The contract regulations were designed to prevent waste and fraud, and they are staunchly defended by members of Congress already upset with abuses of sole-source contracts in Iraq. Commanders say those concerns mean there is little appetite among American contractors to push for change: Potential bidders do not want to be lumped in with Halliburton, which holds a multi-billion-dollar, no-bid contract for services in Iraq and is under investigation on suspicion of overcharges.
The federal acquisition regulations cover the spending of billions of taxpayer dollars authorized by Congress for reconstruction and security in Iraq. Rather than struggle to slice through the rules, American officers often tap small discretionary funds -- mad money, in military slang -- under the Commander's Emergency Response Program.
Those funds, US$180 million for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2004, are to grow to US$500 million in the new fiscal year in an increase pushed publicly by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who has met with senior officers in Iraq and supports expanding the availability of money to be spent directly by commanders, in particular to train and equip Iraqi forces.
Representative Ellen Tauscher, a Democrat who specializes in military affairs, spent a week touring Iraq last month and heard these contracting complaints raised by officers there. She said she was sympathetic to considering legislative actions to accelerate the reconstruction contracts, but also complained that the current debate did not ask why more was not done during the first year of the American occupation, when the Coalition Provisional Authority was in charge of rebuilding Iraq.
RSS