I spent a week trying to track down the answer. And what I found was a labyrinthine system for contracting, in which it’s surprisingly difficult to get a company declared ineligible for bidding on a contract. The scandal in plain sight is that no one has moved to declare Blackwater ineligible, even though its behavior falls under the relevant criteria. My piece for the Washington Independent today:
Any action from Holder would represent perhaps the only chance to stop Blackwater from receiving any additional government contracts. Several CSTC-A officers and Pentagon officials said that good-government contract rules prevent them from banning Blackwater. Specifically, an obscure contracting rule known as Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.406-2 prevents an acquisition official for banning a company from being awarded a contract unless the company has been formally “debarred” from eligibility — something that has never happened in Blackwater’s case. However, several criteria for debarment appear to apply to Blackwater, including “commission of fraud,” “theft,” “falsification or destruction of records, making false statements,” “a history of failure to perform, or of unsatisfactory performance of, one or more contracts,” and “violations of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988.”
People I spoke to for this story fell into three categories: those who denied responsibility for any decision to award or debar Blackwater; those who didn’t return my phone calls and emails; and those who claimed not to know a thing about it. This is another example of how bureaucratic inertia intensifies the disincentive for anyone to stand up to a very powerful and very connected corporation that does very bad things very consistently.



3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
In my experience with govt contracts and contracts with int’l organizations, there are several factors also of note:
- It’s difficult to become _eligible_ for a contract
- GSA and other “accountability” services are responsible for expenditures, NOT for outcomes
So: There are few groups who are eligible for any given contract. In many instances, “metrics” developed to ensure “objectivity” result in point counts that favor experience over results. Given the challenges in achieving eligibility , there’s a very small pool of orgs that can be awarded contracts. The difficulty in making an eligible group INeligible makes this small group persistent. And valuable.
The other, larger problem is that the groups contracting services are mostly responsible for ensuring that contracts get awarded and funds disbursed. You do that, you get promoted. What happens after contracts are awarded is somebody else’s business, if in fact anyone else is paying attention at all.
It’s shitty. It’s SOP.
This Sen Levin opening statement sums up Blackwater’s complete unsuitability for further government contracts nicely but if you want to read some really mind-blowing stuff check out the link to the supporting documents.
http://levin.senate.gov/senate/statement.cfm?id=322458
You get an ugly picture of a bunch of washed out drunken former special operations guys throwing work to each other, who aren’t too good with rules and are very quick with a cover up when a good bud fucks up.
BTW why isn’t the Sargent in charge of 22 Bunker, the one who let his pals at Blackwater help themselves to hundreds of weapons, breaking rocks at Leavenworth? Surely the military must have some rule against that.
I thought the contract award was for $2.8 billion. Just to add a little incredularity to the story. But yeah, military contracting is broke. Has been, will continue to be.