US Military Contracting

Serving the U.S Tax Payer

Portal

CAMP ARIFJAN CORRUPTION & CONTRACTING IRREGULARITIES

ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS - SOLE SOURCES & CONTRACTING IRREGULARITIES

DOCUMENTING THE ARMY'S LACK OF PLANNING

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS & RESPONSES

IDENTIFYING THE CONTRACTING OFFICERS BEHIND THE IRREGULARITIES

IDENTIFYING THE COMMANDERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRREGULARITIES

LOCATING HIDDEN & CONCEALED SOLICITATIONS

DOCUMENTING UNWARRANTED SINGLE SOLE SOURCES

CIRCUMVENTING THE COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING ACT

IG REPORTS - CAMP ARIFJAN & ROCK ISLAND

DOCUMENTING PRE-SELECTION & STEERING OF CONTRACTS

ROCK ISLAND CORRUPTION & CONTRACTING IRREGULARITIES

12-10-2012

You can add a brief description or content on this area about Rock Island Corruption & Contracting Irregularities



12-10-2012


12-10-2012


12-10-2012


12-10-2012
Here you can add text, pictures and tables.


12-10-2012


12-10-2012


12-10-2012


12-10-2012


19-09-2015

There are many cases in the GAO and Court of Federal Claims that support the fact that there can be no bridge contract without an active solicitation to bridge to.

 

Lack of Planning and sole sourcing is the major source of lack of competition within the Army.  In the days of MaJor John Cockerham's criminal enterprise headquartered out of Camp Arifjan involving MAJ Momon, MAJ Pressley, and which the 2 criminal rings are chronicled extensively on the internet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockerham_bribery_case  and www.usmilitarycontracting.org  the criminal enterprise has moved from Camp Arifjan to Rock Island, IL and now, under the disguise of incompetence, the Army, who told Congress they would be abiding by Federal Acquisition Regulations within 4 years of the creation of the Army Contracting Command have demonstrated that the corruption lays with the Pentagon and the contracting officials that have yet to be fired or, as promised to Congress -.............  trained.

 

Since the solicitation number is W52P1J-14-R-0204, and the FBO (Exhibit 1 ) states nothing about a contract award 7 years after an awarded IDIQ, it is misleading the U.S. Taxpayer, and the GAO to mention the award number – no one cares.

 

What Latvian Connection cares about is that this contract is 7 years old is

about to be sole source against the most recent Memo from the Secretary of

Defense and against the competition in contracting act and also against

well established GAO rulings that state there can be no bridge contract

without a solicitation to bridge to.

 

The corrective action is the following.

 

Mr. Doran’s SF1402 is removed along with that of his supervisors.

 

An Agency Report is forthcoming that shows that the 2007 ( Major John

Cockerham criminal gang ) contract is ended and a solicitation that is full

and open is conducted.

 

An Inspector General Investigation is started into the General Officer who

directed the sole source and his removal from the position in contracting.

 

THAT is the corrective action that would be corrective action.

 

This dog and pony show that the Army Attorney Mr. Talley is not corrective

action and will not be accepted by Latvian Connection LLC as corrective

action. We fully expect that the contract of W911SE-06-D-0014 BA 01   is

ended completely and a solicitation is posted on www.fbo.gov in full and

open competition.

 

This is Lack of Planning that is being exhibited by the Army Contracting

Command and extension of the corruption that still exisits and failure to

follow the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the Federal Laws of the

United States.

 

In March 26th of 2014, the GAO released a 63 Pg report that appears to

have ZERO impact.  So, if the GAO cannot effect change on this corrupt

organization, then Latvian Connection LLC has written a GAO level

protest to bring to light that the GAO ‘s report was not only ineffective, but

that U.S. Small Businesses are being harmed by the on-going corruption.

 

The Army think is corrective action as it is no more corrective action than

the Army changing its logo and still leaving the same corrupt contracting

officer gifting money to Honeywell.

 

Some bullet points the Army Leadership missed from the GAO report will

highlight:

 

Congressional Committees

  • In fiscal year 2013, the federal government obligated more than $459 billion to procure goods and services, of which approximately $164 billion—about 36 percent—were not competed.

 

  • Competition in contracting is a critical tool for achieving the best return on investment for taxpayers and can help save the taxpayer money, improve contractor performance, and promote accountability for results.

 

  • Noncompetitive contracts carry the risk of overspending because, among other things, they have been negotiated without the benefit of competition, to help establish pricing; one way to mitigate risk is to limit the contract’s performance period.

 

  • Based on data from FPDS-NG, DOD, State, and USAID obligations for contracts and task orders reported as using the urgency exception during fiscal years 2010 through 2012 were small relative to other exceptions to full and open competition.10 Of the $998 billion that DOD obligated for all contracts during this period, $432 billion or 43 percent were awarded noncompetitively; however, only about $12.5 billion—or about 3 percent—of DOD’s noncompetitive obligations were awarded under the urgency exception. Less than 1 percent of USAID’s noncompetitive obligations—$3.3 billion—were obligated under the urgency exception. In comparison to DOD and USAID, State’s obligations under the urgency exception were more substantial, accounting for 12.5 percent—or $582 million—of its noncompetitive obligations, as shown in figure 2.

 

  • The bridge contract was intended to allow time for a new contractor—the awardee of a competitive award—to set up its operations to take over the performance of these services.

 

If the GAO accepts this charade as Corrective Action, then not only will

this be appealed, the 2007 expired contract will be protested for the Army

violating the Competition in Contracting Act and Lack of Planning.




Next