PRESS STATEMENT
--For Immediate Release--

Contact: Brian Gumm, (202) 234-8494, bgumm@ombwatch.org

OMB Watch Questions GSA's Approach to Accountability

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2006 — According to recent news reports, the new administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), Lurita Doan, has made some questionable decisions that will reduce contractor accountability and oversight at an agency needing much more of both. These decisions to undermine independent oversight and accountability mechanisms in the federal government are unwarranted and unacceptable.

Doan’s missteps include a proposal to cut the requested budget of GSA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) by $10.2 million. This is apparently unprecedented, as OIGs are supposed to maintain a large degree of independence within the agency they've been charged to monitor. In addition, Doan also decided to contract out oversight and audits — tasks typically handled by the OIG — to private companies.

Such decisions would be troubling even at an agency with a spotless record of accountability and oversight of government contracts. However, GSA's recent record is far from spotless. For example, the ex-chief of staff for GSA, David Safavian, was found guilty in June on four felony charges for lying to Congress and GSA officials and obstructing the work of the GSA's Inspector General. Safavian accepted an expensive golfing trip to Scotland from lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for helping Abramoff obtain two parcels of federal land controlled by the GSA. This inappropriate activity was investigated by the OIG.

In addition to the Safavian scandal, the OIG at GSA has recently uncovered several other troubling procurement practices at the agency. For instance, the OIG found numerous agency contracts went beyond the scope of the agency's authority, including a technology contract used to hire Abu Ghraib interrogators. Another OIG investigation found that GSA's Federal Technology Service routinely ignored procurement laws and issued numerous sole-source contracts to favored companies. Given the intensity of investigations and the level of criticism that arose from the OIG around contractor issues, efforts to cut the OIG budget and strip it of contractor oversight responsibility appears to smack of retaliation.

In addition, GSA's levels of procurement demand more oversight, not less. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, GSA was the third largest contracting agency in the federal government, spending $86.3 billion through outside contracts, according to FedSpending.org. The agency was only outspent by the Department of Defense and Department of Energy. On sheer volume alone, procurement at GSA merits constant and close supervision.

But it's not only the size of contracting at GSA that makes it ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse, but the method by which contracts are given. For instance, the amount of GSA contract money allocated through no-competition contracts rose more than 260 percent between 2000 and 2005, according to data available through FedSpending.org. During that same time, the percentage of GSA contract dollars allocated through full and open competition dropped from 76 percent to 55 percent. Also in 2005, the degree of competition was unknown for more than 17 percent of GSA's contract dollars ($2.2 billion), which is a dramatic increase from the less than one percent ($21 million) that was unknown in 2000.

For an agency such as GSA, which has a large responsibility for enormous amounts of federal dollars, to turn its back on contractor oversight is nothing short of outrageous. These developments also raise questions about why such actions by an agency administrator are possible. Why does an agency administrator have the authority to slash the budget request of the Office of Inspector General? Why are agencies even permitted to contract out oversight duties to private firms when conflicts of interest are sure to arise?

Congress needs to probe for answers to these and other hard questions, not just with regard to GSA but all federal agencies. This appears to be the best way to address the immediate challenge of bringing accountability and integrity back to GSA's contracting process. One thing is certain: the answer is not less money for oversight or passing the buck to private firms — GSA needs to retain an independent and robust Office of Inspector General.

A fact sheet on threats to the Office of Inspector General at GSA is available at /files/gsafactsheet.pdf.

# # #