Yesterday, POGO submitted a public comment on a proposed change to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that would implement a government-wide contractor database similar in principle to POGO's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database.

Federal officials must consult this database--called the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)--to check on prospective bidders' integrity and performance backgrounds before awarding contracts. Contractors with federal contracts worth more than $10 million must submit information for inclusion in FAPIIS (i.e. data pertaining to criminal, civil and administrative proceedings involving violations of federal, state and local laws or contracts) and update that information on a regular basis.

As we've stated before, POGO strongly supports the establishment of FAPIIS for the positive impact it will have on contractor accountability, but we have various concerns that we were able to address in our public comment. Our concerns are so numerous and cover so many aspects of the proposed rule, in fact, that we felt compelled at the end of our comment to ask the FAR Councils to consider publishing a second interim rule and seek additional public comments.

One of our biggest concerns is that FAPIIS will be off-limits to the public. The non-public aspect of the database is especially confounding given the impression conveyed by then-candidate and now-President Obama that he would radically improve government transparency and public access to government information. We also question the proposed rule's interpretation of the various dollar thresholds set out in the law, warn that some of the existing government databases from which FAPIIS will draw information may not be reliable, highlight the lack of a clearly-established system of penalties for contractors who fail to comply with the law, suggest that special consideration be given as to how the system will keep track of contractors' aliases, subsidiaries and/or affiliates, and suggest that there should be no unwarranted restrictions on how information in FAPIIS gets retained and reviewed.

Overall, the proposed rule seems to diminish the benefits that could be derived from the database while downplaying or ignoring very important provisions in the law.

-- Neil Gordon

POGO blog readers know that Interior Secretary Salazar's decision to phase out the Royalty-In-Kind (RIK) program--and hopefully return to Royalty-In-Value collection that includes audits, verifiable data, and real oversight--is in the best interest of taxpayers receiving their fair share for their natural resources. So POGO was of course intrigued when we came across a letter that the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA), sent to the Secretary expressing concerns that the "Department will now end a program that has generated more than one hundred million dollars of additional revenues for the American people." Representative Hastings cites Minerals Management Service (MMS) data about the program's success, and tellingly does not include any independent analysis--likely because independent sources can't confirm MMS's findings. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports have consistently found that MMS can't verify the data that they have is accurate, and the Interior Department's Inspector General found the RIK program had a culture of ethical failure. In essence, the RIK program has been in the best financial interests of industry, not taxpayers. So what's prompting Representative Hastings's defense of the RIK program?

A review of Representative Hastings's campaign contributions, provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, may provide an insight into his motivation: the oil and gas industry make up the largest share of his campaign earnings, and he receives more money from Exxon Mobil than anyone else in the House of Representatives. As the chart from the Center for Responsive Politics below shows, though, Representative Hastings is only one of many on the House Natural Resources Committee receiving funding from the oil and gas industry--though he still is among the lead breadwinners here, too.

Representative Hastings' letter does raise a legitimate concern about how the RIK program has been used to fill the the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--POGO has argued that this should be the only use of the program--but his concerns about taxpayers losing out are misguided at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

-- Mandy Smithberger

Tom Toles

DCAA caught in the crossfire [Federal Computer Week]

Break for Companies in Bailout's Fine Print [The New York Times]

Fannie's Draws From Emergency Treasury Fund Reach $60 Billion [Bloomberg]

Treasury OKs Another Firm for Toxic Asset Program [Associated Press]

A few months ago, POGO blogged about our concerns that many state and local governments with laws limiting contractors’ campaign contributions (meant to reduce the influence of private interests in the public contracting process) are facing obstacles to enforcing these “pay-to-play” laws on stimulus-funded contracts.  

While none of those obstacles have been removed, the nonprofit, nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics just released an analysis that found little influence of campaign contributions on stimulus contracts. By mashing Recovery.gov data with the Institute’s database of state-level political contributions, it found that “only 3.2 percent of the 3,285 recipients of ARRA-related contracts were also donors to state-level political campaigns during the 2008 and 2009 election cycles.” 

-- Ingrid Drake

New alliance hopes to spur new talent in procurement field [Government Executive]

Is the BLM practicing unsafe CX? [High Country News]

Flu outrunning vaccine, experts say [Washington Post]

GAO to report on GSA [Fedline]

Clash Looms on Banks [The Wall Street Journal]

HUD audits: $220M to go to at-risk agencies [USA Today]

Your Bailout Update (Nov. 2009): $400 Billion Outstanding [ProPublica]

Texans mount campaign to keep Army truck contract [Government Executive]