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]