general perry it i applaud your can in admitting that some huge mistakes were made in not moving more quickly on the transition, such that savings could be realized. a decision has not been made yet, but it sounds as if the likely conclusion will be that there will not be a transition. i have to say on behalf of american tax payers, that if they watched this hearing today and watched the transcript, they have a right to be appalled by the fact it took us a couple of years to figure out that we would likely have some savings if we competed the contract. . .

another year from august to 2006 -- august 2006 until the basic logcap 4 contract could be awarded, what was the reason for the two year delay?

>> mr. commissioner, the delay was a we were going into some uncharted waters. certainly logcap 3 was easy, if you will, for commanders to deal with in the theater. now, we had to go to a competitive bid for each task order. we wanted to make sure the commanders were comfortable with that process. could it have been done faster? i would submit to you, yes. why was it not done faster? i do not know. at the same time, going into kuwait and getting the bugs out of the system, i believe that was the right thing to do. again, we could have gone faster. >> cost savings rate tertiary concern at best?

what other answer could there possibly be as to why this was not done faster? >> sir, and would submit to you that cost is very calm -- very important to were fighting with a commander's ability to maintain security and life- support. it is paramount. >> what is your comment? >> i would go back to say that, first of all, these were ultimately $150 billion of potential acquisition with 50 felt -- $50 million for each of the word -- $50 billion each. we had to make sure we had everyone lined up all the way to osd. that was part of the process. there were huge acquisitions. the other year was the year it took us to compete for logcap four. it was a potential $50 billion

competition. it was a robust. there were people who were eliminated. there were multiple rounds of discussions to go through. a ultimately, we still ended up with a protest -- a process. it goes back to, once again, the complexity of what we were doing. >> i am concerned, also, that the transition, once it happens if it ever happens fully from what cap three to four -- from logcap 324 that we are creating too many logcap threes. it's an order is awarded during logcap four is -- it is added to the order. if there is substantially new work, there is another round of competition. should we be concerned that there will not be the full benefits even if there is a transition to logcap four?

>> should we be concerned? i think we should always be concerned and vigilant as we move forward to make sure we are doing the right thing for the taxpayers. we built into the process is to fold. reggie is twofold -- is two fold. recanted the advantages of the competitions for word with any new work added in. if i had new work, i can go back to the basic competition to the contract awarded. we have also put into the process a discipline process to make sure we are prudent that we exercise options. if a contractor is not performing, if we are not getting the cost control and things like and desire, we have the ability to not exercise an

option and move to the competition. >> commissioner, can i add something here? commissioner ervin, your point is excellent on how long. i was involved in a couple of hearings in a prior life where the army came in in 2004. there was an extra year in their. in mid-to thousand four that acknowledged the army -- in mid- 2004, the acknowledged that they had an extra year. your friend strom thurmond used to say $1 million here, $1 million there is not as meaningful. >> was that strom? >> sorry about that. i am going to ask you what are

some of the lessons learned. i do not wish to blind side view. please, be thinking about that. what are some of the lessons we are learning. you have the floor. >> thank you. how would to go back briefly to what we were talking about before with the drawdown thekbf. -- and kbr. for people have reviewed the kbr plan. you are still evaluating this? i want to check that i understand your observations. to take two of them, you figure that they would only reduce its staff 15% through july 2010 even though the army is going to come something closer to 50% of its troops in line with this, you say that over 60% of the

their planned staff reductions occur within the final month from july 2010 to august 2010. visually, i think what you are suggesting is that their plan is to avoid a steady path that would keep down the government. instead they are doing a waterfall in the last month which reduces little until the last point and maximizes the taxpayer cost and their profit. do your observations indicate that that is what they're going to do? something like a waterfall in the last month? >> mr. commissioner, the plan as it is stated today achieves a 38% reduction. we talked about a 34% reduction

in our october 26th report. as you articulated, 60% of that is being achieved in the last month. we are trying to evaluate the assumptions that that waterfall is based on and try to take those assumptions back to the operational requirements. >> let me take this further. i want to give you a predicate. i want to ask you whether you still stand by your october report that said -- so people know what we are talking about, that kbr could and should make a 90% savings around $193 million. the operations order shows underutilization where in just

that limited function, under 10%, there would be $21 million in savings. the waterfall we talked about and kbr's proposed and state, you said it was about 189,000 people which is an incredibly high figure of the 3 3/5 contractors for every one soldier. taking all that you have seen, not individually, but looking generally, do you stand by your october order? >> yes, commissioner. when we made the report, we did not have the plan to evaluate. we did make some assumptions based on deriving that number of. i would say the logistics support contracts and adds credibility faulk were they to

be had -- adds credibility, were there to be had. the end state that the contractor is working to is within a couple hundred that is within our october report. >> i have a quick question. we already discussed business case analysis. i want to know and some commissioners and a staff team, could they review the analysis at the fort? >> sir, i will confirm -- the quick answer is yes. i will confirm there is no problems and i will give back to you. >> thank you very much for that. since we are hearing for the first time ever that the competition now in progress for the remaining work in iraq on logcap might be stopped, i want to check. wouldn't there still the

alternatives in going ahead with the competition such as kbr which had won the previous contract might offer a bargain and therefore it might win the contract by giving us savings with minimal turmoil continued its work in iraq? number two, after the award is made -- three come as the transition work to go poorly, couldn't week -- terminate at any point? finally, if we were in iraq last month -- when we were in iraq, we talked to general odierno's staff, and he said he loves competition. i am not being sarcastic. this was his sincere feeling. he said the solution to the problem was to do this in a

"smart way" otherwise kbr will get slammed with competition. will this make competition useful? at least make this more useful than it would be if none of these were available? >> i think what we need to do is follow the process along with the operational info we have a from the seniors in the theater and a decision based on that. >> thinking. my time has expired. -- thank you. >> i will end by allowing each of you to respond to any questions you wish we had asked but we did not and you are prepared to answer. any comments you have a based on what you could answer in view of others to make sure it is on the record. basically, when i am seeing and

hearing is that we have this trifecta where we have kbr over its work force. we have the failure of a rock island to view the estimate to detect the over utilization and then we have the dcma and others who failed to have the government oversight as related to the issue of the contract for technical vehicle field maintenance. then there was the core logistics' service support. is somewhat stunning that the inspector general and the dcaa into the same conclusion. the fear we have on the commission is that this would be an example of something that

is typical, not atypical, that we are dealing with. people cannot understand how much it costs to build a wing of an airplane. they know that a $600 hammer to build the airplane would be off base. if they use that for the hammer, what are they deciding on the wing it? so, i think -- i do not think. it would be helpful to us and the commission if we could come back, general, and if you would be able to come back to us and say how did this happen? not did it have been. just accept it, frankly. go under the assumption that it happened and you only had a 10% utilization.

how did this happen? was the contractor way off base? did you provide the contractor information that made them a way off base? do you have the ability to respond? are we nimble enough? i find myself from a general, when you were talking about the situation on the ground, that could be an excuse, but it really is a requirement that, because it is a fluid, that we be nimble enough to constantly reevaluate our contract. so, how did the over utilization gets put into the contract? why did we not catch it? once this was a contract, why did we not have the oversight to change it? we are looking for a solution. this would help the commission do our work. we are trying to decide how to do a better job with

consistently been consistently with contrasting in the future. one concern is worrying about the war fighter and not realizing it would be eight years ago we have institutionalized holocausts and have gotten the department of defense used to too much waste. general, tell me how long you think it would take? with three or four weeks be enough time? >> that would be sufficient. >> thank you, all of you. ok. let me just -- i would like you, as well, i wrestled with the fact that the department of defense still does not value, in my judgment, the contract and work within the

department of defense therefore we do not see the value of that like we will like to. i am also wrestling with the fact that if half of our military effort is contractors, or almost half, with the rebuilding of these countries, i wrestled with the fact that somehow there does not seem to be an ability to trust contractors with the latest data that would help them anticipate what they need to do. in other words, i get the feeling that they are the last to know, and yet they are an integral part of the war effort. i would love it if you would be able to get back to us and tell us what you think a solution is for that. how do we incorporate the contractors sooner in the

process? i think that leads to huge waste. if we will not incorporate them sooner, we should be able to toss in riyadh -- reevaluate what we have asked them to do. i'm going to let you all -- >> i do not have a question to ask. i think you, commissioner. i have focused on what i am focused on it. i will just tell you. i could not support -- and i realize, general, you offered a discussion on the dcma and i will come at you on that. i understand the totals are do. they do not do them at the last minute. -- i understand the totals are due. we're talking about life support. charles, the professor may be corrected. it may be the incumbent that is low in cost and highest quality.

there have an 11:00 p.m. executions. it is impossible. i apologize for not seeing this earlier -- >> what can you support? >> i cannot support suddenly having a decision on the side without looking at the proposals on logcap four and saying that miss and -- mission essentials dictate this. we would like to look at those essentials in a very short period of time. it was not the way we were told this would happen. it must be one heck of a compelling reason in light of the fact we have not heard much about the performance of these other two contractors. i will lay that out now. thank you. any closing comments? we will start with you. >> no, sir. i am good. >> mr. chairman, just briefly. we believe that even though with

the dynamic situation that our october report did elicit a plan, and now we believe we are in a much better place to evaluate that plan. who went to monitor it and get explanations and this provides a tool for us to help the down the road in evaluating the iraq drawdown. we had a lot of conversation about the $193 million. we did not have a plan of that point in time. now we have a plan with assumptions we can evaluate and monitor that as it goes through the process. i think it will be helpful as we move forward. thank you. >> general? >> sir, thank you for the opportunity. one of the lessons learned is that i will get the half dcaa and dcma and i appreciate sapna.

i would like to clarify for you, mr. chairman, that while my words may not have said it, i do respect to the dcaa and dcma. it is a team effort as we move forward. i appreciate the effort. >> thank you. my time is limited and i did not get to the lessons learned. if i could ask you to give three or four examples of lessons learned, i think it will relate to the question i had. this is not an effort by asking to make that will go into a file. this will be helpful to me and i think some of the other staff and commissioners think so. we thank you all for your service. we know that this is an immense job we are asking and we realize you are under resources and are playing catch-up, frankly. we are in the new territory and we have to get this right. we will have a five minute break and then -- maybe six minutes, then we will start with our

final panel. thank you very much. >> at 5:30 p.m. eastern, a discussion on conservatism and what free-market systems should do to survive in today's global economy. it is hosted by the american enterprise institute. tonight, verizon executive vice president for policy on the recently released national broadband plan. in a recent speech, he called on the government to take a fresh look on policy. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. tomorrow night, two former national traffic safety administration officials talk to the delights of automobile

manufacturers. that begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> let's meet another winner in c-span's student cameron documentary process. we asked students to tell us about one of the country's greatest strengths or policy. today we talked to an eighth grader in tampa, florida. then, how is it going? >> good. >> thank you for joining us. you showed us your documentary on honker. why did you pick that topic? >> they always tell you that the things we need our food, shelter, and clothing. really, the only thing we really scientifically need is food. >> how has hogger affected your community in tampa? -- how has hunger affected you? >> in my city, there are a

number of people enrolled to receive food. >> how is the situation changed over the past few years? >> with the unemployment rate, people are spending less on food as they have to choose between food and other things. they cannot afford food -- food that is healthy because food that is not as healthy is usually the cheapest. also, as i mentioned, the soup kitchens used have and the seats. >> you interview volunteers at the food bank. what did you learn? >> two of the three i interviewed were volunteer coordinators. there was one volunteer that i spoke to who knew the owner of the food bank very well. they also rely on food stamps.

he gave at a little more numbers and had more experience about what the difference was now versus a few years ago. >> tell me about the people who rely on the services for food. >> a lot of them are food stamp beneficiaries. they're not getting enough. the other 50% are people who should be getting food stamps. a lot of times, it is people who are new to this having trouble and are not chronically poor but that hit by the depression. >> what ways do you think people could help and volunteer for people who are hungry out there? >> a lot of times, you only see this during thanksgiving and christmas time where they ask for donations. they will ask you to donate to

the people who need it. a lot of the times, the -- people will pay the volunteers. you should have your choice. >> what did you learn from working on this documentary? >> i knew there is going to be a large amount of people who needed this. when i looked at the numbers, it was astounding how many people, the dramatic increase of people relying on these services. i got a lot of knowledge from people i interviewed from a professional perspective and a personal one. >> then, thank you for speaking to us. congratulations on your wan -- win. >> thank you. >> there is a stereotype of welfare. they are living large off of the government subsidies. she may get something like $30 a

month in food stamps. can you survive on $30 over a month's time? >> it would be great if they had something available for kids so they did not have to fill out forms, the embarrassed, and get something for lunch. >> you can watch his documentary and the other winning entries at studentcam.org. >> the treasury department recently hosted a daylong event about women in the finance. this will have remarks from high ranking executives from goldmansachs, morgan stanley, and citigroup. this is just over one hour. >> we are going to begin.

i apologize for the sound system. [no audio] [inaudible] >> thank you. may we just say what an amazing job she has done. >> you talk about secretary geithner giving us the support to do this. he absolutely deserves quite the attention. we are so lucky to have had him here today to introduce the event. welcome to everyone here for my be watching on treasury.gov. if you visit that link, there is a twitter link that you can purchase a pay -- so you can participate.