Is @StateDept Suppressing the IG Report on Protocol Officials? What’s Happening to the Whatchamacallits @StateOIG?

The least surprising thing about this report is that a State Department spokesperson strongly defended Henderson and attacked the inspector general. Have you heard the Acting State/OIG Matthew Klimow offer any defense for his people or their work product? We have not. Is A/IG going to say he does not comment on leaked reports? But since there is no plan to release this report apparently, there is also no reason to offer a defense? Is that it? But wait, the State Department has commented on the leaked report and has attacked the inspector general office. Is that how this works?
The State Department spokesperson also shared testimonials purportedly from three unnamed State Department officials (they all have nice things to say!). Also, the spokesperson shared a lengthy comment from one of Pompeo’s two BFFs in Foggy Bottom, Counselor Ulrich Brechbühl.
HuffPost notes that “No part of the State Department’s response directly refuted the idea that Henderson regularly drank to excess on the job.”
If you remember, in November 2019, State/OIG also released a report on the Review of Allegations of Politicized and Other Improper Personnel Practices Involving the Office of the Secretary.  The State Department’s response includes Brian Hook’s 8-page response as well as an official response by  you guess it — Counselor Ulrich Brechbühl who wrote: “The Department disagrees with the finding in the report that improper considerations played a role in the early termination oof Employee One’s detail. The report ignores the compelling evidence provided by Brian Hook that his personnel decision in this matter was actually made prior to any of the non-merit factors being brought to his attention, and that the decision was mad for entirely professional and lawful reasons.”
Hey, isn’t this the same office that stayed quiet as mouse when career professionals were attacked by political characters, particularly last year?
Wondering why parts of this report kept getting leaked. Some questions though.
Is the State Department suppressing this IG report?
On what grounds? Hurt feelings?
Is the Acting State/OIG Matthew Klimow now allowing the State Department to decide which of the IG reports can be made public?

So what’s happening to the whatchamacallit …. the Linick-era investigations of you know who? Shhhhhh!  Shhhh!!! Keep it low. Top aides knew about it, but they were so bad they never bothered to tell their boss they knew the name of the fella in the IG’s crosshairs and then surprise, the former IG got fired and prevented from returning to his office. And they could not keep their excuses for the IG firing  in a straight line, the excuses kept toppling over like drunken sailors on liberty call. Then you know some staffers left or got fired. Then, the replacement guy quit. And then a career person stepped in, but then got replaced. Again.  So what’s happening to the whatchamacallits …. go ahead, tell us, just whisper….

US Embassy Iraq Contractor Gets $62 Million in @StateDept Contract Dispute Settlement

Updated 10/19/20 4:12 pm PST with the potential value for the design build construction contracts in Thailand and in Namibia. See below.

In October 2009, State/OIG issued its Audit of the Design and Construction of the New Embassy Compound in Baghdad, Iraq (PDF):

“…[W]e found that although the construction of the approximately $600 million NEC in a war zone in 34 months was a significant accomplishment, consid­erable construction deficiencies remained because designs for the facilities had not been completed and approved and quality control and commissioning procedures were inadequate.
[…]
We recommend the Department attempt to recover an estimated $43.2 million from First Kuwaiti to bring construction deficiencies to contract standards.
[…]
we estimated that approximately $33 million should attempt to be recovered from First Kuwaiti for incomplete and undocumented design work. Also, we identified that as a result of First Kuwaiti’s inadequate quality control program, it should be held accountable for additional maintenance charges of approximately $38 million that could carry over into future years. Further, we estimated recovering ap­proximately $3.8 million from First Kuwaiti because commissioning activities either were not performed or were performed incorrectly.

In it’s response, the State Department’s Bureau of Administration said:

“The Contracting Officer will prepare a letter to the Contractor, detailing each of [the OIG] recommendations and request consideration from the Contractor in each amount recommended by the OIG.” The A Bureau requested that OIG provide the Contracting Officer infor­mation detailing the basis for computing the $132 million in costs recommended for recovery from First Kuwaiti. The A Bureau also stated, “The formal process to recover any funds from the contractor will be assessed in terms of overall benefit to the government.”

At that time, State/OIG said:

“The A Bureau’s response meets the intent of OIG’s recommendations to recover $132 million from the contractor attributable to construction deficiencies; incom­plete and undocumented work; additional maintenance charges incurred because of inadequate quality control and commissioning procedures; and contract noncompli­ance, including liquidated damages and interest for an unauthorized advance. OIG and USACE will provide the contracting officer the requested support for the $132 million in questioned contract costs.”

We don’t know what happened to that recommendation for recovery of funds in 2009.
Fast forward to April 23, 2013, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) issued a decision in First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting W.L.L. v. Department of State contract dispute (CBCA 3069):
“Appellant, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting W.L.L. (First Kuwaiti), filed the instant appeal from a decision of a Department of State (State) contracting officer dated August 10, 2012, denying a claim by First Kuwaiti relating to two unpaid invoices for work performed for State under two contracts at the United States New Embassy Compound in Baghdad, Iraq, contract number SALMEC-06-0049, and its modifications, and contract number SALMEC-05-0020, and its modifications. The parties entered into a settlement agreement with respect to the appeal and filed with the Board a stipulation of settlement, reflecting their amicable resolution of the issues that are the subject of the appeal. The parties have jointly moved the Board to issue a judgment in favor of First Kuwaiti in the amount of $2,547,745.20, to be paid from the permanent indefinite judgment fund, 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (2006). Under their settlement agreement and stipulation, they have agreed that Contract Disputes Act (CDA) interest shall accrue on said judgment amount, beginning on March 23, 2012, and continuing until payment of the judgment is made, and that such interest shall be paid to First Kuwaiti together with payment of the judgment amount.
First Kuwaiti has waived any other claim to interest and/or for any attorney fees and expenses incurred in connection with the appeal. The parties, in their joint motion and under the terms of the stipulation, have agreed that neither party will seek reconsideration of, or relief from, this Board’s decision under Board Rules 26 and 27, respectively, and that neither party will appeal this Board’s decision.”
See the April 23, 2013 full decision (CBCA 3069) here.
Below are the New Embassy Compound Baghdad Contracts that the OIG audited in 2009. Note that the contract numbers cited by the CBCA decision are SALMEC-06-0049 and SALMEC-05-0020 for the New Embassy Compound in Baghdad. In the 2009 OIG audit, the two contracts are listed as SALMEC-06-C0049 and SALMEC-05-C0020; we note the appearance of the letter “C” in the two contracts listed in the 2009 OIG audit  of the New Embassy Compound in Baghdad. (If you know what that means, do let us know).
So that was 2013. For more litigative payments, see @StateDept’s Litigative Payments FY2018-FY2020 Via Judgment Fund-$72,634,701.57.
Five years later, on December 3, 2018, the CBCA issued a “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Granted In Part” in the First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, W.L.L. v. Department of State new contract disputes  marked “CBCA 3506, 6167”:

“First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, W.L.L. (FKTC) appealed the denial of its claims by the Department of State (DOS) arising from the construction of the embassy compound in Baghdad, Iraq. FKTC presented approximately 200 cost claims that totaled $270 million. DOS moved for summary judgment on thirteen of those cost claims, challenging FKTC’s reliance upon the War Risks clause, the superior knowledge doctrine, the Changes clause, and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing as the basis for these claims. DOS also asserts that actions underlying FKTC’s changes claims constitute sovereign acts, precluding liability pursuant to the sovereign acts doctrine.

We grant DOS’s motion regarding the scope of the War Risks clause and superior knowledge doctrine, thereby denying seven of FKTC’s claims that are premised solely upon these bases. We deny DOS’s motion regarding the claims that are also based upon the Changes clause or the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, finding that there are disputed issues of fact. We also deny DOS’s motion regarding the sovereign acts doctrine, finding that DOS has not established the applicability of that doctrine on the current record. Six of the thirteen claims subject to the motion survive DOS’s challenge on this basis.”

The “Statement of Facts” include:
  • A. Contract Price and Provisions Allowing for Adjustment of Contract Price
  • B. War Risks Clause
  • C. Security Requirements and Warnings
II. FKTC’s Claims Challenged by DOS (it’s quite a read):
  • A. Duck and Cover Alarms
  • B. Rocket Attacks—Three claims
  • C. Equipment Repositioning
  • D. Extra Security
  • E. Retention Bonuses and Danger Pay
  • F. Air Transport—Labor Hours
  • G. Sand and Gravel Double-Handling
  • H. Truck Convoy Delays, Truck and Driver Protection Requirements, and Truck Convoy Support Requirements
  • I. Superior Knowledge Claims
The CBCA’s discussion includes:
  • I. War Risks Clause Does Not Provide for Recovery on the Thirteen Challenged Claims
  • II. FKTC Has Failed To Identify a Sufficient Basis for Its Superior Knowledge Claim
  • III. Disputed Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment on FKTC’s Changes Claims

A. FKTC Has Shown Disputed Issues of Fact with Regard to Changes Clause on Six Claims

B. DOS Has Not Provided Evidence to Support a Sovereign Acts Defense

  • IV. Disputed Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment on FKTC’s Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Claim
  • V. Purported Lack of Contemporaneous Documentation is not Grounds for Summary Judgment
The Board’s decision is that “Respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART. Appellant’s claims based solely upon the War Risks clause and the superior knowledge doctrine challenged by Respondent are denied. The hearing in this matter will commence on January 22, 2019.”
See the December 3, 2018 decision (CBCA 3506, 6167 ) here.
HOLD ON. We’re just getting to the best part.
On Monday, April 1, 2019. the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals issued “GRANTED IN PART: April 1, 2019” judgement in First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, W.L.L. v. Department of State (CBCA 3506, 6167) dispute:

“On March 28, 2019, the parties submitted to the Board a joint motion for judgment on a stipulated settlement. The parties requested that the Board enter judgment in the amount of $62,500,000, with payment to be made through the permanent indefinite judgment fund in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 1304 (2012). The amount includes all the interest to which appellant is entitled under the Contract Disputes Act. 41 U.S.C. § 7109. The parties have agreed that they will not seek appeal of, reconsideration of, or relief from the Board’s decision.

Decision: The Board GRANTS IN PART these appeals. In accordance with the parties’ joint motion, the Board awards appellant, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting W.L.L., the stipulated judgment amount of $62,500,000.”

See the April 1, 2019 decision (CBCA 3506, 6167) here.
So the CBCA document says the contractor presented approximately 200 cost claims that totaled $270 million. It got $62,500,000.
We’re sure the government would argue that this is a win, yeah? On the other hand, $62.5 million is more than the expected US investment in the local economy for the construction of US Consulate General Chiang Mai in Thailand at $45 million plus change. Or three times the USG investment in the local economy for the construction of the US Embassy in Namibia at $17 million.
(Correction: The US Embassy Namibia design build construction contract has a potential value of $173.4million; the New Consulate Compound (NCC) design build construction contract in Chiang Mai, Thailand has a potential value of $156.8 million. Thanks A!).
Oh … what’s that?

 


American Oversight Calls on @US_OSC and @StateOIG to Investigate Pompeo’s Email Rush Before the Election #WSOS

 


 

 

 

@StateDept Plans to Bring Self to a Screeching Halt Worldwide

Sender A via email:
“Do you want to know how to bring the State Department to a screeching halt in 5 minutes, worldwide? Deploy your new program overlay on the purchasing system at year end. Sounds small, right?
Nope.
Today is a workday in much of our area of the world. We have 20 days from today to finish creating and funding orders for everyone, everywhere overseas, before this year’s money runs out, and before the usual continuing resolution begins on October 1 which prevents purchasing. 
So, we got 10 days notice in August to get affidavits from *ALL* the companies around the world we order things from that they do not use Huawei, ZTE or several other Chinese manufacturers. Then that got extended to 9/30.
Except….except….we wake up this morning, and the system we use to create [purchase] orders has been updated, and now requires written verification that EVERY SINGLE VENDOR we get things from —
— whether that’s gasoline to put in the engines of our water trucks (so we don’t run out of clean drinking water) to food for the Marines who work at our embassies — 
does not/does not use Chinese (essentially) technology, NOR DO THEY USE ANYBODY ELSE WHO DOES.
Like, y’know…their internet provider, or telephones.”

 

Note: Blog announcement coming up, stay tuned!

Mike Pompeo Grabs Title as Worst Secretary of State “in History”, “in Modern Times”, “Ever”

 

Hatch Act Complaints Filed Against Most Partisan Secretary of State in Memory #WSOS

 

Secretary of Trump Mike Pompeo to Address Republican Convention From Jerusalem #politicalprops

 

5 U.S. Code § 7321.Political participation
Memorandum of President of the United States, Oct. 24, 199459 F.R. 54121, provided:
Memorandum for the Secretary of State: Pursuant to authority vested in me as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, and consistent with the provisions of the Hatch Act Reform Amendment regulations, 5 CFR 734.104, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I delegate to you the authority to limit the political activities of political appointees of the Department of State, including Presidential appointees, Presidential appointees with Senate confirmation, noncareer SES appointees, and Schedule C appointees.
Under 3 FAM 4546  LIST OF DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES AND PENALTIES, the  penalty for  #12. improper political activity (5 U.S.C. 7321, et seq.) is suspension or removal.
Oh. But … but see, this only apply to some people, not all people.
Apparently, four sets of lawyers are saying no rules apply to Mike Pompeo because he will be speaking in his private capacity and because no DOS resources will be used? Where is he going to deliver his address, in a tent? Oh, a rooftop. They better have the seal of Embassy Jerusalem or we won’t know where he is. Are they’re allowed to borrow it? Hey, we all know this is not really a question of resources. Also the secretary of state is secretary of state 24/7. There is no such thing as personal capacity in that job whether he likes it or not. That’s just the reality of it.
Although if you were writing Pompeo’s EER since he got to Foggy Bottom, and you did not expect this, you were not paying attention.
Now, wouldn’t it be nice to see those legal opinions by the best people? We’re guessing they’re going to tell us it’s not/not expressly prohibited so it must be A-okay …. or the presidential memo doesn’t specifically mention cabinet secretaries … or it’s old, that presidential memo oh, so old …. or the memo was issued by a president who had been impeached, imagine that?! Oh, wait, maybe not that. Ah, we get it, the memo doesn’t spell out that Michael R. Pompeo, the 70th secretary of state is not/not allowed to deliver a speech at the Republican National convention from Jerusalem. Their bad for not anticipating this. Yes, of course. That must be it.

Pompeo’s ‘Diplomacy Weak’ Update: US Alone at the UNSC For All the World to See

Remember When an Ex-Army Captain/SecState Displaced a General/Flag Officer For Military Housing?

Via Politico

In his early months on the job, Mike Pompeo sought an unusual perk for a secretary of State: permission to rent a Washington, D.C.-area house that was controlled by the U.S. military.

Pompeo and his aides initially tried to arrange for the chief U.S. diplomat and his family to live close to the State Department in the Potomac Hill campus, where the Navy maintained some homes. But ultimately the Pompeos moved into U.S. Army housing at the Fort Myer base in Virginia, according to people familiar with the issue.

Along the way, the request set off legal and logistical alarms, raising questions about whether Pompeo is eligible for any sort of military housing.

According to a memo obtained by the watchdog group American Oversight and shared this week with POLITICO, a top Navy lawyer warned that the Pompeos’ initial request for housing was “problematic” and raised “factual, legal, fiscal and ethical” issues, not the least of which was whether he’d be displacing military officers already in line for the limited housing.

[…]

The memo even questioned whether State Department officials should be trying to secure housing for the secretary of State seeing as it’s arguably not their job. The department could be violating the “Antideficiency Act” by devoting time and resources to the issue, the memo warned.

“Given that obtaining and paying for housing is a personal responsibility of civilian employees of the Government, [Department of State] Office of Counsel may need to consider whether the agency has been authorized by law and provided appropriations by Congress to expend time and agency resources to locate and secure personal housing for the Secretary of State,” the Navy memo states.

Excerpt from memo discussing Ethical Considerations:

(1) Use of Government Resources.

DOS Office of Counsel will need to determine whether the effort to obtain GFOQ housing for the Secretary of State constitutes an official agency act within the scope of their authority and funding, or whether the search for housing is more properly characterized as a personal matter of the Secretary. Subject to this determination, the Office of Counsel will then be able to determine, based upon their agency’s rules of ethics, together with the U.S. Government Standards of Ethical Conduct For Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 & 705, whether it is proper to permit the use of employee time and agency resources to locate and obtain housing for the Secretary of State.

(2) Appearance of Impropriety.

The DOS Office of Counsel will require an opportunity to consider to what extent there might be a negative public perception relating to a civilian Secretary of State displacing a uniformed member of the military in a tight housing market. In accordance with CNICINST 11103.3B, Enclosure 3, Paragraph 5, Flag Officers are referred to Privatized GFOQs within each Navy Region. As mentioned earlier, there is a housing waiting list of Navy Flag personnel. DOS Office of Counsel may wish to consider whether placing the Secretary of State in Navy Flag quarters, while actual Navy Flag Officers—who are unquestionably entitled to such housing—continue to wait for assigned quarters, would raise the specter of the appearance of impropriety proscribed by the Standards of Ethical Conduct, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14).

So the Pompeos have occupied this military housing for a while now, and yet, their rental, which State Department folks say is “fair market value” for the residence still does not include a dollar amount?
The report also says that State Department spokespersons “defended Pompeo’s current arrangement by saying it made sense security-wise as well as financially, and that the department’s lawyers had fully vetted the topic.”
Are these the same legal folks who signed off on the nonemergency weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and UAE as emergencies? Or these folks: @StateDept Skirts Thresholds in Arms Transfers to Saudi Arabia and UAE, Avoids Congressional Notifications?

@StateDept Spent Millions on AutoInjectors to Counteract Nerve Agent Exposure, Guess What Happened?

WaPo’s Jon Swaine has an investigative piece on a $120 million State Department contract on a treatment for nerve agent poisoning. According to the report, WaPo has “obtained internal company records, reviewed emails from Emergent staffers and government officials, and interviewed nine people involved in making, selling or buying the Trobigard injectors.”
WARNING! This will get you mad.

“In June 2017, a director of regulatory affairs at the government contractor Emergent BioSolutions told colleagues that she objected to claims the company was making in a brochure for one of its newer products: a drug injector for victims of exposure to nerve agents.

“Functionality testing has not been successful in this device,” Brenda Wolling wrote in comments obtained by The Washington Post. Regarding a claim that the injector was designed to withstand “challenging operational and logistical conditions,” she wrote, “No testing ever conducted.” Even to describe the product as a “treatment of nerve agent poisoning,” Wolling wrote, “implies that we have efficacy data showing it works.”

Three months later, the Trump administration awarded Emergent a $20 million no-bid contract to supply those very injectors to the State Department. The firm later received a second contract, worth up to $100 million, to supply the agency with more of the injectors — sold under the name Trobigard — and related treatments.”

Apparently, the State Department told Emergent that it had obtained a legal opinion from the FDA’s general counsel saying the department could buy Trobigard for use by U.S. diplomats overseas, citing a company record. The report says, the company “has not sought approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — a circumstance that bars the product’s sale in the United States.”

“By September 2017, State Department officials were increasingly alarmed at chemical weapons use by the Syrian regime and the Islamic State and were anxious to boost protections for U.S. diplomats. The agency gave Emergent a one-year contract worth $20.5 million to supply auto-injectors. Under the deal, Emergent delivered 456,845 auto-injectors — enough to provide several for each of 58,000 Foreign Service officers and local employees overseas.

No bid competition was held, on the grounds that there was “unusual and compelling urgency” after Pfizer’s production halt, according to contract records. The injectors were needed to protect officials who “operate in countries with active and/or assumed chemical [redacted] programs,” the records show.
[…]
Emergent’s 2017 deal with the State Department entailed a sharp increase in spending by the department above earlier plans. In August 2015, the department had been preparing to pay Meridian $750,000 per year for five years to replace expiring devices, according to records of an abandoned deal.”

The company-funded study in the Netherlands tested the drugs on guinea pigs exposed to sarin gas. That’s right guinea pigs.

“Six weeks after the State Department signed the deal, Emergent’s first study of Trobigard’s drugs was completed. The company-funded study in the Netherlands tested the drugs on guinea pigs exposed to sarin gas and recorded positive findings. As they published their work in a scientific journal, the study’s authors warned that the results “cannot be directly extrapolated to the human situation.”

Can the embattled OIG still take this on as a special project? Can House Foreign Affairs (HFAC) or House Oversight Committee (HORC) take a look?

“In July, Emergent leaders ordered that Trobigard sales materials be scrapped and that the device be moved to a portion of the company’s website that lists products in development, the company confirmed. They also told staffer to make sure all future sales materials for Trobigard were approved by the company’s medical, legal and regulatory departments.

Emergent put together evidence that all injectors bought by the State Department were safe, former employees said. Government officials ultimately agreed. In September 2019, the State Department authorized the payment of a $10 million contract installment to Emergent.”

You need to read this in full. A State Department “no comment” is not acceptable.

Extracted data below from SAM.gov, the new fedbiz, with links to the contracts. Are there more that we’ve missed?

EMERGENT COUNTERMEASURES INTERNATIONAL LTD

  • Unique Entity ID (DUNS)220984617
  • CAGE CodeU1C03
  • AddressBUILDING 3, LONDON, W4 5YA

Registration

  • Expiration Date Jun 23, 2021
  • Purpose of Registration All Awards
  • Debt Subject to Offset  No

Continue reading