Upload
scripts8
View
237
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
1/69
N871 78A
- BOOZ, LLEN HAMILTON, INC
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
2/69
DEPARTME , OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR N E R L
OFFICE
OF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR
GENERAL
FOR INVt :STIGATIONS
DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE
CONTROL
TITLE
REPORT BY:
M DE
T
STATUS
PURPOSE
DETAILS
SYNOPSIS
WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE
900 SOUTH WASHINGT ON STREET SUITE
204
FALLS CHURCH VIRGINIA 22046 4020
OCIS REPORT
OF INVESTIGATION
8710078A-31-CCT-86-01DC-E3C/F
BOOZ, LLEN
HAMILTON,
INCORPOR TED
Vienna,
VA
Washington,
D.C.
Closed
Final Report
of Investigation
May
22, 1987
1. Investigation was
initiated
after
this office received
a referral from
Defense Logist ics Agency
(DLA)
alleging BOOZ, ALLEN HAMILTON, Inc.
(BOOZ), f raudulent ly bi l l ed the Department of
Defense
(DoD) for
unauthorized
charges relative to
a contract a t ROME AIR
DEVELOPMENT
CENTER
(ROME), Griff iss AFB, NY. The
investigation
determined ROME i:ersonnel
issued changes to the contrac t t ha t mandated cost. increases to . the
contract. Ha.vever,
BOOZ
started
using
the
new
charges
prior
to receiving
af{>roval
of
the Contracting
Officer
(CO). On March
6,
1987, BOOZ
agreed to
a
reduction of
$198,814 to the cost
of the
modified contract which
was
executed April
27, 1987. This
invest iga t ion has been closed af ter
receiving concurrence
from the Department of Justice, Defense Procurement
Fraud Unit (DPEU).
STATUTES
2. The applicable criminal violations involved in
this
matter were 18 US::
lOOl(False
Statements an:l 18 USC 287, False Claims .
B CKGROUND
3 . Inves t igat ion was in i t ia ted after Defense
o i s
~
Defense
Contract Administration Services
Region
(DCASR),
Yillilllillllil
b) 6), b) 7) C)
referrerl a Defense Contract
Actninistration
Services
Management
Area (DCASMA), Balt imore, MD,
reques t
for c r imina l
invest igat ion da t
ed
October
15,
1986, to
this off ice
for
appropriate
action . I t was alleged
that BOOZ
improperly
bi l led
the
oco
for inflated
costs and received progress payments
based
on unapproved costs . The
1
Fff 1AL
US
nNI V
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
3/69
2
8710078A-31-
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
4/69
3
8710078A-31-0CT-Ol.CX:-E3C/F
CONTACT WITH
DATE: May 22,
1987
b) 6), b) 7) C)
7.
DCAS.Mr>. Baltiroore, was contacted on several
occasions
to
review his
Request
for Criminal Investigation
dated
October 15, 1986.
lllfil
advised he was the 1111 and he had reviewed the ROME contract
E'-30602-83-C-0164
and
determined
an
overcharge
of $518
,814. 1111
acknowledged
the
apparent
need
for
the contractor,
BOOZ,
to
increase costs;
however to do so without
authority
was in violation of the law.
CONTACT
WITH OOZ
8. On October 31, 1986, BOOZ,
was
contacted
concerning
t i s inquiry. stated
BOOZ
.had entered
into negotiations
with
ROME to
resolve
any dispute in the pricing and/or
changes of alleged
unallowable
costs.
STATUS
OF
PROSEaJI ION
b) 6), b) 7) C)
9. On May 26,
1987,
Department of Just ice ,
Defense
Procurement
Fraud
Unit,
declined
prosecution
in
this matter.
STATUS
OF INVESTIGATION
10 . Investigation is corcplete. No further activity is planned.
COM-1AND tDTIFICATION
1 1
A
copy o f t h i s r e p o r t w i l l be
fo
rwarded to
ROME
and
DCASR-Philadelphia.
W A R N I N G
.
CL
SS FIC TION
H
s
QFF\Sl l
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
5/69
4
8710078A-31-CCI -01DC-E3C/F
DATE May
22
1987
EXHIBITS ATTACHMENTS}
1. Referral to OCIS from
DCASR
dtd Oct 23, 1986
2.
Amendment
of solicitation/modification of contract dtd Apr
22
1987
3.
Price
Negotiation
Memorandum dtd Mar 6 1987
4. Letter
from
BOOZ
to ROME
dtd
Oct 31 1986
DISTR 0003/0CASR-PHI-G/lONY/lOSY
L SSIFI TION
OFFlel L HS
NLY
PP
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
6/69
N871 4561
BOOZ,
LLEN
HAMILTON, INC
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
7/69
I
DEPART
M._NT
OF
DEFENSE
INSP ECTOR
_,ENERAL
orF1c i : : OF ASS ISTANT INSPECTOR GENCRAL FOR I NVE ST
I C A T JO N S
.
DEFE NSE CR I
M
INAL
INV EST IGA
T
IV
E
SERVICE
DAYTON
FIELD
OFFICE
C/O GENTILE STATION
1000 FRANKLIN
STREET,
SUITE 2
DAYTO
N, OHIO 4 5
444 -5330
8 7 1 4 5 6 I O S M A Y 8 7 3 ~ D Y
E 4 C
/ F
BOOZ
ALLEN' HAMILTON INC., Bethesda, MD
BOOZ
ALLEN &
HAMILTON,
INCORPORATED
Appl ied Science
Divis ion
4330 East-Wes t Highway
Bethesda,
MD
20814-4455
& Hamilton
August 17
1993
CASE TERMINATION : On May 5, 1987,
t h i s
inves t iga t ion
was
i n i t i a t e d
fol lowing rece ip t of i n f o r ~ a t i o n a l leg ing t ha t
o f f i c i a l s o f Booz
Allen
& Hamilton had
mischarged
employee
l abor
hours
fo r
opera t ion of
the
SURVIAC
Center ,
a
cos t plus
f ixed fee
co n t r ac t
sponsored by
the
Defense Elec t ron ics Supp.ly cen ter to
numerous cos t
type
pro jec t s
sponsored
by othe r Department
of
Defense
a c t i v i t i e s under the
same co n t r ac t
DLA900-85C-0395. The
a b l i s h e d t ha t and
o f f i c i a l s of Booz
Allen
&
Hamil ton,
had
d i r ec t ed
a r t i f i c i a l i n f l a t i on of
co s t
propos a l s s
ubmit ted
for
four
Spec ia l
Tasks, and then
had d i r ec t ed
em
ploy
ees of t he
SURVIAC Center , Dayton, OH to mischarge t h e i r l abor to
these
Si e c i a l Tasks. The inves t iga t ion
a l s o
es tab l i sh e d t h a t
llWEP'
@ 18111 had d i rec ted employees of o the r Booz Allen
&
Hamilton
work s i t e s to mischarge l abor
hours
to
accounts
o f
the
SURVIAC
Center .
The
t o t a l value of
these mischarged
l abor hours was
$209
,
699.72.
Booz-Allen
made
p a r t i a l r e s t i tu t i o n
o f
$96,178.75
on May 1 1988 . A Report o f Inves t iga t ion w
as i ssued
on September
3 1991 .
On September 21, 1992,
t he
case
was
dec l ined
fo r c r imina l
prosecu t ion and was
r e fe r red fo r
eva l
u
a t i o n
o f c i v i l remedies.
N :
F
''
,.)""J?-
0,.1
..,
1
..,
.
.
._,
. .a.
.i.
.....,11
...
.i;.-1.1'\ l 1
. iy
I
W A f l N I H G
>ropc11y
of
1he
Ocpanmcn
t
of De fense
In
. . ii_
o
any party under
t >, ~ i o n
or
c
u t ~ < oucside hc rcce1vtr1 th
e
soec C ic
f>riot author11a11()1\ of
hr.
AuH-'t\ t lns.c>
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
8/69
8710456I - 05 -MAY-87-35DY-E4C/F August 17,
1993
BOOZ
LLEN
& H MILTON INC . ,
Bethesda,
MD e t a l ) Page 2
on
June
11, 1993, Booz Allen & Hamilton and the
United
s ta tes
entered
into
a
set t lement agreement under
which
Boaz
Allen
& Hamilton paid an addit ional
261,000
in
r e s t i tu t ion
of
all
c
la i
ms.
Under
tha t s e t t l
ement,
the government
agreed not
to
pursue debarment of the company, and
not
to seek c iv i l or
cr iminal prosecut ion
of
the company
or
it s off icers and
employees.
The company
agreed
to modify it s t ime charging
pract ices ,
perform
in ternal
reviews
of
time-keeping
procedures,
and accomplish
various ot
her in ternal
programs
to
prelude
future
rnischarging pract ices .
All invest igat ive repor ts and other documents prepared
in
the course
of th i s
inves t iga t ion
were
previously
submitted,
and
th i s
invest igat ion
i s
closed
.
b) 6), b) 7) C)
Prepared
b) 6), b) 7) C)
Dayt
on
FO
DISTR: 03B/DESC- G
PP
.
ASSIF
I
CATION
W A RH I H G
FQi; QFFJ;QJiAfs W Silii Q}lJsY"
dis1ribu1cd
ou tside the rcce1v1
. -
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
9/69
N8810603T - BOOZ,
LLEN
HAMILTON, INC
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
10/69
DEPART
1v1ENT
O F DE FE NS E
N S P E C T ~
GE NE RA L
OFFICE
OF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS
DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE
WASHINGTON
FIELD
OFFICE
900
SOUTH
WASHINGTON STREET. SUITE 204
FALLS
CHURCH, VIRGINIA 2 2 0 4 6 4 0 2 0
DCIS CASE
ACTION
CONTROL :
8810603T-24-JUN-88-01DC-AlW/R
July 6 1988
TITLE
TITLE
CONT
REPORT BY:
MADE AT
STATUS
PURPOSE
DETAILS
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INCORPORATED, e t
a l .
Arlington, Virgin ia
b) 6), b) 7) C)
Bi r t h
Employment:
b) 6) b) 7) C)
SSN:
UNK
b) 6) b) 7) C)
Washington,
D.C.
Open/Closed
b) 6), b) 7) C)
USN,
SSN
:
UNK
UNK
Referral of
Hotl ine
Complaint
DoD Hotl ine
Complaint
88-T44293
On
June
17
the DoD
Hotline
a l l e
i l
ed
t ha t
USN, and
W
W Mjl had met on April 21, 1988, for the purpose of. i n f l u e n n ~
the
award
of
Contract No .
N00019-87
- R-0122 to BOOZ ALLEN. wtl JW
has been ident i f ied in the jo in t Federal Bureau
of
Inves t iga t ion
FBI) and . the Naval Inves t iga t ive
Service
(NIS)
inves t iga t ion
ca l l
ed ILLWIND
as
having been involved
in
t
he
se
l
l ing
of
procurement sens i t ive information to various DoD contractors . On
June
24, 1988,
the attached
DoD Hotline complaint was refer red to
NIS, and
Joseph
Aronica, Ass i s an
Sta tes Attorney, Eastern Dis t r i c t
of
Virginia,
f
appropriate .
t
b) 6), b) 7) C)
DISTR: 000 3/NIS /HL
L
us
r
ON Y
APPR:
W A R N I
NG
This docume nspector General and
is
on loan to your a en to any party under investigation
nor
ment be
distributed
o
ut
side
the receiving ag
c
spe
cific
nrinr authorization of the Assistant Ins ector General for lnvesti ations.
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
11/69
N9 1 852R
BOOZ, LLEN HAMILTON, INC
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
12/69
INSPECTOR
GENERAL
DEPARTMENT
OF
DE:FENSE
DEFENSE CR IMI NAL
INVESTIGATIVE
SERVI CE
Washington Field
Office
1111 Jefferson
Davis
Highway, Su ite 108
Ar
lin gton, Virginia 22202-4306
9010852R-12-JUL-90-01DC-E3A/R
July 12, 1990
BOOZ, ALLEN HAMILTON, Inc.
4330 East
West Highway
Bethesda,
M
20814-4455
CASE
INITIAT ION/REFERRED:
This inv
es t i ga t i
on
was
i n i t i a t ed
upon
rece ip t
of a
Suspected Ir
regu l a r i ty
Referra
l
Form
DCAAF
2000.0)
from the Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA)
a l l eg ing
tha t Booz, Allen
Hami I ton (BAH)
Inc .
a subcont rac tor
to
McDonnel
I
Douglas, INCO, Inc . had provided fa l se bi 1 1
ing
info
rmation
which
r esu l ted in
excessive bi
I I
ings paid
by
the U.S
.
Government. On Ju l y 1
1, 1990, Report ing Agent (RA), accompanied
by Air Force Off ice of Spec ia l
Inves t igat ions
(AFOSI)
met
w i
th
Defense
Contrac t
Audit Agency
(DCAA),
Beltway Branch Off ice Germantown,
Maryland. The
purpose
of the meeting was to discuss the DCAAF
2000.0 he had
recent ly
completed and submit ted to DCIS. A i
had
recent ly comp le ted
an audi t of
a F i rm Fixed
Price Leve
l of
Effor t
BAH
subcont rac t
valued
a t approximately 3 mi
I I
ion
to
provide t echnica l serv ices .
Allli s ta ted tha t from the resu l t s of his audi t BAH
f raudulent ly
committed
labor
subs t i tu t ion
in the amount
of
approximately 124,87
1 by
subs t i tu t ing
Program
Manager
(PM) r a t e s
as
sec re t a r i a l
support ra te s in order
to
meet f inal requirements
which
were
t a rge t
hours.
Grant
s t a t ed tha t the
PM ra te s
a re
approximate
ly
60
.
07 per hour
versus
sec re ta r ia l support ra te s a t
approximately
18.94 per hour.
A
review of a l I records and re l a t ed mate r i a l s disc losed tha t
the prime
con t rac t was awarded
and adminis tered
by
Rome
Air
Development
Center , Gri f f i s s
Air Force
Base, New
York. Based on
the above informat ion, t h i s
matter is refer red to
AFOSI
Detachment
41 1, Bol I
ing Air Fo
r
ce, Washington,
D .
C. for f inal
dispos i t ion .
Attachment:
DCA
AF
2000.0
dated
June
8,
1990
b) 6), b) 7) C)
Pr
e
par
e d
by
DISTR: 038/AFOSI
IC T I
ON
OFFICIAL
USE
O ~ L Y
Wa
shi
n
gton FO
APPR:
b) 6), b) 7) C)
W A R N I N
urnen
1
1s
the proocrtv o f th
r, Deoar1men1
o f Defense
Inspec
to r nd is
on
loan to Y nw
may
not bed v under 1nves119auon
nor
m v 1h
1s
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
13/69
N91112 9 BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
INC
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
14/69
INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVE
ST
IGATIVE
SERVICE
WashingtonField Office
l l l l Jeff
erson
Davis
Highway, Suite 108
Arlington, Virginia
22202-4306
REPORT OF
INVESTIGAT
ION
91112090-29-MAY-91-0lDC-EOS/U
December
18,
1991
8002, ALLEN
AND HAMILTON INC.
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda,
MD
20814-4455
DISTRIBUTION:
DCIS eadquar ters ( 0038
US Army Labora tory Co
mm
and, f f ~ c e of
Cou
nse l
FlC TIO
N:
BFFtet
-
l
u-s.
ut v
I
I
I
1
W R N I N G
Th cument is the property
of
th e Department of Defense
n
nd is .
on
loan
to
you
11v
_
party
under
investiga
tion
.
nor
11
uted 9uts1 e h ut the specific '
prior authorization or the .Assistant Inspector General for Investigations .
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
15/69
2
91112090 29 MAY 91 0lDC EOS\U
T BLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Narra t ive
A
den t i t y
of Subjec t
B
Exh
i b i t s
c
L SSIFI T ION .
W R N I
NG
This documen
t is
the property
of the
Department
of Defense Inspector Gen
d
IS
g
I
I AL YS
n
'
on ents
may
not
be
di
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
16/69
3
91112090 29 MAY 91 lDC EOS\U
Narrat ive
.
1.
This
inves t iga t ion
was
i n i t i a t ed
on May 9 , 1991
fo l lowing
the
r ece ip t of
informat ion
from
the
Off ice of
Chief Counsel ,
U. S .
Army Laboratory Command (LABCOM) , Adelphi , MD, which impl i ca t e s
Booz, Allen and
Hamilton,
Inc.
8 0 0 2 ) ,
4330
East West
Highway,
Bethesda, MD
20814-4455
in
a procurement i r r e gu la r i t y .
b) 6) b) 7) C)
2 . On May 9 , 1991, - _
, LABCOMr
advised tha t
review of con t rac t DAAL02-90-C-
0075
(C-0075),
Task
Order
P00006,
revea led
t ha t
the
d i r e c t
l abor
cos t s
proposed by Booz
were
i de n t i c a l to th.e d i r e c t
l abor
cos t s
on the I nd
ependent
Government Cost Est imate (IGCE) . In add i t ion ,
the o r ig in of the IGCE
was
ques t ionab le
in
t h a t
t was
unsigned
and
had no i nd ica t ion of i t s
source
. Normally , the IGCE should
be s igned
by the government
Reques ter , and
accompanied by the
Statement
of
Work
SOW)
when
forwarded to the o v e r n m ~ n t
con t rac t ing off i ce
.
Exhib i t
A s e t s fo r th d e t a i l s
of
the Emery
in te rv iew.
b) 6), b) 7) C)
3 . On
May 9 , 1991,
Off ice
of
Chief
Counsel ,
LABCOM, adv ised t h a t C-0075,
Task
Order
P0006
was
reques ted by
the Off ice of the Di rec to r of
Net
Assessments (DNA), Off ice of
the
Under
Secre ta ry
of
Defense
fo r Pol icy (OUSD(P)), in suppor t
of
Operat ion Deser t
S ~ o r m C-0075 i s Time and Mater ia l s .
con t rac t
in
support of Technology Base,
and
was awarded on Ju ly
25, 1990
with a ce i l i n g p r i c e of
50,000. The cos t s on
C-0075
were determined by a l i n e i tem schedule which es tab l i shed . ho u r l y
~ a t e s
based on l abor ca tegory .
The
cos t s
represented
on both the
Booz
proposal and
on the IGCE
in
ques t ion re accura te as
co
mpared to
the es tab l i shed l abor ra t es .
Exhibi t
B s e t s fo r t h
d e t a i l s of the Spi tza in terview.
-
advised
t ha t
in
the
F a l l of
1990
Booz
presen ted
an
unso l ic i t ed
proposal
fo r
the
Econo
m
i c ,
Mi l
i t a ry ,
and
Demographic Enhancement of the Regional
Assessment
Methodology (RAM). DNA, OUSD(P) i n i t i a l l y r e j ec t ed t h i s
proposa l . Following
the
i n i t i a t i o n of
. Qperat ion Desert Storm,
-A-1-
W N IN
1 do c um
ent
the
properf)' of
ttie Depar
tment
of
De
fense Inspector Generaf and
s
C L ASSIF I
CATION
.on loan t nts
may not
be disclos
1
ves t1ga t1
on
nor may
this
dcxument
be
a
ncy
w11hou1
the
spec
1
f1c
prior t e Assistlln t Inspector
General
for lnves 1
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
17/69
4
91112090 29 MAY 91 0lDC EOS\
U
DNA, OUSD P)
developed
a need
fo r the RAM,
but wanted
the SOW
in
support of t ~ Opera t ion . It was determined t ha t a so le source
procurement e f f o r t
wou l d t ake up
to
t ~ r e e
~ o n t h s
hqwever,
the
need required immediate ac t ion . LABCOM con t rac t
C-0075
was
subsequent ly i den t i f i ed
as
an
appro
li i t e con t rac t veh ic l e .
Exhib i t C s e t s fo r th d e t a i l s of the in terview .
-
Booz adv ised t h a t the R M was an
ana ly t ica l
methodology
developed
by
Booz
under
con t rac t
to
DNA
.
The RAM was developed
p r io r
to
C-0075.
In the Fal l of 1990
lll?JWI
presen ted an u
nsol ic
i t e d prqposal to
DNA,
OUSD P) fo r the
RAM sp e c i f i c to Economic, Mil i t a ry
and
Demographic Enhancement .
This r o p o s a l
was essen
t i a l l y a SOW with cos t f igu res
a t tached
.
WIML
was subsequent ly contacted
by
DNA, OUSD P) and
asked
f
o r
l eve l of e f f o r t es t imate
t a i l o r ed
to
be
in
support of Ope
r a t i o n
Desert Storm . OUSD P) personnel next
con tac ted
him
req u
es t ing
t h a t
his
co s t es t imates be converted
i n to spec i f i c l abor
ca tegor ies . 119 provided the same informat ion to Booz>s
con t rac t of f i c e , which
submit ted a formal cos t
es
t imate to LABCOM
fo r Task
Order P0006 .
Exhib i t
D
s e t s fo r th d e t a i l s of the
1 9 9 1 -
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OUSD P) advised t ha t , concerning
the RAM,
DNA
would
normal ly h
ave issue< l
a s o l e source
con t rac
.
t' to
Booz .
Time cons t ra ins stemming f r o ~ the
war
e f f o r t required t h a t .
OUSD P)
f ind
an a l t e rna t ive .procuremen t source . Her. o f f i c e
subse quen t ly
made
a Mil i t a ry In te rdepar tmenta l
Purcha
se
Req
ues t
MIPR )
to
.LABOOM . The RAM
e f fo r t
was added
to
co n t rac t c-0075
a s
Task
Orde
r
P00006. The SOW
was
taken d i r e c t ly from Booz>s
o r ig in a l . unso l i c{ ted
proposal
. . IJMtiJll
prov.ided
119 1' supra)
with break
out
.
of the
r equ i red
l abor
catego r i e s , and reques ted
an
es t imate based on sp e c i f i c ca tegor ies .
Tl1e IGCE was
then
es tab l i shed
by
comparing
pg>mp
l abor
hour
e .s t i m
a t e
to
the
.
l abor
ca tegory
r a t e schedul
e
for
C-0075.
Exhibi t
E
s e t s f o r t
h
d e t a i l s . of
the
WlI9' IJI
in terview
.
7.
Sin.cs
no
cr imina l a c t iv i t y
has
b e ~ un.covered, t h i s case i s
c losed.
No j ud ic i a l
ac t ion
wil l occur . There i s no known lo s s
to the
Governme n
t .
-A-2-
CL SS IFIC TION W R N I N
8 Ff
lelAL
HSE
.
ANLV
the property
of me Department
of
Defense Ins ec
on
loan to your agen . party under- 1nvest1ga11on
..
no"
may
this
doc
outs
ncv
wi thou
t t
he
specific
.p r1zat1on
of
the Assistant Inspector General for ln vest1ga
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
18/69
91
112 9 29 MAY 91 lDC EOS\
Iden t i ty of Subjec t s
BOOZ ALLEN AND
HAMILTON INC
4330
Eas t West Highway
Bethesda
M 20814-4455
5
Commodity: 8 0 0 2 Allen and Hamilton prov ides computer sof tware
packages
to
the Department of Defense
-B -
L SSIFI TION
W A R H I H
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
19/69
6
9
111
9 29 M
AY 91
l DC
S\U
EXHIBITS
A
8
c
D
E
DCIS Form 1 ;
Interview
of
DCIS Form 1;
Interview of
DCIS Form 1; Interview of
DCIS Form 1;
Interview of
DCIS F o r ~ 1 ; Interview of
(b) (6), (b)
c6l c6I
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
20/69
N9210122A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS INC
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
21/69
INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTM
ENT
OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE
SERV
ICE
Washington Field Office
l l l l Jefferson
Davis Hi
ghway,
Suite
108
Ar
lington,
Virginia 22202-4306
9210122A-22-0CT-91-0 1BT-E3ZZ/U
TELECO
MMUN
ICATIONS SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED A n n a p o l i s , MD
CASE TERMINATION: This c a s e
was
i n i t i a t e d upon a r e f e r r a l
f rom
Defense
C o n t r a c t Management
D i s t r i c t M i d - A t l a n t i c (DCMDM-G), Phi l a d e l p h i a , PA. 1"9'P'
i
n d i c a t e d
t h a t
she
had
r e c e i v e d
a
Depar t men t
o f
Defense
(DoD)
H o t l i n e (No.
91-L-49312)
f rom
an
i nd iv idua l i d e n t i f i e d
Booze, Al len and
Harni I
ton
(BAH), B
e the s da , MD
and ESA, Tampa,
FL.
1'9'liJlllll
r e l
a t e d
a scheme by TCS and BAH t h a t
c o n s i s t e d
of f r a udu le n t
mi s c h a r g i n g
on DoD c o n t r a c t s . The a l l e g a t i o n s a l l e g e d
t h a t
o f f i c e r s o f
res
and BAH pr ov ided
approva l f o r
c h a r g i n g
non-
a l
lowab
l e c o s t s a s d i r
e c t expenses
to c o s t r e i mb u r s a b l e
c o n t r a c t s . A l l e g e d l y ,
t h e s e c o s t s
inc luded
t h i n g s such
a s
b i d
and pr oposa I (B P) man hours , r e n t a I c a r s
prov ided to
consu I t a n ts
for
t h e i r
pe r sona l
u s e , i n d u s t r y c on f e r e nc e s be ing
c h a r g e d
to
r e imbur sab
l e
c o n t r a c t s ,
and
p e r s o n a l
v a c a t i o n
tr ps
cha r ged
t o
d i r e c t
c o n t r a c t s .
This was a
jo
i n t i n v e s t i
g a t i o n
w i t h
t h e
Naval
I n v e s t i g a t i v e S e r v i c e
NIS) ,
B a l t i mo r e , MD and t h e
U.S . Air
Force ,
O f f i c e o f
Spec ia l
I nve s t i ga t i on (AFOSI) , Ba l t i mo r e , MD.
NIS
was c o n s i d e r e d
t h e l
ead agency
in
t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and
i s
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t he f i na l Repor t o f Inves t i g a t i o n ROI) . A copy
o f
NISs
RO I wi I I
be f i l e d upon
i
ts
r e c e i p t .
On November 12, 1991,
wz m Wl fDI
was in t e rv iewed a t h i s
p l a c e
o f r e s i d e n c e by
age n t s . l K l i f ~
d e n t i f i ed t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y
of
t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t TCS, BAH as wel I
a s
new a l l e g a t i o n s
a Q a i n s t ESA
were
based upon as sumpt ions t h a t he made w h i l e
Wfl'" Ce
When
con
f r
on
t ed by
age
n t s "'lj m '-m
.10. _.
a d m i t t e d
t h a t
he
d id no t
have any
d i
r e c t
knowledge
t h a t
TCS,
BAH
o r ESA had per formed any wrong do ings .
1''2IWVl I
a l s o adv i sed
a e n t s t h a t
he
had no t iven a sworn s t a t e m e n t to h i s
a t t o r n e y ,
no t i f i e d
a g e n t s
t h a t he or
ig i
na l l y
had f i l e d
su
i t
W A R H I H G
ThlS
document is 1he
proprty
of the Department of Defense
Inspector General and 1s
on lo
an
to
yo
ur agency
.
Conten
t s
may
not
be disclosed
to
any party
under
i
0
nvestigation
nor
may h s
do cu
me
nt
be distributed
outside the receiving
agency
w1thou1 1hc spc
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
22/69
2
9210122A-22 - 0CT -
91
-
01BT
-
E3ZZ /U
May
26 ,
1992
agains t
ES
in
the
Southern
Di s t r i c t
of Ohio, Wes t e rn Divis ion,
Dayton, Ohio. However, t h i s
su i t
was
thrown out
because i t
had
been f i l ed improperly. JIWIMll sa id t ha t he had
no
in ten t ions
of
r e - f i
I
ing
the
s u i t .
I t appears
tha t the major i ty of
the compla inan t s
al
legatlons were based
so le ly
on
assumptions and
tha t
very
few of
the
al legations , i f
any,
could be substan t ia ted .
In
addi t ion ,
the U.S. Attorney s
Off ice USAO), Balt imore ,
O has
shown
minimal
prosecut ive in te res t
in t h i s case a t th i s
t ime.
Accordingly,
t h i s
inves t igat ion
is closed.
Prepared y
Balt imore
R
b) 6), b) 7) C)
DISTR:
003B/01DC/250R/NIS
) /AFOS
I
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
23/69
N961 559D
BOOZ-ALLEN HAMILTON, INCORPORATED
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
24/69
9610559D 18 APR 96 60DC J1ZX/D
REPORT OF
INVESTIG TION
BOOZ-ALLEN AND HAMILTON INCORPORATED
SKY
ONE STORAGE
INCORPORATED
53 2 Leesburg Pi
ke
al l s Church
V 22 41
DISTRIBUTION
DCIS
Headquarters
Department of
Transpor
t a t i on IG
U. S . Coast
Guard
July
2
1996
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
25/69
9610559D 18 APR 96 60DC J1ZX/D
NARRATIVE :
1 .
This
i n v e s t i g a t i o n
was
i n i t i a t e d
based on
a
compla
i n t
from
t h e
U.
S. Department
o f
Transpor ta t ion
(DOT) ,
Uni ted
S ta t e s
Coast Guard
{USCG) ,
Washington
,
D.C
. , t h a t
t h e USCG was s to r in g
a Sun Sparc -
20
Cent ra l
Process ing
Un
t
(CPU) sys tem wi th Booze ,
Al len , and Hamil ton, I
nc
.
(BAHI),
5203 Leesburg Pike , Su i t e 509 ,
F a l l s Church
,
VA
and
t was
discovered
miss ing
and
presumed
s to len . Exhibi t 1)
2 . The USCG r ece iv ed th e
Department
o f
Defense (DoD)
purchased CPU
,
which
was des t ined
fo r t h e DoD J o in t Drug Task
Force (JDTF) in September
1994
. The
CPU
was
to
be p laced in t h e
JDTF c l a s s i f i e d f a c i l i t y b ut , a t t h a t t ime t h e r e was no room fo r
t h e
i tem
.
The
USCG
u t i l i z e d
BAHI
under
an
ex i s t i n g
U. S .
Navy
con t rac t
to prov ide
se rv ice s
to
t h e JDTF. The
USCG
rece ived
permiss ion
to s to re
under
t h e CPU
under
t h e
Navy con t rac t . The
i tem , c o n s i s t i n g
o f
12 boxes , was placed in s to rage a t Sky One
Storage ,
Inc
. In March
1995
when
t h e USCG r e t u rn ed to p i ck
u p
the CPU system,
t
was discovered t h a t s ev e ra l
o f
t h e boxes w
e re
miss ing from
t h e
s to rage
f ac i
l
i t y .
In May 1995 ,
an
i n v en t o ry
t aken by t h e USCG a t BAHI conf i rmed t
he boxes
were miss ing .
Contac t wi th t h e BAHI f a c i l i t i e s manager by t h e USCG r ev ea l ed
t ha t BAHI
checked
t h e i r own inven tory but
cou
l d not f ind
the
miss ing
i tems
. The BAHI o f fe red no exp l ana t ion fo r t h e l o s s nor
would
t
accep t
r e s p o n s ib i l i t y fo r t h e
l oss .
3 .
The
USCG rev iewed ts
own inven tory a t
ts c l a s s i f i e d
work s i t e s and f a i l e d
to
f i n d t h e miss ing CPU s .
4 . In te rv iews o f USCG and BAH personnel by t h e r e p o r t i n g
agent v e r i f i ed the fac t s repor ted in t h e
aforement ioned
paragraphs bu t
of fe red no l eads as
to
t h e
c i rcumstances
sur rounding t h e CPU
' s
disappearance
.
Exhib i t s
2 , 5 ,
6,
9 , 10
and 11)
b) 6) b) 7)C )
5. ,
c la imed
t h a t BAHI
n o t i f i e d
hi s
bui ld ing
' s
s e c u r i t y
o f f i c e
,
the
bui ld ing land lo rd ,
t h e l o ca l
pol i ce
and the manufacturer o f the CPO . Exhib i t
3)
6 . Contac t with the bui ld ing l and lord , bui ld ing s ecu r ty
and t h e l o ca l p o l i ce f a i l ed
t o v e r i f y 1 '9 c la ims . Exhib i t s
7, 8 and 12)
2
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
26/69
96
0559D 18 APR 96 60DC JlZX/D
7 . Contact with
the
CPU manufacturer
conf i rmed
they had
been con tac ted by BAHI but
the re
i s no program in place to
recover
the
i t em i f
the
i t em was l a t e r
serv iced
by them under
warranty
. They
f u r th e r
ver i f i ed
they
had
no
record
of
se rv ic ing
the
CPU in
the
p as t . (Exhibi t 4)
8 . Contact wi th
a l l these
aforement ioned p a r t i e s revea led
no
l eads as exp la in the CPU s l o ss .
b) 6) b) 7) C)
9 . , denied r e sp o n s i b i l i t y
fo r
the l os s of the
computer
in
wri t t en correspondence c i t i n g BAHI
they had
no con t rac tua l ob l iga t ion to
s to re
the
miss ing i t ems .
He explained t he re
was no
pol ice
r epor t because t he re were
no
s igns
o f
a
break- in
and
the
lo s s was discovered dur ing a
rou t ine
inventory .
This
was
cont ra ry
to
the
USCG
s ta tements
t ha t
the
i tems
were
discovered miss ing when they went to pick
up
the
i tems from BAHI s s to rage . - fu r the r c i t ed
t ha t
BAHI had a
verba l agreement with the USCG t h a t
BAHI
would not be
respons ib le should
something
happen
to i tems whi le in
BAHILs
s to rage f a c i l i t y . This i s a l so
cont ra ry
to s ta tements by the
USCG and
manufac ture r
had been no t i f i ed t h a t i the mi s s i n g i t em i s
se rviced
to n o t i f y BAHI .
This a l so i s
con t ra ry to in fo rmat ion
the repor t ing
agent
rece ived
from
the
manufacturer
which
acknowledged
contac t with BAHI
and
the
f ac t
it
had no
record o f
se rv ic ing
t he
miss ing
i tem . Exhib i t s
6,
10
and
13)
10
.
The USCG
denied any such
agreement ,
but
acknow
l
edged
the re
was
no
con t rac tua l
obl iga t ion
with which they could
force
BAHI
to
make
good
the
Government
s lo s s .
Exhibi t 6)
11 . The BAHI counsel
fu r the r claimed it had
taken
a l l s teps
necessary to
both safeguard
the
CPU and
to
recover t he miss ing
i t em
upon
discovery o f its lo s s .
(Exhibi t
10)
12. The
case was
presented to
Connie
Fragale , Ass is tan t
U.S
.
Attorney,
Department
of
Jus t i ce , C iv i l
Divis ion
,
Eas te rn
D is t r i c t o f
Virgin ia ,
Alexander, VA who dec l ined to t ake
f u r th e r ac t ion c i t i n g the
Government
would be hard
pressed
to
t ake
BAHI
to
t a sk fo r the loss
o f
t h e CPU.
13.
The l oss to the Government for the mi
ss ing
CPU
sys tem
i s
25 , 445 . The inves t iga t ion did not i d en t i f y d e f i c i en c ie s
3
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
27/69
9610559D 18 APR 96 60DC J1ZX/D
su f f i c i en t enough to warrant a
Management Control Defic iency
Report . However , the contractor s lack of abi l i ty to safeguard
U. S . Government proper ty
and i t s fu r the r ins i s tence
t ha t t
was
not
respons ib le fo r
the
Governm ent s
lo s s
sugges t s
a review
by
the con t rac t admin i s t ra to r
as
to the con t rac to r s ab i l i t y to
perform fu tu re Government work.
4
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
28/69
9610559D 18
APR 96 60DC JlZX/D
IDENTITY OF SUBJECTS
BOOZ-ALLEN
ND
H MILTON
INCORPOR TED
SKY ONE
STOR GE
INCORPOR TED
53 2 Leesburg Pike
Fal l s
Church
V 22 41
Commodity
: The
Configura t ion computers fo r
U. S . Coast
Gua rd . B HI i s a
Top
1 DoD ontractor .
5
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
29/69
9610559D 18 APR 96 60DC J1ZX/D
EXHIBITS :
1 - U. S .
Coast Guard
Report
of
I
nves t iga t ion
dated
September
10 1995.
2 - DCIS
Form
1 ;
In te rv iew
of
BAHI
employee
Apri l
18 1996
.
3 - DCIS
Form
1 ;
In t e r
view
of
BAHI
1996
.
b) 6) b) 7) C)
4
-
DCIS
Form
1;
I
nterv iew
o f Manufacturer
5
-
DCIS
Form
1 ; In te rv iew
o f
BAHI
employee
6
- DCIS
Form
1 ;
In te rv iew
o f
7
-
DCIS
Form
1 ;
Contac t w it
h
BAHI
Wf ' h
Apri l
18
Apri l 18
1996.
Apri l
18 1996
.
Apri l
18
1996
.
8
-
DCIS
Form
1;
Contact
wi th Bui ld ing Secur i ty
Apri l 18
1996.
9
-
DCIS Form
1 ;
In te rv iew o f BAHI
Secur i ty
10
- DCIS
Form
1 ;
In te rv iew
o f
b) 6), b) 7) C)
11
- DCIS
Form 1; In te rv iew o f
BAHI
Apri l 18
1996.
b) 6) b) 7) C)
Apri l 18 1996
.
Apri l 18
1996.
12 - DCIS Form 1 ; Contac t
wi th Loca
l
Pol ice Apri l
18 1996.
13 - DCIS Form
l ;
Contac t
wi th B HI
11' 1' 1'
May 28
1996
.
Prepared
by
b) 6), b) 7) C)
Mid -
Atlan t ic FO
APPR:
6
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
30/69
N971 198W
- BOOZ LLEN HAMILTON, INC
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
31/69
9710198W-24-DEC-96-60DC-E3W/U
SPECIAL INTEREST
C SE
DOD HOTLINE
NO
.
96-T63927
TOP
100
CONTR CTOR
BOOZ
, AL
LEN H MI
L
TON
, I
NCORPOR TED
McLean , Virg in ia
DISTRIBUTION :
DCIS
Headquar te rs
03FB)
DOD
Hot
l in
e
Defense
Contrac t Audit Agency
,
Ft
.
elvoi r
,
V
NARRATIVE
August
9 ,
1998
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
32/69
1. This invest igat ion
was
in i t i a ted based on the rece ip t of
Department
of
Defense
DOD)
Hotline complaint number
96-T63927, al leging t ha t Booz,
Allen
Hamilton,
Incorporated (BAH), had overcharged labor
and re la ted
costs on i t s
DoD
and other
Federal
Government contracts . (EXHIBIT 1) On
December 12,
1996 the complainant fur ther alleged tha t BAH i s
bi l l ing
unallowable costs as allowable ; has ghost employees; i s bi l l ing a t
dif ferent
overhead
and
general
and
administra t ive
ra tes
than
agreed;
is
bi l l ing fr inge
benefi ts
with no associated direc t
labor,
and has hidden ''
costs
i n the i r
accounting system
.
2 .
I t
was
determined
tha t
the
same
complainant
had
f i led similar
al legat io ns in March 1996 and
August
1996, with the Defense Contract
Audit Agency DCAA), the Federal
Bureau of
Invest igat ion
(FBI)
and the
Agency
for Internat iona l Development Office
of
Inspector
General
(AID-
IG) . Some
of the issues addressed in the DoD Hotline
compl
aint
dated
October 1996 ,
had
been addressed in the previous complaints . Some of the
al legat ions
had
been
reviewed and resolved during t he
course of DCAA
audits
a t
BAH . Other i s s ues re la ted specif ica l ly
to
an AID
contract
with
BAH
,
number
09001010179 , which AID-IG and
the
FBI were already
invest
i
gating
,
with
the
support
of
DCAA.
3 . A
review
was
conducted
of a sampling
of
BAH/DoD contracts , and the
re la ted
DoD con tract administra tors were
interviewed,
to determine
whether the
mischarging
found on the AID
contract could occur on
the
DoD
contracts
. (EXHIBITS 2 3) I t was
determined
tha t due to the
language
used in the
DoD contracts ,
acts
of mischarging
similar to those occurring
on the AID
contract could
not and did not
occur
on
the DoD contracts
.
DCAA further conf i
rmed
tha t
they had not seen th is type
of
mischarging on
DoD contracts
.
4.
AID- IG and
the
FBI
are
pu
rsuing c iv i l remedies pertaining to the
AID
contract , through
the
United States
Attorney ' s
Office
, Eastern ist r ict
of Virginia
.
5 . Numerous
meeti
ngs
were
held
with DCAA wherein completed
and ongoing
audi ts
a t BAH were discussed and reviewed as they re la ted
to
the
remaining
al legat ions . EXHIBI
TS
4& 5) DCAA
was
not able
to
corroborate
any
of the DoD re la ted al legat ions
made by
the
complainant
nor were there
any
audi t
finding s tha t were not immediate ly noted and corrected during
the i r
audi t s ,
with respect to DoD contracts and bi l l ings
.
Furthermore,
DCAA was in the process
of
completing
contract audi t c losing revi ews for
the time
period
in question
and did
not find
any
deficiencies nor
questioned costs during these
reviews
.
BAH, and
of
t
he Hotline complainqnt
, was i
nterviewed.
(EXHIBIT
6) He provided information tha t fur ther c lar i f ied the
al legat ions
. He
also
provided
copies of a briefing
package
he had
created per taining to
findings of
the
complainant, during
his
employment
a t BAH. This briefing
package had been presented
to
the executives
a t
BAH by Ulll illll and the
complainant, wh ich resul ted in
an
outside accounting firm being hired
by
BAH to review the issues. llWll believed the issu es
had
been resolved
through the revie
w and follow-up of
the
outside firm ,
in coord
i nation
with DCAA .
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
33/69
7. for
BAH
was interviewed. (EXHIBIT 7)
He tha t the
issues
were presented,
reviewed
and
corrected in
coordination
with
DCAA He further
confirmed tha t
due
to the automated accounting system B H
i s
currently using , t
is
impossible
for
many
of
the
i ssues raised in
the
allegations
to
re-occur
.
8 . Additional
meetings with DCAA fur ther confirmed
the fac t
tha t the
issues
raised
in
the
al legat ions
had been addressed and corrected , and
tha t checks
and balances within
the
current BAH
automated
accounting
system
meet with DCAA s sat isfact ion
9.
Since
no criminal
act iv i ty related
to DoD contrac t s has been
uncovered, th i s
invest igat ion
is
closed as unfounded.' '
No
judic ia l
or
administ rat ive action will occur
related
to
DoD
contrac t s . There i s no
loss to
the Department of
Defense.
10. No management
control
deficiencies were
identif ied
during
the course
of
th is invest igat ion.
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
34/69
IDENTITY OF SUBJECTS
BOOZ
ALLEN
HAMILTON INCORPORATED
8283 Greensboro
Drive
McLean Virgin ia
22102
Commodity
:
Booz
l len
Hamilton
Inc . i s a
consu l t ing
company
.
Booz
Allen
Hamilton Inc . i s
cons idered
a Top 100
Department of Defense cont rac to r .
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
35/69
EXHIBITS
1
2 .
3 .
4
5 .
6 .
7 .
Ho
t
ne
complaint
number
96-T-63927
dated October 10
1996
Report
of
contract review
dated January 7
1998
Report
of
contract
review
dated January 8 1998
Report of meeting wi th DCAA
da ted June 18
1998
Report
of
meeting
w
i th
DCAA
dated
June
19
1998
Report of
in terview
wi th
ated August
20 1997
Report of in terview wi th dated
August
9 1998
Prepared by
b) 6)
, b) 7) C)
MAFO
A.PPR
:
E W M
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
36/69
N9810289Y SCIENCE APPL INTER CORP ET AL)
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
37/69
INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEP RTMENT OF
DEFENSE
DEFENSE
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
38/69
the
NSES contrac t
was to
replace
in
which
TRW
,
BAH, and
SAIC
par t ic ipa ted in provid
i
ng support to OM and NIMA .
Addi t ional ly
, the
TRW representa t ives a l leged
t ha t
t
rumored tha t
b
) 6) b)
7
)
C)
had been
-
may
have
been
having
post-Government
employment
discuss ions
with SAIC
during
the
t imeframe
of the NSES procurement
.
Approximately for ty boxes
o f NIMA records regarding the
NSES
procurement have
been . seques t ered by t h i s invest iga t ion .
On F
ebruary 19
,
1998
,
the Federal
Bureau
o f Invest iga t ion (FBI)
was
briefed regard ing
th
i s i
nvest
i ga t i on , and
the rea f
t
er
t
he
FBI
jo ined
the
invest iga t ion
.
1998
UPDATE Dur ing t h i s period
,
regarding
his
involvement
with
No other inves t iga t ive
were
conducted
due to the
non
-
ava i l ab i l i t y
of the FBI co - case
agent , and
other
operat ional
needs involving
case agent .
JULY
3
1998 UPDATE . During th i s
per iod ,
in terviews
were
conducted a t NIMA, and TRW
.
SEPTEMBER 3
1998 UPDATE:
During t h i s
period, NIMA
records regarding
the
NSES procurement
were
reviewed.
Addit ional ly ,
t h i s
matter
was
reviewed
with
Assis tan t
U. S .
A tt
orney John
Klein o f the
United Sta tes Attorney Off ice
for
the
Eastern Dist r
i
c t
of Vir9 in ia USAO -
EDVA)
.
NOVEMBER 3
1998
UPDATE
During
th
i s
per iod
, add i t i
onal
NIMA records were reviewed
.
JANUARY 3 1999 UPDATE: During t h i s per iod in terviews
were conducted
o f
NIMA
source se lec t ion team members
.
MARCH
3
1999 UPDATE
Dur
ing
t
his period, no
invest iga t ive
leads
were
conducted
due
to
the
non-avai lab i
l i t y
of the FBI
co-case
agent ,
and other opera t iona l needs involving
case
agent
.
As a
resu l t
of a supervisory
case review
conducted on February
24 , 1999,
t
was decided tha t
interviews
o f
, and
b) 6) b) 7 )C )
conducted as soon as
poss ib le .
Subsequently, t h i s matter w i l l
be
reviewed with
the USAO-EDVA to determine
i f fur ther
invest iga t ive s teps would be
necessary.
QFFIGl
ft h
W
E LY
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
39/69
MAY 3
1999
UPDATE were
conducted with
b) 6), b)
and
Addi t iona l l y ,
di scuss ions
were conducted with the Off ice o f
General
Counsel
fo r
both
B H
,
and
SAIC ,
wherein
they
pledged .
to
cooperate with t h i s inves t iga t ion . I t i s
an t i c ip a t ed
t ha t an
add i t iona l d i scuss ion wi th
the
B H
Genera l Counsel w i l l be
requ i red
as a
r e s u l t o f ~ n f o r m t i o n
l
earned dur ing the
aforement ioned in te rv iews . Moreover t i s
an t i c ip a t ed
t hat
t h i s
mat te r
w ll be b r i e f ed to
the
US O - EDV dur ing
the
next
repor t ing per iod pr io r to producing a repor t o f
inves t iga t ion .
JUNE 22
1999
UPDATE
was conducted of B H General
Report
o f
Inves t iga t ion wll
Du r i ng t h i s per iod , an in te rv iew
Counsel . Dur ing
t he
next p e r i o d a
be prepared .
SEPTEMBER
22 1999
UPDATE Dur i ng
t h i
s repor t i ng p e r i o d no
i n v es t i g a t i v e
e f f o r t
was
expended.
A Report o f Inves t iga t ion i s
be
ing
p r epa r ed and should be completed with in the next
repor t ing
period
.
DECEMBER 22 199
9 UPDATE
Du r ing
t h i s repor t ing per iod
no
i nves t i
ga
t ive
e f f o r t was
expended . Due
to unre l a t ed ope ra t iona l
ex igenc ies , and assignments repor t ing agen t
was
unab l e to
complete prepa ra t ion o f the Report o f
I nves t iga t ion during t h i s
pe r iod . A Repor t of Inves
t
ga t ion i s being prepared , and should
be
comp
l
e ted
within
the
next
repor t ing
per iod .
MARCH 22 2000 UPDATE
During
t his repor t ing
period,
a
Report
of
Inves t i
ga t ion
wa.s submit t
ed
. This case was
closed
as
dec l ined.
b) 6), b) 7) C)
Prepared by
DISTR :
3TO
Mid
- A t lan t i c FO
APPR :
OFFICI L
USE
ONLY
WARN ING
This document is the property of the Department of Defense Inspector General and
is
on loan
to your agency. Conten
ts
may not
be
disclosed
to
any party under investigation nor may this
document be distributed outside the receiving agency without the specific authorization of
the Assistan t In
specto
r General for Investigat ions.
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
40/69
INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTMENT
OF
DEFENSE
DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVESTJGATIVE SERVICE
Mid-Atl
an
tic Field Office
1111 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 712
Arlington, Virginia 22202-4306
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
9810289Y-18-FEB-98-60DC-EOG/D
SPECIAL INTEREST CASE
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
McLean V 22102
BOOZ-ALLEN, HAMILTON, INCORPORATED
McLean , V 22103
DISTRIBUTION
DCIS Headquarters
(03FB)
federa
l
Bureau of nves t iga t ion
National
and
Ma A e nc - OGC
L SS
IF ICATION
January
3
1 2000
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
41/69
9810289Y
-
18
- F
EB
-
98
- 60DC- EOG/D
January 31,
2000
N RR T
IVE
1 .
The Nat ional Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) Off ice
o f
General Counsel OGC)
furnished
a
compla int t h a t
was
rece ived
via
I n t e l l i g en ce
Community
channels
from
TRW
Incorpora ted
.
The
TRW compla int a l l eged
v io l a t i o n s
o f the
Procurement
In
t
e g r i t y
Act
[41 USC
423 a) 3)]
r e l a t i v e
to
a NIMA Request
fo r Proposal
(RFP) NMA202 - 97-R-0001 fo r
t he
NIMA Systems Engineer ing Serv ices
(NSE
S)
by compet i to rs
Science Applica t ions
I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Corpora t ion SAIC), and Booz-Allen Hamilton ,
Incorporated
BAH) . During the NSES compet i t ion , SAIC
and BAH
t eamed
t oge the r
aga ins t TRW , and ul t ima t e ly
the
NSES con t rac t was
awarded t o the SAIC/BAH team . The
TRW compla int a l l eged t ha t
BAH rep re sen ta t ive s were aware o f
a
NIMA source
s e l ec t i o n
dec i s ion regard ing
a
reques t for
a
Best and Fina l Offer
(BAFO)
on
o r
about
October
20 ,
1997
,
t h o ~ t h
NIMA
Procurement
Con
trac t ing O ffi c e r
(PCO)
had no
t
an ounced
a
dec i s ion requi r ing
a BAFO submission
from the
compet i to rs
un t i l
November
9,
1997 .
i t i o n ~ l l y TRW a l l eged
t h a t SAIC
knew t ha t they were
awarded
the
NSES
con t rac t on or about December 16,
1997, even though
the
o f f i c i a l n o t i f i c a t i o n o f the winne r o f
the
NSES compet i t ion was
not
to
have occurred
unt il January
9 , 1998 .
2 . On February 3, 1998 , a
review of
the TRW a l l eg a t i o n s wi th
TRW rep re sen ta t ives
was
conducted
,
at tachment
(
1)
. I t was
determined t ha t TRW
had some e - mail
messages
and
witnesses t ha t
support
i t s
a l
l
ega t ions
regard ing
the a l leged
illi it
di sc losure s of the
NSES
BAFO
, and NSES award
dec i s ions weeks in
advance o f
the
NIMA con t rac t ing o f f i c e r ' s o f f i c i a l n o t i f i c a t i o n s
fo r each
even t .
Furthermore
, it was
a l l eged t ha t
b) 6) b)
7) C)
had
knowledge o f
the NSES
procurement
sens i t ive in fo rmat ion
regard ing
th
e BAFO ,
and con t rac t eva lua t
i
on/award t ha t
was
supposed
to
have been known only to . NIMA source
s e l e c t ion
a u t h o r i t i e s . Addi t iona l ly th e TRW
represe
n t a t i v e s
a l l eged t ha t
it had been rumored
t
hat 11111
D1f ' @'
- - may have been having pos t -
Government
employment
discuss ions
wi th SAIC during t
he
t imeframe
o f
the
NSES procurement.
3 . On Februa ry 19 , 1998,
the
Federa l Bureau
o f
Inves t i g a t i o n
(FBI )
was br ie fed on t h i s inves t iga t ion
. The FBI
Northern
Virg in ia Resident Agency jo ined t he inves t iga t ion .
The
per t inen t FBI case
con t ro l number was
46A- WF-211297 .
A-1
IFICATION
OB
OFFIC I i
5
OM
y
2
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
42/69
9810289Y 18 FEB 98 60DC EOG/D
January 31 , 2000
On
March
10
,
1998 , an
in te rv iew
was conducted o f
He
denied
any
post-Government
employment
discuss ions
w
i t h
SAIC;
al though
he advised
tha t
he had v i s i te d with SAIC s pres ident , r e t i r ed
Vice Admiral William
Owens ,
in December 1997
, in regard
to
t ha t
during
Admiral Owens he
never
discussed
any knowledge
he had concerning
the NSES
procurement
. He s ta ted
t ha t
he was
not
br ie fed
as
to
which contrac t ing t
eam
had won the
NSES
award unt l
January
1998 . He s ta ted t ha t t was only a t tha t time tha t he was
advised t ha t the SAIC
lead
t eam had won the NSES con t rac t
5 . Interviews were conducted
of
TRW employees who were
involved wi th
wri t ing
the l e t t e r of complaint
on
which th i s
i nves t iga t ion
was
predicated , at tachments 3) . and (
4)
. These
in te rv iews re i t e ra ted
a l l egat ions de ta i led in paragraphs and
2 .
Addi t+onal ly,
interviews
were
conducted
of
the
NIM
con t rac t ing
o f f i ce r , and
source
se lec t ion team
members
who were
responsib le for the conduct of the
NSES
procurement , at tachments
(5)
through
( 8) .
6 .
s t a t ed tha t
due to an apparent conf l ic t of i n t e r e s t
involving the
NSES
procurement,
NIM required tha t he recuse
himsel f from any
source se lec t ion ac t iv i ty
involving the NSES
procurement .
He
denied
tha t he had inf luenced the se lec t ion
o f
SAIC
as
the
winner
of
t
he
NSES
procurement.
7 . On November 5 , 1998, an
in
t e rv i ew
was
conducted of
llWIP
the NSES contrac t
on the
resu l t s of
made the
decis ion
to award
and
i t s
team o f
subcontractors
based
contrac t compet i
t ion
. He
s ta ted tha t
A-2
W RNING
3
R
QFFl Ab
IJfSli
Ql\ilY
hi cument is the property of the Department of Defense Inspector General and is on loan
to your ag not be disclosed to any party under inve is
document
be
distri u
t
ed outs
i e e
spec
ific authorization
of
the Ass era or Investigations
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
43/69
9810289Y 18 FEB 98 60DC EOG/D
January 31
,
2000
the
mem
bers o f the
NSES Source
Selec t ion
Evalua t ion
Board
rev
i
ewed the con t rac to r proposa ls t ha t
we r e
submi t ted
,
and
eva lua ted the compet i tors o ra l pre sen ta t ions
. He
advised t ha t
the
dec i s ion to conduct
a
Best and Fina l Offer
(BAFO)
re su l t ed
from
discuss ions
with
t
he
NIM
Off ice
o f
General
Counsel
,
and
the Procurement Contrac t ing Office r
in Oct.
Ober 1997 .
He
s t a t e d
t ha t
he
was unaware
o f
anyone with access to the
NSES
source
s e l e c t
i
on
sens i t ive
i n f
or mat i
on
prov id i ng i ns i ghts t o in t e r n a l
dec is ion
making regarding the
NSES
procurement
.
Moreover
,
un t i l
he
was provided a copy
o f the
TRW
complaint
,
he
was not
knowledgeable
t
ha t
,
o r any o the r
.
con t r ac
t o r
had
any advanced
knowledge
o f t h e B FO , .and con t r a c t award dec i s i ons
before the se
dec is ions were o f f i c i a l l y
announced .
Addi t iona
lly ,
he
defended
the
NIM
co
n
t r a c t award to
SAIC
, s i
nce
SAIC s
s k i l
l
mix
,
and
cos t provided
the bes t value for
N
IM
.
In regard
to
b) 6), b) 7) C)
involvement
in
NSES ,
he
s t a t e d t ha t
-
was
recused
from
the
NSES
procurement
due t6 an apparen t c o n f l i c t o f
i
nte
r
est
. He
s t a t e d th a
t
NIM
managemen
t
made a conscious
ef fo
r t
to ensu
r e
t ha t
- h
ad no inf luence on the
NSES
source
s e l e c t i
on .
8 .
On
November
b) 6), b) 7) C)
NIM
acqu
i s
t
ion
.
he was unaware o f
having
any advanced
knowledge
of the ~ O and con t rac t award
dec i s ions
before these
dec i s ions
were o f f i c i a l l y
announced .
Addi t iona l
ly
,
he
defended
the
NIM
con t rac t
award
to
SAIC ,
s ince
SAIC s
s k i l l mix
,
and cos t
provided t he
bes t value
fo r
NIM
. He
expla i
ne
d t ha t SAIC s proposal
had
more accura t e ly addressed t h e
Governm en
t
Est im
a t e
o f
43
5
Fu
l l Ti me Egu i l i van ts (FTE) ,
than t h e
TRW pr
oposa l . He s t a t e d tha t t h
ough
t
he Governmen
t Est i mat e
was
s t a t e d
in
the
Request
fo r Proposals
, rRw
appeared
to
have
igno
r
ed
the s t a t e d
Gover
n
ment Est mate
i n
i t s proposa l
.
In
regard
to invo l
vement
i n NSES,
he
s t a t e d t ha t
- was recused from
the NSES
procurement due to
an apparent
conf
l
i c t o f i n t e r e s t
.
9 . On
November
19,
1998
,
an
in
t erview
was
conducted
o f
-
b) 6), b) 7) C)
NSES
Source
Selec t ion Evalua t ion
Board
(SSEB) .
She s t a t e d t h a t she coordina ted the ac t ions o f
the var ious members o f the
SSEB ,
and documented ts a c t i v i t i e s
To
her
knowledge
, no one rece ived advanced
access
t o t
he
NSES
source
s e l ec t i o n s en s i t i v e
informat ion
t ha t
provided
i n s ig h t s
to
b) 6), b) 7 ) C)
A- 3
IFICATION:
WARNING
4
ment is the property of the epartment of Defense Inspector General and is on loan
ae
a
sr: c
.
ws
ePdL
to your agenc . be disclosed to an art ay this
docume
nt
be
distr
i
out
the
specific authorization
of
the nspector General for Investigations.
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
44/69
9810289Y 18 FEB 98 60DC EOG/D
January
31 2000
i n t e rna l dec is ion
making regarding
t he
NSES
procurement
.
In
regard
to involvement in NSES,
she
s t a t e d t h a t
lli was recused from the NSES procurement
due
to an apparent
c onf l i c t o f i n t e r e s t
.
10
. On March 15 1999 an in te rv iew was conducted o f l'i P'P'
b) 6), b) 7) C)
NSES,
at tachment 9 ) . He s t a t ed tha t he had no advanced knowledge o f
the NIM dec is ion
to
reques t
a
B FO
in
the
NSES
procurement
. He
s t a t e d t ha t he had no understanding o f
any
of the i n t e rn a l NSES
procurement
dec i s ions
and t h a t he
was not
aware
o f
any
Government o f f i c i a l s i l l e g a l l y providing
such
informat ion to
anyone . on
the
SAIC/BAH team . He s t a t e d t hat t hough he knew
b) 6), b) 7) C)
b) 6), b) 7) C)
as
a B H employee he
was not
aware
t h a t lllWll
had
sen t
any
e - mails to engineers
a t
TRW in an at tempt to r e c ru i t
them
.
He s t a t ed t h a t he was
not persona l ly
involved with the NSES
procurement .
He s t a t e d t ha t he
had no knowledge o f whether o r
not
had
been given advanced knowledge o f the
NIM
dec i s ion to reques t a BAFO. He s ta t ed t ha t he
was
i
nvo
l ved wi th
the Defense Science
Board
DSB) panel t ha t recommended the
es tabl ishment o f NIMA,
and
t ha t had
i n v i t ed
the
members
o f
the
DSB
to t he
NIM
Geospacial
demonstra t ions;
but
there
were never any
discuss ions regarding t he
NSES
procurement .
He s t a t ed t hat t was t rue tha t he was bes t man in
wedding and t ha t he
i s
a
personal
f r i end o f 1111
b u t he has
never discussed t he
NSES
procurement with
e i the r
, o r M '91' i n t h e con tex t
o f
t h e i r
f r i endsh ips .
He
s t a t e d t ha t
SAIC
has never rece ived
any
advantage as a re su l t o f h i s p e rsona l r e l a t i ons h i ps wit.h
-
A 4
IFICATION:
WARNING
5
O
R
OFFICI L
USE
ONLY
This document is the property of the Department of Defense Inspector General and is on loan
to
your agency. Contents rnay not
be disc
losed
to
any party under investigation nor may this
document be distributed outside the receiving agency without the specific authorization of
the Assistant
Inspector General for Investigations.
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
45/69
98 289Y
8
FEB
98
60DC EOG/D
January
31
, 2000
appearance o f c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t . She s t a t e d t h a t SAIC
in formed NIMA in w r i t i n g as
to
her
p a r t i c i p a t i o n
i n t h e SAIC
proposa l e f f o r t fo r NSES, so t h a t t h e approp r i a t e mi t i g a t io n
could
be
under taken . She s t
a t ed
th a t
b
)
6) b) 7) C)
avoided
any
discuss ions o f
work
re
l
a t ed ma t t e r s
in
t h e i r
persona l
l i f e ,
and t h a t
they
never had any
discuss ions
rega rd ing
the NSES procurement .
13
. Approximately 40
boxes
o f
NIMA
records
p e r t a i n i n g to t h e
NSES procurement were rev iewed
dur ing
t h i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n
,
at tachmen t (12) .
14 . During t h i s
i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,
p e r t i n en t records mainta ined by
t h e NIMA OGC
were
rev iewed ,
at tachment
(13)
.
This
r ev iew
noted
t h a t NIMA management p ro p e r ly addressed apparen t c o n f l i c t o f
i
n te r e s t s i t u a t i o n s
invo lv ing
,
and
b) 6), b) 7) C)
In
each case
t h e ap p a ren t co n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t was due to t h e
imputed f i n an c i a l i n t e r e s t
invo lv ing
WW
t 1
11 and
b) 6), b) 7) C)
f inanc ia l i n t e r e s t s were proper l y r ep o r t ed
to
NIMA management
via
the Conf iden t i a l Sta tements o f
F in an c ia l
I n t e re s t s
OGE -
450)
submit ted by MP 91 and
119' 9
NIMA
management
removed -
from any source
s e l ec t i o
n a c t i v i t i e s
r e l a t
i ve to t h e NSES
procurement . In
t h e
case o f
'9 19
NIMA management de te rmined
t h a t apparen t c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t was not
s u b s t an t i a l , and
t h e r e fo r e
a waiver by t h e head o f t h e agency
was
gran ted
.
b) 6), b) 7) C)
15 .
Addi t iona l ly
, fu rn i sh ed p e r t i n en t
documen
t s
rega rd ing
his
r ecu s a l
from
the NSES
procurement
, a t t achment
(14) .
16
.
A d d i t io n a l ly ,
discuss ions were conducted wi th t h e
Off ice
o f
Gene r a l Counse l f o r both SA I C, and BAH
,
a t t achments
(15)
and
(16)
. SAIC
counsel disc losed cor respondence wi
t h
NIMA
da ted
A p r i l 1 , 1997,
wherein
SAIC reques ted NIMA
to
as sist SAIC in
mi t i g a t i n g the apparen t c o n f l i c t o f
i n t e r e s t
invo lv ing SAIC
Moreover , SAIC counse l prov i ded
in fo r mat i on
rega rd ing
how SAIC decided t h a t 435 FTE ' s
were
t h e
bas i s
fo r t h e
Go v
ernment
' s
es t imate
. In
t h i s
r eg a rd
a copy of
sec t ion
L-14 e n t i t l e d Government
Est ima te
o f Tota l Leve l o f
E f fo r t
from
the NSES RFP.
d e l i n ea t ed
t h e 435
f u l l
t ime
equ iva len t s (FTE) f i g u re . BAH counsel d i s c l o s ed BAH
records
A- 5
IFICATION:
Q
i i t f t l ~
A
I
'
1>11
y
6
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
46/69
9810289Y 18 FEB 98 60DC EOG/D
t h a t pe r t a ined
explained t ha t
January 31, 2000
advised
t ha t
t h i s was not a
sanc t ioned BAH
a c t iv i t y .
7 .
This mat te r
was
reviewed
with
Assis tant
U. S . Attorney
(AUSA)
John
Kle in o f the United
S ta t e s
Attorney fo r the Eastern
D is t r i c t o f
V
i r g in i a
USAO - EDVA) . AUSA
Klein
concluded t h a t
the
EDVA
had
littl i n t e r e s t in
prosecu
t
ing
a l l eg a t i o n s
o f
vio l a t ions o f
the
Procurement In teg r i ty .Act 41
USC
423) unless
it could be
es tab l i shed
t ha t
something
o f
value
had
been
used
to
impact
the
NI
MA
d ec i s
i
on
to
award
the
NSES
con t rac t
to
the
SAIC team .
As
no evidence
of
t h is natu re
has
been discovered by
t h i s
inves t iga t ion ,
the
EDVA
has no i n t e r e s t in pursu ing the
a l lega t ions t h a t pred ica t ed t h i s case .
18
.
Since no cr imina l p rosecu t ion
,
o r
c i v i l
l i t i g a t i o n has
r esu l ted fYom t h i s inves t iga t ion t h i s i n v e s t i g a ti on i s
c losed
as
\ \decl ined
. Addi t iona l ly ,
the re
were no management
con t ro l
d e f i c i en c i e s t o repor t . There was no lo s s to
the
Government.
A- 6
8FFl811 :
1 181 8PAl :
V
7
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
47/69
9810289Y-18-FEB-98-60DC-EOG/D
January 31 2000
IDENTITY
O
SUBJECTS
Science
ppl icat ions
In te rna t iona l
Corpora
t ion
McLean
V
22102
Commodity : Top
100
Department of Defense con t rac to r with
s a l e s
pr imar i ly involving research
and
development i n t eg ra t ion o f
systems
and .
engineer ing se rv ice s
.
B-1
ICATION
os
c
s
i i
otii
v
8
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
48/69
9810289Y 18 FEB
.
98 60DC EOG/D
IDENTI TY OF
SUBJECTS:
Booz
,
Allen
, Hamilton
Incorpo
r a t ed
McLean V
22103
January
31
2000
Commodity : Top 100 Department
o f
Defense
o n t r ~
t o r
with
sa l e s
pr imar i ly involving resea
r ch and development ,
systems
i n t eg r a t i on and eng ineer ing s.
e rv ice s
.
B- 2
S
IFICATION
F
Fl&I
P: s
iii
Q kV
9
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
49/69
9810289Y-18-FEB-98-60DC-EOG/ D
EXHIBITS
1
2
3
( 4)
5
6
7
8
9
(
10)
11)
DCIS Form-1 : TRW r eco rd s dated
DCIS
Form
- 1 : I n t e r v i ew o f
FBI 302 : In te rv iew o f
DCIS Form-1 : In te rv iew o f
FBI
FD-302 :
In te rv iew of
1998
FBI
FD-302 :
In te rv iew o f
FBI FD-302 : In t e rv
iew
o f
DCIS
Form
- 1 :
In te rv iew
1998
DCIS Forrn-1 : In te rv iew o f
DCIS Form-1 : In te rv iew o f
DCIS Form-1 : In t e rv iew o f
1999
January 31 , 2000
February 18
, 1998
dated March 10 ,
1998
da ted June 11 , 1998
dated June 11 , 1998
,
da ted
November 3 ,
November 5, 1998
da ted November 6, 1998
da ted
November 19 ,
da ted
Apri l 6,
1999
d a ted
A p r i l
7 ,
1999
da ted
A p r i l
7 ,
12) DCIS Form-1 : Review o f NSES records , da ted J u l y 1 , 1998
13) DCIS
Form-1
: Review
o f OG records
da ted September
22,
1998
(
14) DCIS Form-
1 : Review
o f Records,
da ted November 5 , 1998
(15) DCIS Forrn- 1 : Review o f Correspondence
from
McKenna
Cuneo , da ted
Apri l
12, 1999
. (16)
DCIS Form- 1 :
Review
o f Booz-Allen
Hamil ton
Records w i th
Counse l
, d a ted
June
2,
1999
10
b) 6). b) 7) C)
Prepared by
ICAT I
ON:
l IG
IS
Q laV
b) 6), b) 7) C)
Mid-At lan t i c FO
APPR :
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
50/69
N9810501R ELECTRONIC DATA
SYSTEMS
CORPOR TION
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
51/69
(
I n v e s t i g a t
i
on s
INSPECTOR
GENERAL
DEPARTMENT
OF
DEFENSE
DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE
MID-ATLANTICFO/WASHINGTON
Il l l JEFF
DAVIS
HWY 712
ARLINGTON, V 22202-4306
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
98
10501R-19-MA
Y-98-60DC-DOW
/U
January
27
, 2000
SPECIAL INTEREST CASE
DoD HOTLINE NUMBER
OO-L067872
TOP 1 DoD
CONTR CTOR
ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTE
MS
CORPORATION
Herndon,
VA
BOOZ, ALLEN HAMILTON, INCORPORATED
McLean,
VA
DI
STRIBUTION
DCIS Headquarters
DoD Hotline
Qi'lt'iliQIA* ngp WI Y
WARNING
the prope r ty of the Dep
art
ment of
ur
a
ency
. Con
any party under
inves t i
at en t
be dis t r ibuted
outs ide
the
rece
wl thout
the
specific prior
aut
o
the
Ass s
ant Inspector
Ge
n
eral fo
r I n
vestigations
.
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
52/69
9810501 R 19 MA Y-98-60DC-DOW
U
arrative
1. This investigation was initiated upon the receipt of a letter sent to the Department of Defense
DoD) Hotline alleging that Booz, Allen Hamilton, Incorporated BAH) and Electronic Data Systems
Corporation EDS), engaged in conduct in violation
of
the Federal Acquisition Regulations FAR) and
federal law by colluding during the bid and award phase
of
a multi-million dollar National Guard Bureau
procurement of a Distance Learning Network DLN).
b) 6) b) 7) C)
2. The complainant, alleged
that
EDS was permitted to engineer the specific system to be purchased and to make special financial
anangements with the manufacturer prior to the release of the request for bid; that
MCA
Corporation, a
company which PDI was a consultant to, was verbally advised that they had submitted the lowest bids, yet
they were not awarded the contract and were subsequently told that they had overbid every item; that EDS
was
permitted
to
submit a best and final offer BAFO), which
won
them the procurement, while the other
bidders were not given the opportunity to subm it a BAFO.
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
. , General Services Administration, Federal
Systems Integration and Management Center FedSIM), Falls Church, VA, stated FedSIM contracted with
BAH to handle the entire DLN for
the
National Guard. There were several steps to the DLN. One of the
steps involved a Bill of Materials BOM) for the DLN classroom and classroom network. BAH was hired
by FedSIM to send out a Request for Bid RFB) and award the BOM to the lowest bidder.
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
. BAH, was interviewed and explained
the
process leading up
to the award of he contract. The BOM was developed through the National Guard Bureau Joint Systems
Engineering and Integration Group JSEIG). This group is comprised
of
members
of
the National Guard
and several competing contractors throughout
the
project, including
EDS
and
MCA.
Each contractor had
input as to what manufacturers would be used on the BOM and the specifications. It was a group effo1t
with the National Guard making the final decision. After the BOM
was
developed , a RFB was sent
out.
The BOM
was
distributed to each contractor
BAH
had
on
its
li
st of potential conhactors.
5. Six contractors bid on the BOM. Three contractors were unable to bid completely, so they
were disqualified.
Of
the tlu ee remaining contractors, EDS was the lowest bidder, not MCA
as
the
complainant
al
leges. BAH took t
he EDS
bid
and
returned it to EDS, asking them
to
lower their bid even
further. EDS complied and lowered their bid, giving additional savings for the government.
6. Contract documents confirmed the legality of he process. The process was monitored
by
the
JSEIG and the National Guard for accuracy and fairness. To confirm the process was accurate and fair,
,
was
contacted concerning the process.
stated he was
in
a position
to
know ifthere was a problem with
the
procurement or award of the
onlract. The entire acqu isition process goes th.rough several channels
in the
National Guard Bweau, and
if
there was a problem, they would
ha
ve found
it
and notified the appropriate persons. ll m was never
notified, and since has not heard
of
a problem concerning BAH or EDS and the DLP.
7. Since no criminal activity has been uncovered, this investigation is closed. Nojudicial or
administrative action will occur. There is no loss to the
U.S
. Government. No management control
deficiencies were identified during
the
course of he investigation.
WARNING
any par t y
under i nves t
c
urn
ent be d i s t r i u te d o u t s ide
the
ncy
wi
th
out
the
specific
prior
au
t he
As
s i
stant Inspector Gen
er
a l
for
I
nvest
i
ga
t ions
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
53/69
981050 IR-19-MAY-98-60DC-DOW U
dent i ty o f
Subjects
Electronic Data Systems Corporation
13600 EDS Drive
Herndon Virginia 2 171
Commodity:
EDS
performs government contracts mainly dealing with computer systems and hardware.
EDS is considered a Top I 00 DoD contractor.
WARNING
t he Department
of
Defense I n s
ec to r
Conte
i sc lo sed
to
V&il 9 Uisll
be
d is t r i u ted
outside
au he
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
54/69
I d e n t i t y o f Subjec ts
Booz Allen Hamilton Incorporated
8283 Greensboro Drive
McLean Virginia 22102
Commodity: B H is a management and technoogy consulting firm focusing on business strategy and
transformation. B H is considered a Top 100
Do
D contractor.
Prepared by
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Mid-Atlantic FO
PPR W M
WAI\NING
T document
i s
the property
of
the
Department
of Defe
ns
e Inspector
Ql?il EQIM '8'88 8Uf5"
Genera n to your agency . contents sed
to
any p r ty
under investiga
the receivin
a
nspector
General
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
55/69
N981 637C BOOZ LLEN HAMILTON INCORPORATED
8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH
56/69
nves t
i
g a t
io
ns
INSPECTOR
GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE
HARTF