Download
1 / 3
30 likes | 195 Views
The U.S. Army mismanaged a $117 million support contract for contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by directing the contractor to perform work outside the contract's scope and failing to address conflict of interest concerns. The Inspector General of the Department of <br>Defense blasted Army contracting officials for failing to provide adequate<br> oversight of the support contract for the Army Logistics Civil <br>Augmentation Program, known as LOGCAP.
E N D
10/11/2015 Army Mismanaged Logistics Support Contract: IG Law360 Read testimonials Contact Law360 Sign up for our newsletters Site Map Help Make sure you don't miss any Law360 breaking news. Download our plugin for Chrome to get customizable, realtime news alerts Army Mismanaged Logistics Support Contract: IG By Martin Bricketto Law360, New York (January 10, 2011, 3:11 PM ET) The U.S. Army mismanaged a $117 million support contract for contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by directing the contractor to perform work outside the contract's scope and failing to address conflict of interest concerns, a new report says. In a redacted version of the report issued Friday, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense blasted Army contracting officials for failing to provide adequate oversight of the support contract for the Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, known as LOGCAP. Officials overseeing LOGCAP instructed Virginiabased Serco Inc., a support contractor for the program, to provide assistance on at least 71 nonLOGCAP contract requirements valued at about $1 billion, according to the report. As part of LOGCAP, the Army has tapped contractors to provide it with logistics support, and three firms — DynCorp International, Fluor Intercontinental Inc. and Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. — were awarded contracts under the LOGCAP IV phase of the program, the report says. Before those contract awards, the Army decided it needed a planning contractor to avoid the pitfalls in having a LOGCAP contractor plan and to develop task orders on which all of the contractors would compete, according to the report. Serco was tapped in 2007 to fill that need. But Army officials failed to administer that contract in accordance with federal and DOD regulations by directing Serco to perform noncontract work, according to the report. Twelve of 13 employees with Serco in the office of the LOGCAP deputy program director in Kuwait supported nonLOGCAP requirements, according to the report, which found that Serco personnel were supporting at least 71 nonLOGCAP contracts or task orders and only three LOGCAP task orders. In one instance, officials issued a $9.3 million task order to Serco in 2009 over base closure assistance http://www.law360.com/articles/219154/armymismanagedlogisticssupportcontractig 2/5
10/11/2015 teams, a function outside of its contract. Army Mismanaged Logistics Support Contract: IG Law360 “As a result, the Army did not get the cost benefits from competing the requirement and violated the Competition in Contracting Act,” the agency said. Contracting officials with Rock Island Contracting Center — which awards and administers LOGCAP contracts — said that Serco's support on nonLOGCAP contracts wasn't wrong because the program was broader than the specific contracts issued and the program's mission had expanded, according to the report. The inspector general disagreed. “The work supporting nonLOGCAP contracts was outside the scope of the LOGCAP support contract because the work had not been contemplated or foreseen when RICC contracting officials initially awarded the contract,” the agency said. The inspector general also accused officials of failing to modify Serco's contract to prohibit the company and its affiliates from competing for nonLOGCAP contracts or task orders that they helped prepare. For example, the agency said a Serco subcontractor, Military Professional Resources Inc., helped develop performance work statements for nonLOGCAP contracts but was also part of a team under a non LOGCAP contract on which Serco had provided support. “This created a potential conflict of interest because, as a subcontractor for both the LOGCAP support contract and a nonLOGCAP performance contract, MPRI may have been in a position to favor its own products or capabilities when developing performance work statements for requirements that it may perform,” the inspector general said in the report. The inspector general also found that officials improperly provided Serco employees with proprietary information of nonLOGCAP contractors without the knowledge or consent of those firms. The report recommends that the contract officer overseeing LOGCAP open requirements outside of the program to competition, among other measures for tightening controls. Representatives for the Army and Serco did not immediately return requests for comment on Monday. Related Articles Inspector General Praises Army's Contracting For Logistics Serco Army Recruiters Settle OT Suit US Joins KBR False Claims Suit Over Iraq Job KBR Challenges Army's Firm $500M Iraq Closeout Deal View comments http://www.law360.com/articles/219154/armymismanagedlogisticssupportcontractig 3/5
10/11/2015 Army Mismanaged Logistics Support Contract: IG Law360 01:25 Add to Briefcase Printable Version Rights/Reprints Editorial Contacts Documents Report Related Sections Aerospace & Defense Government Contracts Southeast Companies DynCorp International Inc. Kellogg Company Serco Group PLC Government Agencies U.S. Army Most Popular 1 Dewey Jury Still Stuck, Asks For Star Cooperator Testimony 2 The 6 Phrases That Should Be Banned From Legal Writing 3 10 Ways To Become A 360Degree Lawyer 4 In Case You Missed It: Hottest Firms And Stories On Law360 5 DraftKings, FanDuel Hit With Insider Scandal Class Action Dewey Verdict Watch http://www.law360.com/articles/219154/armymismanagedlogisticssupportcontractig 4/5
