Sunday, March 19, 2006
About That GAO Review
In a recent post about the GAO's review (pdf) of post-Katrina and Rita contracts, I said:
Makes you wonder if the GAO has somehow managed to retain some integrity, despite the GOP's best efforts.
Actually, The GAO limited the scope of its review to the non-controversial. The report specifically states that it left the contract issues such as competition and pricing to the inspectors general of the government agencies, while it focused on planning and oversight. So, while the reporting on the GAO review mentions politically connected companies, the actual GAO review does not. So to the GAO, wasteful contracts were awarded to companies like the Bechtel corp., Akima and Ashbritt (for more on Ashbritt,just click) because of poor planning and communication.
Well, I suppose that we shouldn't pass judgment until we see the various inspectors' general reports, but it's hard to be too impressed with the GAO report. Still it would be nice to see CNN, The New York Times and the rest of the gang try to reconcile that $62B in contracts that GAO investigated with that $85-$88B figure that they tend to report. It would be even nicer to see somebody ask David Paulison what he meant when he said that we would rebid all those no-bid contracts. Asking him to explain the great leader comment would be optional.
Makes you wonder if the GAO has somehow managed to retain some integrity, despite the GOP's best efforts.
Actually, The GAO limited the scope of its review to the non-controversial. The report specifically states that it left the contract issues such as competition and pricing to the inspectors general of the government agencies, while it focused on planning and oversight. So, while the reporting on the GAO review mentions politically connected companies, the actual GAO review does not. So to the GAO, wasteful contracts were awarded to companies like the Bechtel corp., Akima and Ashbritt (for more on Ashbritt,just click) because of poor planning and communication.
Well, I suppose that we shouldn't pass judgment until we see the various inspectors' general reports, but it's hard to be too impressed with the GAO report. Still it would be nice to see CNN, The New York Times and the rest of the gang try to reconcile that $62B in contracts that GAO investigated with that $85-$88B figure that they tend to report. It would be even nicer to see somebody ask David Paulison what he meant when he said that we would rebid all those no-bid contracts. Asking him to explain the great leader comment would be optional.
