Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
[Unofficial Transcript]
[Mr. Lankford] We will come back into session.
Thank you again for giving us some grace, a chance to get away and to be able to do
the votes and come back in.
We have heard your testimony, received that, obviously have your written testimony as well.
We are going to get a chance to discuss some things and ask questions, feel free to just
be able to interact with us. Let us start running through those things as we can at
that point.
Mr. Shaw, let me start with you on something. You had made a comment that I thought was
very interesting about fact-based cases, that you are not waiting for an indictment somewhere
through DOJ, you are doing your own fact-base cases. Two questions for that. One, if you
could elaborate more on the process that you do with that. And the second one is, what
kind of due process protections do you have in place to protect your contractors to make
sure that as you are doing your own fact-based research here, that you don’t also have
a contractor out there that is getting stung inappropriately? How do you balance the two
of those?
[Mr. Shaw] Thank you.
First, it is a matter of looking at the evidence and not just relying entirely upon the fact
of an indictment or a conviction. In the FAR, it says an indictment or conviction is sufficient
as a matter of law. So a lot of agencies then use that as a security blanket.
[Mr. Lankford] They are just exclusive to that? You are going into the details?
[Mr. Shaw] Right. So we look at the evidence, and if the evidence meets the preponderance
of the evidence standard of a debarment or adequate evidence standard of a suspension,
then we will do the action. And probably half of our cases are that way, maybe more than
half. I think that is a significant difference in why we have so many more numbers, or higher
numbers.
[Mr. Lankford] Do you feel like the contractors are still protected in the process as well?
[Mr. Shaw] Yes. There is actually a lot of procedures, they have the right to come in
within 30 days and meet with us personally. Or if there is a genuine dispute of material
fact, then they have aright to a mini-trial, a fact-finding proceeding where under oath,
cross-examination of witnesses, that type of proceeding.
[Mr. Lankford] So, Mr. Pelletier, that is what you were talking about, basically this
mini-trial that you all do with EPA as well?
[Mr. Pelletier] Yes, sir. If there is a dispute of a genuine material fact, then we likewise
will have what we call a mini-trial, we actually just call it a fact-finding hearing.
[Mr. Lankford] Okay. Mr. Shaw, you had mentioned as well that you were outside the procurement
chain, and you felt like that was better on that. Is anyone else in that same situation
for your agency, where you are outside the chain? Mr. Pelletier?
[Mr. Pelletier] Yes, sir, we are not in the acquisition chain. We are within the grants
office. But it is a grants and debarment, so it is geared toward both. And it is not
strictly within the purview of those that award the money. That is what really the thing
we are aiming at.
[Mr. Lankford] Dr. Nayak? Ms. Gunderson?
[Mr. Nayak] Yes, in our new program, the suspension and debarment official unfortunately couldn’t
be here today, because a family member is gravely ill, we will be outside the procurement
chain.
[Mr. Lankford] Ms. Gunderson?
[Ms. Gunderson] I provide oversight over our procurement function, but I am not directly
responsible for the operations, the actual awarding of contracts.
[Mr. Lankford] It is in the same office, same group at that point?
[Ms. Gunderson] Right.
[Mr. Lankford] But say it to me again, the first thing you said?
[Ms. Gunderson] I provide functional oversight over acquisition function, but my office is
not directly responsible for the award or the administration of grants and contracts.
So we are independent from that function.
[Mr. Lankford] Okay, great.
Mr. Pelletier, tell me a little bit about on the EPA section of it, there is a list
of Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, obviously those exclusions that are there. You had mentioned
a four to one ratio of non-procurement and procurement. Explain that to me again.
[Mr. Pelletier] The amount of money that the EPA awards, and the procurement side, it is
not as much, or it is nearly four times as much in the non-procurement and the grants
and interagency agreements and things of that nature.
The way it works of course is that we simply will make a grant to a State that then awards
contracts. We keep a watch on those situations. If there is still some reason to debar somebody
that has been receiving our money, whether it is by grant, through a contract with a
State, we still will take action against them.
[Mr. Lankford] But if you have somebody that has violated Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,
they are going on the list at that point?
[Mr. Pelletier] That is correct.
[Mr. Lankford] Regardless of contract, is that just automatic, it is discovered this
person has violated the Clean Water Act, you don’t even know if they do Federal contracts,
they just automatically go onto the exclusions list as well?
[Mr. Pelletier] Yes, sir. That is the mandate of the statute. And the way it goes is that
we are notified of a conviction under certain provisions with the Clean Water or Clean Air
Act. Then we must put them on the list if they meet the three criteria, which is a fact,
were convicted. And the limitation, because the statutories under the Clean Air and Clean
Water Act are limited debarments. It is only if they are going to perform a contract at
the violating facility and they own, lease or control that facility.
To get off the list, they must submit information to the EPA which we call a reinstatement request.
And then it is somewhat like a reverse debarment. At that point then we hear the evidence and
determine if they have, they must, I have to certify that they have in fact cured all
the violations that put them on the list in the first place.
[Mr. Lankford] Okay. So there is a process to be able to get out, but the company has
to initiate it. You all just leave them on the list until the company or entity initiates
a request to get off the list?
[Mr. Pelletier] That is correct, sir.
[Mr. Lankford] Okay. Let me talk a little bit about HHS. It is obvious, it has come
up multiple times, there have been some issues there in the process on it. I am glad you
are here, glad to be able to go through the process. The challenge of it is, from your
testimony, two different times you said the words, “we intend to accomplish’‘ this,
and one other time you mentioned, “we are in discussion’‘ about this. My only concern
about that is, I need to know when. Because obviously this has come up for a while. This
is a serious issue. You all have been very active in pursuing fraud in other areas to
be able to get this into place.
So what I would like to request of HHS is that you get back to this Committee when those
things are going to be resolved, when the final process is complete, so we can have
who the individuals are that have been reassigned to oversee that, and what their basic process
is. These three factors that GAO discussed earlier. And the actual person that is overseeing
that, whether that is you or someone else, so we will know who is the responsible party
for that. That would be very helpful, it you would be able to get back to us.
So basically, when this is going to get accomplished and who the person is that is going to be
responsible for overseeing it. We have to find a way to move from we intend to get this
done to this is actually done.
Do you want to respond to that?
[Ms. Gunderson] No, thank you for that opportunity. We would be happy to get back to you on our
time lines and our specific plans.
[Mr. Lankford] Obviously, you know there is an issue, it came up. You, I am sure, interacted
in the process. Did you receive a draft of the GAO report before it was all complete?
[Ms. Gunderson] Yes, we had received a draft report.
[Mr. Lankford] So you had time to be able to interact, so obviously you had time to
prepare on this .
Our staff did a quick search, just a Google search, looking for fraud, for instance, in
NIH. There are a couple hits that came up immediately, Department of Justice press releases,
Temple Hills, Maryland, man sentenced for bribing in purchasing, offer to do business
for his computer company. Then another one, Hyattsville tracking manager pleads guilty
to fraudulently obtaining money under oath with an NIH contract. We then went to EPLS,
and they were not listed.
So we still have some of the same issues, obviously. I am not asking you to be aware
of every single contract, every single case. But just in the quick search of possible contracts
that may be out there, are they getting on EPLS yet, obviously they are still not. So
we have to move from intends to get it, I would just ask you to be able to get that
report to us as quick as you can, so we can know this is covered.
You are very aware, as everyone else is, as well as FEMA and every other agency looking
at it, it helps the entire Federal Government avoid getting into a bad contracting situation
when we know one entity has done a bad contract, they have been debarred. Every other contracting
officer can then look at that as well.
So with that, I appreciate that, and I yield my time to Mr. Kelly for five minutes.
[Mr. Kelly] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Nayak, my concern is DHS, and it has to do with Katrina. GAO found that DHS had 116
suspensions or debarments related to Federal procurement from 2006 to 2010. Yet there were
no FEMA actions. As you know, DOJ has an entire task force dedicated to Hurricane Katrina
fraud. They have convicted numerous individuals of false statements and fraud in connection
with FEMA disaster relief assistance.
According to the fifth anniversary report of the Attorney General, one of the principal
types of fraud on which the task force concentrated is government contract and procurement fraud.
Can you explain why FEMA has not take action against any party indicted, convicted or found
to have engaged in Katrina-related fraud?
[Mr. Nayak] Thank you for the question. Yes, I have been at DHS for a little bit less than
a year, so I don’t know how effective I will be at sharing what I know about Katrina.
But I can share some things that FEMA is doing and some positive momentum that they are gaining,
as well as share with you what we are doing at the departmental level that will affect
everybody in DHS, including FEMA.
So the information that is probably most relevant is just, there is some positive momentum in
FEMA around suspension and debarment. They actually have five individuals dedicated to
doing this now. In this fiscal year itself, there were 19 investigations, 15 referrals,
5 suspensions, 5 debarments of either grantees or contractors. So there is some positive
momentum. Then again, coming back to what we are doing at a departmental level, which
is essentially following all the best practices, as has been shared here.
And then to add on to what Chairman Lankford just mentioned, we should be done and have
this up and running in the next three months or so.
Going back to the Katrina days, one of the nice things about putting this program in
place at the departmental level is it will be able to, in the end the suspension and
debarment official will be able to go back and look at any actions that occurred during
that time frame.
So we have a program that will follow best practice and we will report out on that over
time.
[Mr. Kelly] Okay, thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Lankford] I am going to follow up on that as well. Dr. Nayak, is it possible, when
that is complete, your process, you say it will be in the next three months, getting
everything, that you would submit that back to this Committee, just so we could have that
as a record as well?
[Mr. Nayak] Very pleased to do it.
[Mr. Lankford] That would be terrific.
Let me start a second round. If you want to be able to jump in on a second round of questions,
you can. I am going to give a moment for Mr. Connolly to be able to come and ask questions
in a moment as well.
Mr. Shaw, we talked a little bit about legislative fixes. And GAO mentioned earlier it really
feels like the legislation that is needed is already in place, there is no additional
legislation needed. I would like to ask your opinion on that statement. Is there additional
legislation that you would see? Or any of you, and you can also think about this as
well, that you would see, this would provide greater assistance to the agencies, and clarification?
[Mr. Shaw] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t see any legislation directly narrowly
dealing with the suspension and debarment. But I do have thoughts in two areas, unrelated
areas, that could help. One is the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, which I know your
Committee is familiar with, which was passed in 1986 but has not been used because it is
so cumbersome, frankly.
[Mr. Lankford] Now that is a shock, that there is a Federal instance that is cumbersome.
[Mr. Shaw] So we are working on it, we expect that the Defense Department will be having
a proposal for fix for that, that would also have the suspending and debarring officials
being the people that would enter the penalties under that. So that relates to debarment,
it gives greater visibility into other cases for debarment officials. It is sort of an
automatic referral process.
The second area that would stir up referrals from the contracting community particularly
would be the use of proceeds from litigation that relates to procurement fraud. If the
proceeds or some portion of the proceeds could go to the program that is victimized by the
fraud, and not just to the U.S. Treasury, then the agencies would be able to fix the
widget that was broken by the fraudulent contractor without taking it out of O&M funds. And that
would encourage the contracting community to be more interested and proactive in this
area.
[Mr. Lankford] So run that by me again, where you see the process. You are saying when they
are found to be fraudulent, the recovery of that money from fraud is currently not going
back into the agency?
[Mr. Shaw] That is right. If there is, if Smith Company is convicted or there is a civil
judgment for false claims act against a hypothetical Smith Company, and for having damaged a program,
that KC-10 Air Force program, that money, millions of dollars often, cases in that situation,
if the procurement money is closed, which is always the case in these situations, because
it takes a long time to investigate these things. So the bad guy is being ordered to
refund the money, but the money does not go to the program that is being victimized. It
doesn’t go to Tinker, it doesn’t go to Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center.
[Mr. Lankford] I would think all of it needs to go to Tinker or Oklahoma City on that.
[Laughter.]
[Mr. Shaw] So that would be helpful.
[Mr. Lankford] Okay, that is very helpful to know.
Mr. Connolly brought up an issue on the contingency contracting. In a wartime situation, obviously,
contracts are going very rapidly. A lot of new contractors going in. If you are dealing
with Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of foreign contracts are also getting engaged on the
ground. How are we handling the issues of debarment and suspensions in a contingency
operation?
[Mr. Shaw] There is a memorandum of understanding within the Defense Department, where the Army
is the lead agency, the administrative agency for debarments and suspensions and for contracting,
actually, contracting as a whole. So I hate to duck that question.
[Mr. Lankford] It is an Army question.
[Mr. Shaw] Yes. The Air Force has done a lot of, a number of debarments and suspensions
from the theater. But the great majority of them are Army ones.
[Mr. Lankford] Okay. We will try to follow up with that as well. Because that obviously
is important to us in a lot that is happening.
Just a moment.
Mr. Pelletier, tell me a little bit about the appeal process that you have going. You
discussed this in your testimony earlier, about your appeal. When someone has a protest,
they have been debarred, you talked about the mini-trial type of situation, coming in
on appeal. Has that been effective? Or is that so cumbersome, let me say it this way.
We don’t want anything to stand in the way of saying, if there is a good process for
suspension and debarment, we don’t want someone to say, I don’t want to go through
that because it is so cumbersome and it is so bulky, I would rather not even go through
it, than to actually do it. So I am looking for, how does that work for you?
[Mr. Pelletier] Yes, sir, it is actually easy in this respect. The appeal process that we
have built in at the EPA is that I make a final decision to debar somebody or a decision
to maintain a suspension. They have the right to appeal to the director of the division.
It is a very easy process. They simply present whatever evidence they think why it should
not be in place. And then the director has the opportunity to remand the case to me or
uphold it. If it is remanded to me, then I can review what was, why it was remanded and
have a second opinion or dismiss it, depending on what the circumstances are.
And then subsequently, of course, they have the right under the Administrative Procedures
Act to go to a district court. But it does give, actually, what is easy about it, it
gives the respondent, rather than the choice of immediately incurring court costs and going
and hiring attorneys and doing everything that is involved, they can make an appeal
within the system. And they do get a second look.
[Mr. Lankford] How long does that take? Before you get into the Administrative Procedures
Act and actually go into an outside court, total process on that, give me an average.
[Mr. Pelletier] The internal one?
[Mr. Lankford] Yes, internal.
[Mr. Pelletier] Internal, it is usually within three months it has been up and back and a
final decision again.
[Mr. Lankford] So the whole process, three months, done?
[Mr. Pelletier] Yes, sir.
[Mr. Lankford] That is fairly rapid for us.
[Mr. Pelletier] Yes, sir.
[Mr. Lankford] You also mentioned you have 42 cases, and I want to see if I got this
number correct, that you felt were statutory exclusions. Was that from last year, you are
[Mr. Pelletier] Sir, that is the preliminary number we have a for fiscal year 2011. It
is a preliminary number.
[Mr. Lankford] Those are individuals that have been excluded because of Clean Water
Act violations, Clean Air Act violations, a total of 42. Is that nationwide?
[Mr. Pelletier] Yes, sir.
[Mr. Lankford] Okay. That number is actually lower than I anticipated, is the reason I
came back to it as well. That is not necessarily contractors, they are just individuals that
have been found in violation of Clean Water, Clean Air Acts and have been listed out as
saying, if they ever apply for a contract, there is an exclusion in this area, this plant,
this location?
[Mr. Pelletier] That is correct.
[Mr. Lankford] Okay. Terrific.
With that, I yield to Mr. Connolly.
[Mr. Connolly] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry to be a little late getting back. I had a
meeting.
Ms. Gunderson, you heard the testimony of the GAO representative, Mr. Woods, who noted
that when it came to procurement, there has not been a single suspension or debarment
by HHS in five years. What is the value of the total procurement in that time period?
[Ms. Gunderson] The total value in that time frame was about $81 billion. In the last two
years we have done around $19 billion annually.
[Mr. Connolly] Okay. Can you help enlighten us on why there would not be a single suspension
or debarment? All the contracts are just that good?
[Ms. Gunderson] We do take contractor oversight very seriously, including the way in which
we select and evaluate our contractors prior to award and the way we administer those contracts
during performance. We have had contractor performance issues that we have used other
tools and flexibilities on, such as terminations for default. And we do see suspension and
debarment as a tool in our tool box, per se, to manage concerns. But none of the issues
we have had have risen to that level.
[Mr. Connolly] Right. And presumably, you shared that view with the GAO when they were
looking at this issue in your agency?
[Ms. Gunderson] Yes, we did, in our meeting.
[Mr. Connolly] What was their response to that?
[Ms. Gunderson] Their response was very, it was generally acknowledging our premise, and
we were delighted to see the recommendations around the three characteristics of the more
active agencies and are taking those into consideration for developing our plans around
improving policies and our referral practices and dedicating staff to the effort.
[Mr. Connolly] Would it be fair for a layman to conclude that the priority within HHS is
Medicare?
[Ms. Gunderson] It would be fair to conclude that. The Secretary has come strongly on on
all areas of program integrity, though. Program integrity is one of her key strategic initiatives,
as well as encompassing our strategic plan
[Mr. Connolly] Mr. Shaw pointed out that there are only three Federal agencies, I believe,
that have like the Air Force a full-time dedicated debarment officer. Can we expect that HHS,
given the huge volume you are talking about, even though apparently in the $81 billion
of the last five years, nothing rose to this level, would it make sense from your point
of view, from the agency’s point of view, to emulate the Air Force and have a full-time
officer with respect to this set of issues?
[Ms. Gunderson] That is one of the models we are looking at, among all the others that
are out across the Federal agencies. I do serve as the suspension and debarment official
because I have oversight over the acquisition and grants policies and the operations of
those functions. So currently, as it stands, it makes the most sense to fit it within my
organization.
And as I said, we are looking at other models that other agencies have had.
[Mr. Connolly] When might this Committee know when you have finished looking at and have
decided upon a plan of action?
[Ms. Gunderson] The Chairman has asked us to get back to the Committee on that, and
we will be doing that
[Mr. Connolly] Do you have a time line, however?
[Ms. Gunderson] Generally speaking, we are looking within the next three months at implementing
these policies and a new plan.
[Mr. Connolly] Thank you.
And Mr. Nayak, you also outlined basically, if I heard you correctly, in your very concise
and succinct testimony, thank you, that you were going to essentially, enshrine pretty
much, the recommendations of the GAO and get on with it. What is your time line for doing
that?
[Mr. Nayak] I also mentioned to the Chairman, three months. By the end of the calendar year.
[Mr. Connolly] Three months. It was such a good answer, I just wanted to get it into
the record a second time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
[Mr. Connolly] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Lankford] It will be a terrific Christmas present to us, we will be able to read it
over New Year’s. I appreciate that
I recognize Mr. Kelly.
[Mr. Kelly] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
From all of you, just your opinion on the mandatory debarments. Mr. Shaw, if you would
start, just kind of walk me through on what you all think.
[Mr. Shaw] Thank you, Congressman. I think that mandatory debarments are a bad idea in
the procurement area. I am not familiar enough with the Clean Water Act and all those. That
may work with regard to facilities. But in the procurement area, it takes away an important
tool that we have to fight fraud. And that tool is the leverage that we can use with
this carrot and stick that I mentioned before, about working with contractors that are trying
to do it right and to changing their conduct and improving their processes, so that they
have risk management programs in place where fraud won’t happen in the first place.
If there is a mandatory debarment, companies are going to tend to think, well, why bother,
and they are just going to obfuscate and fight the investigations, rather than work proactively
to avoid the fraud in the first place.
And there is a lot of good, I think, we do in that area, both when there is misconduct
with such things as administrative agreements, but also where there is no misconduct at all.
We meet regularly with all the major defense contractors to talk about their ethics programs,
even when they are not in trouble. So I oppose it.
[Mr. Kelly] Mr. Pelletier?
[Mr. Pelletier] Sir, thank you . I agree in the sense that the mandatory statutory debarments
take away the key element of discretion. Like the Air Force, I am a full-time suspension
debarment official. Each agency has its own particular interest and information, or situation,
that each has to deal with.
Allowing the suspension and debarment official to have that discretion as it deals with a
contractor that may be, versus someone that is bad, someone that has defrauded the government,
somebody that has made a mistake, somebody that doesn’t realize how the Federal process
works, but is quite willing to change and adjust, we may have potentially a very good
contractor or very good grants person available to us. We don’t want to throw them out the
window without a chance at getting back in the game.
So with the discretion that the suspension and debarment official has, we can do things
like enter administrative agreements, which are basically commercial probation, if you
will. We have a very strict set of requirements that they have to meet. We monitor that. They
report back and a violation of an administrative agreement, for example, is another grounds
for debarment.
And at the end of the process, and it is usually three years, we far more often than not end
up with a better contractor or a better grants, what we call a participant than we started
off with. And I think the best interest of the government has been protected.
[Mr. Kelly] Dr. Nayak?
[Mr. Nayak] And so I am not as much of an expert as these gentlemen, but I would agree
with them 100 percent where it comes to contractors, and then statutorily, I am just not that much
of an expert to sort of give you a read on that. But happy to look into it with the Committee.
[Mr. Kelly] That would be great, thank you.
Ms. Gunderson?
[Ms. Gunderson] HHS does use the mandatory exclusions on the health care side. That is
not handled specifically by my office. It is an authority under our Office of the Inspector
General. But it is a valuable tool that the Department uses to combat health care fraud,
patient neglect and those sorts of issues that arise to mandatory exclusion.
[Mr. Kelly] Good. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Lankford] I would like to yield a couple minutes to Mr. Connolly.
[Mr. Connolly] Just a follow-up, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pelletier, it strikes me, based on our analysis in terms of per billion dollars of
contract dollars, you have a much higher debarment and suspension rate than does DOD. You would
agree?
[Mr. Pelletier] Notwithstanding Mr. Shaw’s opinion to the contrary, yes.
[Laughter.]
[Mr. Connolly] Yes. Well, so my question is this. To what do you attribute that? We have
a situation where DOD, per billion dollars of contract, has a much lower rate than you
do. HHS and procurement has zero rate, because according to Ms. Gunderson, they have used
other mechanisms.
If you are a member of Congress listening to this, you are thinking, there seems to
be a wide variety of judgment being exercised, and that may be a good thing. But it is hard
to get our arms around in terms of predictability and accountability for the taxpayers we represent.
I just want to give you the opportunity to comment on your own observation of why this
variability among agencies and why does EPA apparently use this tool more frequently than
some other agencies?
[Mr. Pelletier] First of all, sir, I couldn’t obviously comment on to the why other agencies
are or are not doing something or how their programs work. Each one is unique.
But as I said in my statement, EPA is really the pioneer in this area. We started in 1981,
developing a program. And over the years, as anything else, we developed an expertise
in the area. And perhaps, and one of the things in teaching, which we are very active in the
national suspension and debarment training program, one of the feedbacks we get from
people that are in the class is, we didn’t realize it was that easy to do.
So it may be that we have developed an expertise because of longevity that affords us a greased
rail where we know how to do it, because we have done it so many times.
[Mr. Connolly] And do you have dedicated, full-time, as Mr. Shaw is for the Air Force?
[Mr. Pelletier] Yes, sir, I am the full-time.
[Mr. Connolly] You are it?
[Mr. Pelletier] I am it. And our staff at the division, that is their job. We have seven
attorneys on that, two investigators, an auditor, and support personnel and a division director.
That is all we do, is suspension and debarment.
[Mr. Connolly] And just a final question. I assume, and Mr. Shaw, you are free to answer
as well, I think you already testified to this, Mr. Shaw pretty much said, having that
full-time dedicated person makes sort of all the difference in making sure you have an
active program. Would you concur?
[Mr. Pelletier] It has worked well for our agency. We have a senior person. And we have
a dedicated person and it has proven to be very, very effective.
[Mr. Connolly] Thank you very much.
[Mr. Lankford] Let’s close out the hearing, but I want to give an opportunity for any
of the four witnesses to make any final comments that you would like be able to get in on the
record as well, or a response to anything.
Mr. Shaw?
[Mr. Shaw] I guess just a couple of observations. I have never done an analysis, it is interesting,
your mathematics is correct on the per dollar. But I am wondering, well, first of all, let
me say I think that the number of debarments is a bad metric anyway for this whole program,
for this whole process. But it is an easy one, because the numbers are what the numbers
are. So it is important, and everybody at the end of the year always compares numbers.
What you are doing proactively to prevent fraud, and to encourage improvement in the
culture of companies I think is much more important. But having said that, even looking
at the numbers metrics, I think the better way of looking at it would be not the number
of debarments and suspensions per contract dollar, but maybe the number per contract.
And I don’t know how you would get at that number. But a big difference in DOD from EPA
and ICE and other agencies, as we deal with big dollar contracts.
So for example, when I suspended Boeing several years ago on a $15 billion space launch program,
that counted, I guess, three. So I had three suspensions. But it was a $15 billion contract.
And all of the Air Force and defense contracts are big dollar amounts. I think that maybe
skews a little bit that .09 thing.
[Mr. Lankford] Any other comments from any of the other witnesses?
We do appreciate your attendance, the work to be able to come and to be able to be here.
Your written statements obviously, probably the least favorite part of your week was to
come and do a Congressional hearing. So we do appreciate the time for you to be able
to be here.
With that, this Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m, the subcommittee was adjourned.]