for its particular agency. i'm happy to respond to any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. blalock. mr. fiore, and then we will take questions. >> chairman shays, chairman thibault, distinguished numbers of the commission, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony before you here today on this important issue of contractor accountability. i served as the drug of soldier and family legal services from the office of the judge advocate general of the department of army. since october 2008 i also serve as the department of the army suspension and debarment official. the army follows a suspension

and debarment regulatory processes set forth in the federal acquisition regulation, subpart 9.4. pursuant to the regulation, an agency may suspend, debar are otherwise declared ineligible certain contractors in order to protect the interests of the government on behalf of the public. suspension and debarment are prospected remedies in which past misconduct for unsatisfactory performance provides the context and insight to the contractors present and future responsibility. contractors are suspended, proposed for department and he barred are excluded from receiving contracts from the government. further, agencies may not solicit offers from or contracts to our consent to subcontract with contractors who are debarred, suspended or proposed for debarment. debarment and suspend your discretion actions taken to assure agencies contract only with responsible contractors, and they are not for the purpose of punishment.

discretion in suspension debarment decisions is not unfettered, however. and maybe charles in u.s. district court under the administrative procedure act spanish fork abusive discretion if it are deemed arbitrary capricious and warrant contrary to law. for suspension, the evidentiary burden for adequate evidence which is similar to probable cause for debarment the standard is preponderance of evidence to a contractor can be suspended when there is an indictment and department is a criminal conviction for fraud or a similarly serious offense. in these judicially-based actions, the underlying judicial action, the indictment, conviction or civil judgment is deemed sufficient to meet the evidentiary standard. but is also subject to rebuttal by the contractor with evidence -- with evidence of present responsibility. a contractor also can be suspended or proposed for

debarment versus misconduct that affects the contractors present responsibility that is not addressed any judicial action. including willful failure to perform our history of unsatisfactory performance. these fact-based actions do not have the presumptive sufficient-based actions, and are more complex and more resource intensive to investigate, develop, and prepare. and agency also can enter into an administrative agreement as an alternative to spin and debar in a contractor when the contractor can demonstrate that notwithstanding the potential basis for suspension and debarment, the contract is presently responsible or can be presently responsible. and administered agreement usually involves remedial measures to address personal organizations or systemic failures, prospected measures such as ethical codes and training, and oversight by the government or an independent monitor to scrutinize ongoing operations. the goal of the administered agreement is to cultivate

integrity within the contractors operation to ensure responsible contractor. suspension and debarment may be delegated as it has any army to a suspension and debarment official. i and the decision authority for all army suspension and debarment cases, including those cases arising in afghanistan and iraq. in europe and the republic of korea because of a long-term army station, you army station, you could take addition of expertise and a host nation, law and languages, the army for the delegates overseas suspension and department authority for contracts in those areas. as the army suspension and debarment official i am an independent decision-maker. i report directly to the judge advocate general. i do not supervise the attorneys and the procurement fraud branch or the program attorneys who monitor and develop procurement fraud, waste, and abuse cases are every pair for suspension and debarment cases for my decision. i received the recommendations,

providing guidance, and i render decisions on the disposition of cases. earlier in my career i served as a litigation attorney in the procurement fraud branch. for the past several years the army has been at or near the top of the department of defense and the number of suspension and debarment actions in fiscal year 10, we took over 400 actions. 309 in 2009, 301 in 2008, and again 350 in 2007. since 2005, we've taken over 350 actions in cases arising in contingency theaters. we are the current caseload of over 1000, 270 of those cases arise in the contingency theaters. i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and i look forward to the opportunity to answer any of your questions. >> thank you very much, and i

think i'm going to recognize mr. thibault, but i just want to say, mr. gordon, you started off commenting on our report. and i would just like to say for the record one, thank you. but number two, the recommendations that are there in this sense are not our recommendations, and that we did a lot of listening and we listen to you and others. so there's been input from a lot of sources. and we thank you for that. mr. thibault, you have eight minutes. >> thank you. mr. gordon, i want to commend you -- i want to commend you, but i want to commend you for your recent memorandum because i think, for us, it's very useful. it's a baseline to have discussions, and i want to share one point of it so that they disagree with, and we can talk about. but if i'm right, that's the

busy chart as i see through that, and that's your chart, and that's the $550 billion that you analyze. and i commend you for that also. those of you in the audience, just need to understand that they have broken it out in terms of adequacy of explanations and narratives to supportive. now, what you have here that commissioner henke talked about earlier is working with the department, those three departments. .. things.

and that's not as -- you know,