this has a lot of serious repercussions beyond henk. but this amendment is much bigger and potentially sets a precedent i do not think the maker has thought through. i would urge a no vote. -- supervisor elsbernd:. supervisor mirkarimi: i appreciate the warning side, -- sign, but that is the corpus of why we had a hearing at the board of supervisors, because of what was omitted and absent in commission hearings about henk, and the question of how that justifies displacement based on the city master plan, the lack of recycling and what to do with a particular turf of the park. not a lot of this detail came out in new -- in the rec and park hearing. we were well informed by dissecting very clearly what was discussed and not discussed. clearly, it was already a presupposed determination to move on hanc. that is what the band was. the fact is that there were plenty of details that came out in this particular board of supervisors. rec and park is one of only two commissions citywide that are not appealable to the board of supervisors. frankl

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

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 too

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 co

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 o

henke. >> mr. rinder, you have a career in acquisition; correct? >> yes, sir. >> how many years have you been working in acquisition? >> about 37. >> most of that time was it treasury or other agencies? >> at treasury, navy, at department of state. >> you said you've been at state now 7 years? >> yes, sir. >> is that a statutory title or regulatory title? >> i don't know if it's statutory or regulatory. cao is statutory. >> right, but you're the procurement executive. how many people are in your immediate office? >> about 2 #. >> okay. do you have -- i understand you do not have operational contracting under your purview. that's a separate office? in other words, you don't cut contracts. >> correct. >> your department says you're responsible for work force training, oversight, acquisition assessments? >> yes, sir. >> okay. what is -- for past performance, what is state's -- how much did state spend in 2009 in contracts? >> in 2009? >> yeah. >> i would have to get that figure for you, sir. >> it doesn't have to be exact. roughly? >> about $7-$8 bill

henke?>> you mentioned and i understand pretty well 20,000 over time and the first 10,000 through the new hires section 852 acquisition work force money that is on track and well ahead of schedule and it's going to stay on schedule until you get the 10,000 right. the other half is sourcing on the case by case basis subject to the discretion of approval of the deputy secretary and your priorities on that the grouping of 10,000 in sourced 3400, the department was clear about we were not realizing the kind of savings we had hoped and you are saying going forward will be for the governmental functions you must source them. we have no choice meaning critical needs however that is defined in this situation where you can demonstrate cost savings. the second half is on a case by case basis but the top of the order there is inherent government function is that correct? >> yes, inherently governmental must be endorsed by the definition. that is what that means. it should be outside. however there's a

henke, and ms. skhinasi. we'll get you out at 11:35.nt to say with gratitude that your folks as the defense procurement and policy director and his deputy and former admiral have been incredibly helpful to us and probably have made you feel that you didn't need to come, but we still wanted you, so thank you for coming, and -- >> thank you for mentioning that. i'm glad you did. they are both incredibly able and right at the center of this activity. >> they couldn't be more cooperative and both talented, and we appreciate their help. i want to point out the executive director robert. he has been incredibly helpful to us, and mr. dixon has been incredible helpful as well. i want to say for the record that we look at waste, fraud, and abuse in many forms, ill conceived projects, no matter how well-managed is wasteful, if it doesn't fit the society it's meant to serve, or if it can't be supported and maintained, and we see a lot of waste in that area. we see poor planning and oversight by the u.s. government and poor performance on the part

the other commissioners at the dais or grant green, robert henke, charles tiefer and doug zakheim.commissioners catherine schinasi and clarke kent ervin could not be with us today. today's hearing is about holding people accountable for their actions, both good and bad. for the 200,000 people employed by contractors to provide support and capability and effort -- afghanistan accountability is too often absent, deluded, delayed or even avoided. the federal government had some powerful tools for holding contractors accountable for what they are obligated to do. these tools include the ones we are discussing today. information on contractors past performance and the processes to suspend or debar irresponsible firms from contracting with the government. our concerns are that past performance data is often not being properly recorded or explained and that barriers exist to the effective use of suspension and debarment. these concerns -- those concerns may sound like bureaucratic quibble but they are very important. if past performance information isn't recorded in the federal database,