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 p

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 int

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,

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

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 contractor

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 madi

amey by the end of the day? >> i will. >> other duties that were assigned and that was one of the fixes implemented, okay, we got a problem let's put some resources people on it full time and have them do it. now, mr. blalock -- your organization has been around and i assume you as well from at least since 1986. >> right. >> 50 agencies. and do you have any full-time staff on isdc? >> no, sir. >> so you all do it out-of-pocket, the duties as assigned in addition to your day job? >> that is correct, sir. >> would you, mr. blalock, and mr. gordon, take on for us -- would you commit to looking at the idea of some small number of permanent staff on the isdc to staff it up? i'm not talking about more than a handful of people to run the thing administratively and support the members of the isdc. will you look at that and give us your response in 30 days? >> sir, i'm happy to look into it. we are, as you know, in a very difficult environment. i was somewhat concerned that mr. blalock was being heavily criticized. he'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