RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,187701,00.html

All costs for cleaning up this mess should be paid from personal assets of Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld.

I have worked in this field for more than twenty years working as a senior auditor accountant for the Defense Finance Accounting Service and the US Air Force and can tell you that the contractors who have been hired by DFAS and by the Armed forces branches is corrupt. The favoritism and bias toward higher ranking government officials and DoD Defense Contractors and these big Eight Accounting Firms performing contract auditing, procurement and accounting functions crosses the boundry lines of where they should have recused themselves because of representation to both the Government and their clients (DoD contractors)

quote:

Originally posted by 1387FURF:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,187701,00.html

All costs for cleaning up this mess should be paid from personal assets of Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld.

Of course all the cutbacks and drawdown of forces and equipment purchases after the Cold War ended had nothing to do with it.

Just another area where manning was ignored or deemed not neccessary. Great.

quote:

Originally posted by sw614:

quote:

Originally posted by 1387FURF:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,187701,00.html

All costs for cleaning up this mess should be paid from personal assets of Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld.

Of course all the cutbacks and drawdown of forces and equipment purchases after the Cold War ended had nothing to do with it.

Just another area where manning was ignored or deemed not neccessary. Great.

yup

"GAO is recommending several fixes to the problem, including the collection of data on contractor personnel. DoD only partially concurred with that suggestion, agreeing that the information is necessary to improve acquisition work force planning, but warning that the process is a much larger and more intricate undertaking than GAO suggests."



Apparently they(GAO)don't care how "large nor how intricate the undertaking is", get it done. I don't think we can afford a delay until, what 2011? you've got to be kiding me. What's point of being in charge of DOD iF you can't do the job? Thats what happen when you lay down on the job, you forget how to do your job.

quote:

Originally posted by wtpworrier:
"GAO is recommending several fixes to the problem, including the collection of data on contractor personnel. DoD only partially concurred with that suggestion, agreeing that the information is necessary to improve acquisition work force planning, but warning that the process is a much larger and more intricate undertaking than GAO suggests."



Apparently they(GAO)don't care how "large nor how intricate the undertaking is", get it done. I don't think we can afford a delay until, what 2011? you've got to be kiding me. What's point of being in charge of DOD iF you can't do the job? Thats what happen when you lay down on the job, you forget how to do your job.

Wouldn't having the wrong people in the wrong job or the wrong place have an even bigger detrimental impact? They are, after all, trying to undo the affects of 18 years of drawdowns and back burner status. This could also be why DoD and the services have had their issues over bthe last decade and a half with procurement.

quote:

Originally posted by sw614:

quote:

Originally posted by 1387FURF:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,187701,00.html

All costs for cleaning up this mess should be paid from personal assets of Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld.

Of course all the cutbacks and drawdown of forces and equipment purchases after the Cold War ended had nothing to do with it.

Just another area where manning was ignored or deemed not neccessary. Great.

It had less to do with the post-Cold War draw down, and more to do with a conscious decision to adopt a more "hands-off" or "light touch" approach to the procurement process and contract oversight. That change in philosophy came about as a result of both lobbying from the defense industry and the general push to decrease DoD "tail" in favor of more "tooth".

quote:

Originally posted by wtpworrier:
"GAO is recommending several fixes to the problem, including the collection of data on contractor personnel. DoD only partially concurred with that suggestion, agreeing that the information is necessary to improve acquisition work force planning, but warning that the process is a much larger and more intricate undertaking than GAO suggests."



Apparently they(GAO)don't care how "large nor how intricate the undertaking is", get it done. I don't think we can afford a delay until, what 2011? you've got to be kiding me. What's point of being in charge of DOD iF you can't do the job? Thats what happen when you lay down on the job, you forget how to do your job.

You also lose collective decades of experience. It takes a long time to train good contracting officers and auditors.

Y es it takes a long time to train good contract officers, when congress changes the rules every session, and cuts the budget for training and travel, so contracting personnel can't be trained, nor do on site overseeing, and political appointees are given contract signing authority (in violation of FEDERAL LAW) with no training. While in SBA, I had to use unpaid leave and unpaid active duty orders (as a reservist) to get my advanced contract certification and DOD warrant to sign contracts!

And my supervisor (in another state) had no training AT ALL, but had contract signing authority on contracts over $5 million. Unless contracting regulations are enforced AT ALL LEVELS, they do no good! Contractors must be trained, also, AND THE CONTRACTING MUST REQUIRE AND MUST PAY FOR THIS TRAINING IF THEY WANT A TRULY TRANSPARENT CONTRACTING SYSTEM!!
a retired DOD & FEDERAL CONTRACTING OFFICER