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

and the answer that isn't cpars is completely irrelevant. >> i understand. i think we agree that it's prevalent. and ms. shauket, i'm honored how you've taken these posts around the world that i don't even want to visit those countries and i'm impressed that you're working for us there. but i do want to ask about louis bergert. i notice there's a suspension and debarrment but it doesn't mention louis which for a.i.d. is sort of like discussing the titanic thinking without mentioning icebergs. the description that we got from mr. fiore of the systems -- the suspension of the debarrment systems says about administrative agreements and you have one with louis berger that this is entered -- agency can enter into administrative agreement, et cetera, et cetera when the contractor can demonstrate that notwithstanding the potential basis for suspension or debarrment, so forth and so on. my question is, did a.i.d. have a potential basis for suspension or debarrment of louis berger? >> well, thank you very much for the opportunity to address louis berger and the issue

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

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 f

you're saying in the process of tailoring the navy cpars manual to fit state. when would that be done? >> i would have to get that information from the operational officer. >> is it your responsibility? >> no. that is in the operational contracting officer. >> that's okay, would you get that for the record, please? yes? >> yes. >> okay. you say in your statement, the department uses past performance as an evaluation factor to select our contractors. and i take mr. gordon's point that the data may be out there, even if it is not in the system but the fact that it is in someone's drawer or desk, does it really mean it's out there? can you react to that statement? >> my experience is that the contracting officers will contact references and get information. >> they will contact references? >> yes. >> those are references provided by a contractor, right? >> correct. >> okay. let's talk about that. a contractor put as proposal in and they say, i have referenced, a, b, c, there you go. contractor's probably going to turn in good references. nobody would do otherwise,

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 ou

i have to thank the audience because sitting here thinking about this, when you say fapiis, cpars andall 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