Guantanamo Prison Contractor Under Review for Interrogators

Possible Debarment?: Defense News, Federal Times, Army Times and Gannett (July 19, 2004). The controversial use of technology contracts to supply interrogators rises on the radar.

 

By DAVID PHINNEY

The General Services Administration is reviewing a technology company, Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), for its role in using a technology contract to provide dozens of interrogators and intelligence support personnel at the U.S. naval base prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to an administration procurement official.

Although the $13.3 million contract was written for technology engineering services and managed by the Interior Department, the agreement has been used largely for hiring 30 intelligence analysts and 15 to 20 interrogators, according to Raul Duany, spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command, which oversees Guantanamo .

That may be cause for suspension or debarment from future government work if GSA determines that ACS, a Dallas-based company purchased by Lockheed Martin last November, played an active role in helping draft the statement of work or other inappropriate behavior.

Lockheed spokesman Thomas Greer said GSA has asked the company for information about the ACS contract. “We have answered the inquiry and it is our belief it will not result in debarment or suspension,” Greer said.

GSA spokeswoman Mary Alice Johnson said that it is a standing policy to “neither confirm nor deny” debarment or suspension reviews.

This is the second technology contract managed by the Interior Department’s National Business Center known to be under GSA scrutiny after being used to hire interrogators. The first involved CACI International Inc., a technology firm that found itself the subject of an investigation into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq . On July 7, GSA cleared CACI of any wrongdoing worthy of debarment or suspension.

An Army investigation earlier this year revealed CACI, of Arlington , Va. , provided interrogators to the prison operation under two Army task orders. The task orders were issued under a CACI contract for technology services managed by Interior and on the GSA federal supply schedules.

The ACS contract for Guantanamo also originated with GSA when Southern Command contacted GSA’s Kansas City , Mo. , office in October 2002 for contract assistance in the hiring of interrogators, Duany said. When GSA put the contract request up for competition, the proposal was veiled as a technology contract, he said.

GSA terminated that contract in November after a GSA investigation found the contract was being used for purposes other than technology and being paid for with federal funds specifically earmarked for technology purchases, Duany said.

“We had to stop with GSA because it said it couldn’t act as contracting officer,” Duany said.

In January 2004, the Interior Department agreed to manage a similar contract with the same company on behalf of Southern Command, but as an engineering contract through GSA. Because interrogation services with ACS needed to continue without interruption, the contract was written without first taking competing bids from other companies, Duany and an Interior spokesman said.

“We had severe time constraints and were pressured with concerns for national security and the war on terror,” Duany added.

However, when the abuses at Abu Ghraib began making news in the spring, GSA revisited the ACS contract and advised Interior it again was out of scope. The administration procurement official, who is familiar with the situation, said GSA put CACI and ACS under review for debarment or suspension about the same time. The Abu Ghraib investigation, made public in April, implicated one of those CACI interrogators, Steven Stephanowicz, in its determination that Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib had been tortured and abused.

GSA determined earlier this month that CACI can continue doing business with the government. Federal contracts make up 64 percent of CACI’s revenue, which totaled $843 million in 2003.

“I do not feel that, at this time, it is necessary for me to take any formal action to protect the interests of the federal government,” said Joseph Neurauter, GSA’s suspension and debarment official, in a July 7 letter to CACI chief executive officer Jack London.

Still, CACI isn’t off the hook. The company is a subject of an investigation by Interior’s inspector general, and Neurauter named several areas he wanted to explore more fully, including CACI’s role in suggesting and drafting descriptions of the work the company performed in Iraq .

“I believe that CACI’s possible role in preparing statements of work continues to be an open issue and potential conflict of interest,” Neurauter wrote in his letter, which requested further response from the company.

CACI, which largely focuses on providing information technology services to the Defense Department, was pleased with GSA’s decision and says it is cooperating with GSA’s probe. In a July 7 statement on its Web site, the company said GSA requested information “illustrating CACI’s understanding that all parties to a transaction, including contractors, are responsible for ensuring that the rules are followed and the integrity of the system maintained.”

“CACI welcomes the opportunity to provide the additional information requested by GSA in order to eliminate any misunderstandings and clearly convey its commitment to complying with all of the rules governing purchases by the U.S. government,” the statement said.

Interior spokesman Frank Quimby said the Interior officers managing the two contracts formerly worked for the Army at Fort Huachuca , Ariz. , before Interior took over the operation as part of a military downsizing.

“They thought they were acting within the rules and regulations,” Quimby said. “They saw this as an urgent need and wanted to do what they could to help.”

Interior has since adopted a policy to not manage any contracts for interrogation or human intelligence gathering.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

Website Created by Red Dot Creative Media

All rights reserved. Reproduction without permission is strictly prohibited.

Copyright 2005,  David Phinney