So much for those "significant cost savings" that most current and former
regulators could tell you were bogus anyway.
For Immediate Release: Thursday,
April 4, 2013
Contact: Kirsten Stade (202)
265-7337
CADILLAC CONTRACTS CANNIBALIZE AGENCY
SCIENCE BUDGET
Review Asked for Overhead of Up to 50% in Open-Ended
Reclamation Contracts
Washington, DC — Hefty research contracts
executed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation should be reined in, according to an
audit request filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
(PEER). The agency has been increasingly transferring work previously
performed by staff scientists out to contractors at much higher costs than doing
the work in-house.
PEER is asking the Department of Interior’s Office of
Inspector General (IG) to conduct both an audit and performance review of
Reclamation’s aggressive contracting, with a focus on such features as
–
- “Cost comparisons were not conducted or
considered” in framing a master agreement for a series of contracts, according
to an agency memo;
- Contracts divert between 30 and 50% of
funds to overhead (“indirect costs”). The replacement of Reclamation
staff with contractors in just one phase of work means that “the total cost of
the proposal approximately doubled,” per an internal email; and
- Contracts are drafted in such an
open-ended fashion that “we can throw in the kitchen sink,” in the words of
one researcher.
“Reclamation needs some adult supervision
over its contracting decisions,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, who
filed the IG request. “Regardless of whether the contract is with another
agency or a private firm, competent federal managers should be looking very
closely at relative costs.”
The PEER request details how Reclamation’s
Klamath Basin Area Office has increasingly contracted out work previously
performed by in-house scientists within its Water Quality unit, principally to
the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). This expansion of contracted work has
come at the expense of filling vacancies, and in some cases eliminating
positions altogether. During the past eight months, Klamath management
deliberately created personnel gaps to justify shifting more work to
USGS.
In order to facilitate this expansion of contract work, USGS has
extended itself beyond its capabilities. For example, Reclamation staff
had to train USGS staff and, in several instances, USGS lacked the equipment to
perform contracted tasks. This resulted in using Reclamation resources
without a rebate or reduction of contract payments. In addition, USGS has
had to hire additional staff to handle the increased workload at costs
substantially higher than if Reclamation performed the work in-house.
Nonetheless, Klamath management has indicated it seeks to even further expand
contract reliance by dismantling its Fisheries Resource Branch and reassigning
all staff scientists. Internal memos suggest that the move to
contract-science flows from management’s desire to prevent researchers from
raising troublesome issues.
“The documents surrounding these carte
blanche contracts reveal not an ounce of hard bargaining,” Ruch added.
“The notion that these padded contracts are cost-saving measures, as Reclamation
managers allege, is utterly without foundation.”