waves
/\/\ \/\/ -MaconWaves- /\/\ \/\/
Macon Waves has been inactive for over a year. It is now dedicated to news of Darleen Druyun and the various US Air Force contracting issues and debacles she was involved in.
It is intended to help Middle Georgia recoil from the damage done by Druyun and the many other abusers of the public trust. Druyun worked with many inside government whose conflicts of interest put their own interests above the Air Force's.
Posts are arranged with the latest on top and after some time the columns fall off this page so read them while they are here!   -  
Written by Lou Dugas
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
Samuel Adams
shallow waves
Tuesday, January 04, 2005


Druyun has Christmas at Home Before Jail

Druyun in Jail, Feb. Hearing for Boeing Ex-CFO



Tue Jan 4, 2005 12:59 PM ET
By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former U.S. Air Force arms buyer at the center of the biggest Pentagon contracting scandal since the 1980s began a nine-month sentence at a women's prison in Florida this week, prison officials said on Tuesday.

Darleen Druyun, 57, was taken into custody at the Marianna, Florida women's prison, about 60 miles west of Tallahassee, at 9 a.m. Monday, a prison official said.

"She self-surrendered at 9 a.m.," the official said.

Druyun was sentenced on Oct. 1 to nine months in prison for violating federal conflict-of-interest laws by negotiating a $250,000-a-year job with Chicago-based Boeing Co. while still overseeing the company's business with the Air Force.

After she completes her jail term at the Marianna women's prison camp, which houses low- and minimum-security female prisoners, Druyun must also serve seven months in a halfway house or under home detention.

At her sentencing, Druyun shocked defense and industry officials by admitting that she favored Boeing in contracts as far back as 2000, in part because the company had hired her daughter and future son-in-law at its St. Louis facility. The daughter has since resigned from Boeing.
.....

This article is not likely to be noticed much but I don't think Druyun should not have been given so much leeway.
This is because she has an enormous amount of incriminating evidence against many government, political and industry people; and time out of prison gives her the opportuunity to make deals. I would not have been surprised if she had fled the country or even had a fatal "accident" given what she knows. Her financial condition needs monitoring as she is liable to be paid off by several who should face indictment. And how about her receiving SES retired pay?
Write your congressman and Senator to ask for an investigation of her retired pay situation.

This article goes on to mention that Boeing CFO Sears faces sentencing and I hope the prosecutors work him for information before allowing him to be sentenced.



1/4/2005 04:56:16 PM

Thursday, December 02, 2004


The "Iron Triangle" Exposed

Boeing Deal Is Example of Ties Among Military Services, Defense and Congress


By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A33

"Everyone's nervous," Acting Undersecretary of Defense Michael W. Wynne warned in a confidential e-mail to Air Force Secretary James G. Roche on July 8, 2003.

It was two days before the Bush administration was to send its first detailed report to Congress about a controversial Air Force plan to lease refueling tankers from the Boeing Co., and a few days after a fierce backroom struggle over its language between critics of the plan and Air Force enthusiasts. Wynne's anxiety, it turned out, was well-founded. Rather than solidifying congressional support, the report's release sparked more intense scrutiny of the most costly government lease in U.S. history, and ultimately helped end the government careers of some of those involved in preparing the report.

From a program initially seen by Boeing and the Air Force as a clever way to acquire a new tanker fleet without having to budget for it and buy the planes outright, the lease has now developed a reputation as the most significant military contracting abuse in 20 years, according to a letter sent to the Pentagon last month by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) and two other committee members.

Three Boeing officials have resigned in connection with the controversy; two have pleaded guilty in federal court to ethics violations. Wynne has been unable to win confirmation as an undersecretary of defense, as a result of the "hold" placed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on most defense promotions to gain leverage in McCain's continuing battle for access to the Pentagon's internal communications about the deal. Air Force Gen. Gregory S. Martin, chief of the Air Force Materiel Command, withdrew from consideration for a more senior post after tussling publicly with McCain about the gravity of the ethics violations.

Roche and Marvin Sambur, his top acquisition manager, announced their resignations from the government two weeks ago, just before McCain splashed some acerbic and revealing internal Air Force e-mails (quoted portions of which appear in italics below) about the plan into the Congressional Record. Roche said he never intended to serve longer; Sambur said he stepped aside partly to help ease tensions with Congress, which blocked the leasing plan this summer.

The significance of the $30 billion tanker program to its supporters is reflected in the extreme language Roche and Sambur used in the e-mails to describe what they believed was at stake. The two were deeply invested in its success, and although it was principally an Air Force -- rather than a Defense Department -- initiative, they worried that any setback would be ruinous for them and others at the Pentagon.

I will not give your enemies the tools to bury us! Sambur told Roche on June 25, 2003, during a dispute over the wording of the report to Congress. Two weeks later, Roche accused dissenting government officials in an e-mail on July 8, 2003, of wanting me to sign a suicide note. BUT I WILL NOT. This whole drill has gotten out of hand!

Roche, a former executive at the Northrop Grumman Corp., is well-known for his take-no-prisoners political style. In one e-mail, he compared himself to World War II Navy Fleet Adm. William F. Halsey Jr., whose motto he quoted as: "Strike fast, strike hard, strike often."

Both Roche and Sambur, a former executive at ITT Defense with a similar style, have said the lease was a good deal because it allowed the Air Force to acquire the planes faster than if they were purchased. But the e-mails indicate they saw themselves as primarily allied with Boeing and its congressional supporters in the dispute, rather than others in the Bush administration who considered the deal a costly rip-off and violation of federal procurement rules.


Their missives, as a result, provide an unusual glimpse into part of what scholars described more than 20 years ago as the "Iron Triangle" -- the enduring alliance between the military services, the defense industry and their congressional advocates.

Roche and former Northrop executive Ralph Crosby were once rivals at the firm, said sources who know them both. When Crosby was appointed in August 2002 as the head of the U.S. office of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. -- the parent of Airbus, a fierce Boeing rival with its headquarters in France -- Roche sent an e-mail to William Bodie, his top public relations aide, saying: Well, well. we will have fun with Airbus.


Roche's hostility to Airbus was also reflected in an e-mail debate on April 16, 2003, between Wynne and Roche about inviting Crosby to lunch. Wynne opened the discussion by telling Roche and Sambur that he wanted Crosby to say how much a refueling tanker built by Airbus would cost.

Wynne explained: They came in a couple of weeks ago and offered to build the majority [of the tankers] here in America. . . . I am not sure where this will lead, but the benefits of competition may be revealing.

Roche replied: Mike, you must be out of your mind!!! Crosby has lots of baggage, as does Airbus. We won't be happy with your doing this.

Wynne replied with a reference to Pentagon rules against sole-source contracting: But where will the competition come from?

Roche replied by invoking U.S. anger over France's failure to support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq: Neither you nor I can attend the Paris Air Show, we are getting into a possible flap over inviting the chief of the FAF [French Air Force] to a gathering next September, and you are inviting them to lunch? Hello? Within minutes of the invite, Crosby most likely used your call to butter his personal croissant in Paris, and EADS would then inform the [French presidential office] . . . in seconds. Be careful!

Airbus was not the leasing program's only enemy, according to Roche's and Sambur's e-mails. Sometimes top Pentagon officials, such as Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, caused problems by deviating from the Air Force orthodoxy that replacing the tankers was urgent.

Reacting to an interview with Myers published on April 9, 2002, in which Myers said that the existing tanker fleet was adequate for future needs, Gen. John P. Jumper, Air Force chief of staff, told Roche: I don't think there was malice. . . . We just have to articulate the problem we are trying to fix.

In the summer of 2003, the Pentagon's office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) also stoked Air Force pique by dissenting from its claim that leasing would essentially cost the same as buying the planes. In fact, said PA&E director Ken Krieg in a memo on June 20, 2003, to Wynne and others, lease costs would exceed purchase costs by $1.9 billion to $6 billion, depending on the accounting method used. He said the deal violated Pentagon procurement rules.

Roche sent Wynne -- the more junior official, according to Pentagon protocol -- an e-mail two days later, warning that the bureaucrats who opposed the 767 lease have come out of the woodwork to kill it. . . . Ken Krieg's memo . . . is a cheap shot, and I'm sure has already been delivered to enemies of the lease on the Hill. It was a process foul. And Ken needs to be made aware of that BY YOU!

Roche went on to say that PA&E was trying to set the Air Force up to be destroyed by Sen. McCain. . . . As you might imagine, I won't give them the chance, but I will make it clear who is responsible to Don [Rumsfeld]. I refuse to wear my flak jacket backwards to protect against friendly fire. Wynne then sent Krieg an angry note, and Krieg responded by suggesting a face-to-face meeting with Roche to clear air. He explained in an e-mail that: I am trying to get the strategy to drive the deal; the deal and contract to set the numbers; the numbers [price] to be reopened . . . without a lot of hype.

Roche gave no ground in his reply: Kenny, I love you, and you know that. I think you have been had by some members of the famous PA&E staff. You never should have put what you put in writing. It will now be used against me and Don Rumsfeld.

Roche and Sambur also resented an effort by analysts at the Office of Management and Budget to insert into a July 10, 2003, Pentagon report to Congress a single paragraph confirming that leasing the refueling tankers could cost at least $1.9 billion more than buying them.

Sambur e-mailed Roche on July 8 of that year: What they are forcing us to say is that IF Congress gave us permission to PURCHASE under the same [terms] . . . then the lease is DUMB financially. Robin [Cleveland, a senior OMB official] wanted it in the text and Mike [Wynne] got her to accept it as a footnote.

Sambur added that he had spoken the previous week to Rep. Norman D. Dicks (D-Wash.), whose district includes Boeing offices: Dicks told me to hold firm and not to go along with Robin.

Roche, apparently alarmed by Wynne's willingness to accept the insert, also sent an e-mail to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz's top political aide, warning that OMB's attempt to include the paragraph was a bureaucratic trick to make a fool out of Don [Rumsfeld] as well as the Air Force.

Roche also told Wynne in an e-mail: McCain and others who oppose the lease will leap to this number! Why is this so hard for you to see, Mike?

But Wynne defended his decision the following day: I believe that addressing this point in this fashion takes the teeth out of their criticism. This will not embarass at all the Secretary [of Defense]. . . .This followed one full week of negotiation to remove it from the text and get it to only footnote status. . . . I think you . . . are letting a minor math point get in front of a major policy win.

In the run-up to these discussions, OMB's Robin Cleveland had sent the résumé for her brother, Peter, then a law student, to Roche on May 9, 2003, saying: I would appreciate anything you can do to help with NG [Northrop Grumman]. Within an hour, Roche forwarded the e-mail to Stephen Yslas, a senior Northrop lawyer, at the firm's Los Angeles headquarters:

STEVE -- I know this guy. He is good. His sister (Robin)is in charge of defense and intell at OMB. . . . If Peter Cleveland looks good to you, PLS add my endorsement. Be well. Roche then forwarded a copy of his e-mail to Cleveland, saying: Be well. Smile. Give tankers now (Oops, did I say that?. . .). Cleveland, for her part, congratulated her brother a week later on getting a job interview with Northrop, telling him in an e-mail: Hope it works before the tanker leasing issue get[s] fouled up.

Northrop in the end did not hire Cleveland's brother, and by July 8, the Air Force was less solicitous of her. Sambur on that day sent Roche an e-mail saying: It is worth a shot speaking to Robin, or are you like me in that you would rather take poison?

Cleveland declined to comment through OMB spokesman Chad Kolton. He said that after the e-mail exchange about the job was discovered and shared with Senate investigators two months ago, OMB Director Joshua B. Bolton sent it to the Justice Department to check for compliance with conflict-of-interest statutes; no result has been announced.

Various e-mails make clear that leasing enthusiasts repeatedly assured top Pentagon officials that the deal was cost-effective and untainted by scandal. Despite the internal budget critiques, a special assistant to the defense secretary, Richard Greco Jr. -- now the Navy comptroller -- said in a January 2003 memo to Wolfowitz that the price is essentially neutral to a buy.
...
When asked about the controversy at a news conference last week, Rumsfeld laid most of the blame on Druyun and the fact that she had "very little adult supervision above, below or on the side" while she steered contracting benefits to Boeing. He added, "I'm told that when Secretary Roche and Assistant Secretary Sambur came in, they looked at that situation, were uncomfortable with it, and began taking authorities away from her and trying to reestablish a different arrangement.

"Obviously," Rumsfeld added, "there's something needs to be changed."

In a former life, as an IG type, my boss was a stickler for clear explanation (thank you Harry). He woouuld label statements as "PBBA". The firts time I got one it was explained that this was Proof by Blatant Assertion. Druyun and many others in the USAF took that approach. Sort of reminds me of the plea of my son with his hand in the cookie jar - "I was not getting a cookie".
Druyun would make a statement that something was economical or not-economical and suddenly all the people around would parrott the same lie, obviously untrue but still evoking repeating by others. How did she accomplish this? It all goes back to the monkey story.

12/2/2004 07:15:52 PM

Tuesday, November 30, 2004


Senator McCain, on Senate Floor, says AF lacks Integrity!

Speech

...
Keeping a defense contractor’s “record of bribes” as a “trump card”; “torturing” a defense contractor “slowly”; pressuring dissenting elements within the Office of the Secretary of Defense whose job it was, particularly in the absence of a Defense Acquisition Board, to vet this procurement program; signing off on a plan to get the chairman of the Defense Science Board to “quietly help” on the tanker lease inside the OSD; doctoring and improperly withholding documents requested by Congress: this is the picture that we’re getting on what happened with the tanker proposal, and we’ve received only a few documents from six out of thirty people we’ve asked for! This is the picture we’re getting, but no one among Air Force leadership stands up to assume responsibility. Instead, what we get from Air Force leadership are deeply troubling statements in the press about how rosy things are. For example, in a recent op-ed appearing in Defense News, Dr. Sambur describes the current acquisition process as “healthy” and “on track.”
...

The lack of integrity within the USAF has spoiled many of the leaders coming up through the ranks. The shamelessness of the Air Force leadership embarasses me as an Air Force retiree. But the truth is that I and thousands of others saw blatant power struggles against good management and contracting integrity, and pressure tactics used routinely. Reminds me of monkeys.

11/30/2004 11:05:52 PM



So here the USAF was pushing for the answer they wanted, again!




By Alan Bjerga
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain told the Pentagon on Monday not to rush a study crucial to the future of an embattled plan to replace Air Force tankers, a plan that's ignited Washington's biggest military procurement scandal in a decade.

In a letter to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, McCain cited e-mail communications between an Air Force general and a Rand Corp. vice president in which the Rand executive expressed concern that an "analysis of alternatives," or AoA, the Pentagon hired Rand to do couldn't be done properly under the time frame the Pentagon set.

"This is not an AoA and should not be advertised as an AoA," Natalie Crawford, Rand vice president, wrote Air Force Lt. Gen. John Corley in May. "One could do an AoA in five months on only the most trivial of topics. This is not a trivial topic."

In another e-mail, written in July, Crawford referred to the study as an "impossible task."

McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona and Congress' leading skeptic of the tanker plan, suggested to Wolfowitz that, in light of the e-mails, Rand should be given more time to study ways to update the Air Force tanker fleet.

He also criticized the Air Force for apparently concealing the study's problems from the Pentagon. But Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Frank Smolinsky said Monday that officials had discussed Rand's concerns with the Pentagon.

"The best that we can determine at this time is all the concerns that were related by the Rand Corp. to General Corley were passed on," he said.

Wolfowitz said in a letter last week that after the Pentagon receives its recommendation from Rand it will require competition for any tanker plan.

The Rand analysis, which is expected to be released in early December, ...

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered the Rand study last spring, in part to quell questions about a decision to acquire Boeing tankers that critics charged was made without proper competition.
...
---
(Bjerga reports for The Wichita Eagle.)

An Analysis of Alternatives was routinely overlooked, supressed or not even done since Druyun had control. This is because these analyses would have shown that Druyun's politician driven decisions (aka. deals) were not based on sound economics or operational need but political payoffs.

A great example is the Sacramento ALC study of the lifetime sustainment of the F-117 which showed that government management and accomplishment would be less expensive than contracting out. Druyun had the Program Manager fired for not twisting the study results to suit her (he got two chances). Of course this has given Lockheed a continual (and bloated it would seem) income stream while the Air Force pays a record high cost per flying hour, for this largely off-the-shelf aircraft. (because Lockheed duplicates what the Air Force does and then charges for it!)

11/30/2004 08:37:55 PM





AF supposedly wants to question Druyun!




DAILY BRIEFING November 30, 2004


Air Force officials want more information about acquisition improprieties

By George Cahlink
gcahlink@govexec.com
Air Force officials want to question former acquisition chief Darleen Druyun about how she steered billion of dollars in contracts to Boeing without raising suspicions, according to Marvin Sambur, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition.
...
"Whatever she did it wasn't fairly obvious," Sambur said in an interview Monday. "We asked the prosecutors if we could speak to Darleen to see how she was able to manipulate [the system]. We want to find out 'Hey, is there an Achilles' heel in the system that you were able to exploit?' "
...
Sambur said the recent announcement that he and Air Force Secretary James Roche were resigning before the start of President Bush's second term was driven in part by the Druyun scandal. He conceded that he and Roche had become "lightening rods" for criticism surrounding Druyun and the controversial tanker lease proposal, and that was affecting the service's relationship with Congress.

"God knows why because, from my point of view, I was the one who cleaned up her act in terms of getting her to retire six months after I came here. All the things that she admitted to having done, happened before my watch. She was here for 10 years. I was here for six months," said Sambur.

... Sambur, who was Druyun's immediate boss, said he began taking authority away from her and sharing it among managers outside of Washington. He said he never suspected Druyun of wrongdoing, but believed that she held too much sway over how the service spent billions of dollars. Druyun retired from the Air Force in 2002.

Sambur echoed concerns raised by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week ... Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insists that Air Force leaders should be held accountable for the scandal. "I simply cannot believe that one person, acting alone, can rip off taxpayers of possibly billions of dollars. This appears to be a case of either a systemic failure in procurement oversight, willful blindness or rank corruption," ...

Sambur said he was "frustrated" by McCain's remarks and the suggestion that Air Force leaders besides Druyun favored Boeing in tanker talks. He said the Air Force was simply following a congressional mandate that it lease tankers from Boeing. "If you don't like [the deal], it does not mean I was doing something illegal," he said.

Sambur was either blind or deaf if he did not know that Druyun had rigged many procurements! ITT people completely understood Druyun and her powers. I hear the drumbbeat of a "party line" about Druyun being alone in this, which is patently absurd.

I'll bet that Druyun doesn't want to talk with Sambur and the USAF because of several reasons. Primary is that her plea bargain probably does not cover her from further prosecution (if she talks about deals like the contract awards to Boeing and Lockheed in parceling out the depot maintenance workload from Sacramento Air Force Depot. This set of contracts was engineered by Druyun to allow workload and jobs to remain in Texas instead of migrating as envisioned by the BRAC commission to the remaining depots.) She should get more jail time for that.

11/30/2004 08:17:35 PM





Washington Post Editorial


washingtonpost.com

'Go Boeing!'

Sunday, November 28, 2004; Page B06

THE MORE the Boeing tanker deal is scrutinized, the worse it looks. The tanker leasing arrangement, now thankfully dead, was questionable on its face, the result of a back-door legislative maneuve...

The pile of internal e-mails tenaciously extracted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) show an Air Force leadership more bent on stifling dissenting views from within the military than on determining the best deal for taxpayers; inappropriately cozy with some contractors and personally biased against others; and resolutely uninterested, even now, in determining what went wrong.
...
Mr. Roche is not the only one whose conduct is troubling. Even as she was negotiating with the Air Force about whether the tanker lease was a good deal, Office of Management and Budget Associate Director Robin Cleveland asked Mr. Roche to intercede with former colleagues at Northrop Grumman to help Ms. Cleveland's brother get a job there....

...one of the most distressing aspects of this entire episode has been the military's stonewalling response to what Mr. Roche, in an e-mail, termed "the enemies of the lease on the Hill." At a meeting last November, following the Druyun firing, according to one e-mail, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld "asked if in light of that should we take a second look at her involvement in any tanker lease related matters in order to deflect possible criticism from the [Senate Armed Services Committee] and unfavorable publicity." You would have hoped Mr. Rumsfeld would want to take a "second look" to figure out what went wrong in his operation, not to deflect criticism or avoid bad press. Mr. McCain put it well in a Senate floor speech: "This appears to be a case of either a system failure in procurement oversight, willful blindness or rank corruption. Either way, full accountability among Air Force leadership is in order."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

The problem is that the really guilty group is Congress itself, who took the pork chitterlings* and had provided the cover for Druyun. Do we think they want the real story to be exposed?? " (Oops, did I say that? . . .)" to quote Roche. You all know the Congress is interested in quashing this investigation as well as the USAF.

I must say I am impressed with a few people like Wynne, who works for Rumsfeld, for saying that the emperor had no clothes. But I wonder how Boing was to put pressure on Wynne to leave the tanker deal alone? Could it be that some Republicans in Congress could push on the Administration? Would Boeing hire a hit man? Would Boeing threaten someone? Just how was Boeing to pressure someone?

Mmmmmmm.

PS. For those Yankees reading this "Chitterlings or chit'lins are the intestines of young pigs, cleaned and stewed and then frequently battered and fried." How appropriate in this pork filled story!

11/30/2004 07:48:36 PM

Friday, November 26, 2004


Defense Department Operational Update Briefing

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:30 p.m. EST
Secretary Of Defense Donald Rumsfeld


Rumsfeld continues his version of the "Druyun Alone" fantasy.



            Q     As the leader of the department, are you concerned that there's this perception that one person, one Air Force official, is able to take billions of dollars of procurement -- that's what the senators ask.  They ask how could one person have done this?

            SEC. RUMSFELD:  I've spent time thinking about that, and as a matter of fact, I wrote down some thoughts about it.  It's interesting.  I'm not going to have the facts correct, so I won't try to give you numbers.  But she was -- let's for the sake of argument say she was there for a 10-year period, roughly, that spanned a couple or three, two or three administrations.  She was a civilian deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for acquisition, was her title.  There was also a military deputy undersecretary for acquisition, and above her was an assistant secretary for acquisition and a secretary of the Air Force, and then off to the side is the undersecretary for acquisition and logistics and AT&L -- technology and logistics -- all of whom are involved in acquisition.

            It turns out that during her 10-year tenure, the secretary of the Air Force changed two or three times, with periods of acting.  The assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition changed several times, with periods for acting vacancies.  And as you know our entire department operates generally somewhere between 20 and 25 percent vacant in presidential appointees, Senate-confirmed, because of the nature of the ethics reviews, the FBI reviews, and the Senate confirmation process, which means we end up with about a quarter of the people who are supposed to be here operating the department not there at any given moment.  The third key position was the military assistant under -- assistant -- or undersecretary for -- or under -- what was it called?  Deputy.  (Laughter.)  Deputy assistant secretary for acquisition is the military side, and I'm told that there's some rules that apply there that -- from I think Goldwater-Nichols -- that that individual can't make major acquisition decisions.

            So what you had with all these vacancies over a 10-year period, you had a -- the only continuity was that single person, who's now plead guilty and is going to go to jail.  When you have that long period of time with that person the only continuity and no one above her and no one below her, over time I'm told what she did was acquire a great deal of authority and make a lot of decisions, and there was very little adult supervision above, below or on the side.

            Now is that how it happened?  Well, first of all you have a person who's a criminal, who broke the law in there.  And then the question is how could a criminal, over a sustained period -- (chuckles) -- succeed without being noticed, which is, I think, your question and certainly the question I asked myself, and it's worrisome.  And I think that part of the -- I've given you part of the answer.  You have too much turbulence on the military side, too much turbulence plus vacancies on the civilian side, and a person who has continuity -- the only one with continuity -- who is going to break the law.  And what they were able -- what she was able to do over a period of time is acquire enough authority and enough -- apparently enough buffers around her that others didn't have transparency into what she was doing.  I'm told that when Secretary Roche and Secretary -- Assistant Secretary Sambur came in, they looked at that situation, were uncomfortable with it, and began taking authorities away from her and trying to reestablish a different arrangement in that office, and that that was one of the reasons that apparently she began negotiating for her departure, because her authorities were being eroded.

            Now is that definitive?  No.  Is it an impression I have at this point?  Yes.  Have I stopped looking and worrying and thinking about it?  You bet I haven't.  It's a serious thing when you've got a war going on and you have someone in the department conducting -- engaging in criminal activity, which she confesses to, of that magnitude, that it's not caught. Obviously, there's something needs to be changed, and I think a lot has been changed.  But we're going to have to make sure that doesn't happen elsewhere.


The Clintonistas employed Druyun to reward, they used her to penalize, and thus she naturally gained a lot of power because of the incriminating information she knew. Her ability to implicate and embarrass has a lot of veterans of Washington and the Defense industry is the cause of many recent nightmares!!

She knows who ordered the politically derived outsourcing wave through the 90s (business and government people including state and local ones benefited and were inside the negotiations, knowing chicanery was involved.) All of these people shut up and stay silent, because they too had blood on their hands!! She knows who wanted Texas and California jobs saved for Clinton's mid term elections after the disasters for those States from the BRAC 95.

Senator McCain asks how she could have been able to tilt multi million and even billion dollar contracts without being “discovered”. The answer is in an earlier post.

People who may be particular nervous include personalities stretching from senior OSD people like Perry and White, White House Chief of Staff Panetta or general officers who took positions in the Clinton Administration like MG Phillips who commanded Sacramento’s McClellan AFB and then went on an outsourcing binge as an appointee. Officials of Texas and California, San Antonio Texas and Sacramento CA me be worried also. One general who took a position in the Kelly AFB renaissance should be especially nervous because of Boeing’s involvement.

Not only was Druyun known by legions of folks, clearly by those who directly benefited from her gyrations, but she was likewise understood by the legislators who feared she could hurt their districts and were careful not to get on her list for vindictive retribution. So this woman was armed with a mighty sword, because it was handed to her because she was so corrupt but also because she got away with abuse after abuse. She was like a hired gun who got power hungry but was still useful. Many, many relatively low level people knew of her unjustified decisions which tipped the scales against technically better solutions or more cost effective ones. But the truth is that multitudes of contracting officers, program managers, technical people, financial people and both career executives and appointees, all knew and were too afraid of repercussions on their jobs and positions to say anything.

11/26/2004 05:25:41 PM





Racket Science


December 1 - 7, 2004

Lockheed says in a civil suit that Boeing's competitive behavior constitutes racketeering. Is a criminal probe next?

by Rick Anderson
Seattle Weekly

Is there a federal criminal racketeering case in Boeing's future? Attorneys for Lockheed Martin outlined that possibility in court papers filed in Florida. Lockheed is suing Boeing, claiming its aerospace and defense rival conspired to steal business secrets and cover up the act, allegedly a violation of the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Lockheed contends Boeing used stolen Lockheed documents to gain an edge in a multibillion-dollar Air Force satellite contract. It is seeking to discover expanded evidence of "overt acts" stemming principally from continuing U.S. investigations into the Boeing aerial-refueling-tanker lease deal. Court documents also refer to a separate federal grand jury probe involving Boeing in Los Angeles. Lockheed maintains that incidents related to these cases can be linked to show a 14-year "pattern" of illegal activity by Boeing.


This is really funny! Lockheed needs to be careful because they could get caught in the same acts as Boeing (and many other contractors). Lockheed was the benficiary of the same Druyun political activity that Boeing got.

All that has to happpen is that some subcontractors start getting worried that they will be implicated, because of course they knew of the breaking of contracting rules. They will then rat on the big boys to cop a deal with prosecutors and the house of cards will start unravelling.

11/26/2004 04:00:12 PM

Wednesday, November 24, 2004


A Great Read - Click on the title for required reading about Druyun


Pentagon's Druyun thrust herself into role of power


By Renae Merle
The Washington Post
Sunday, November 21, 2004, 12:00 A.M. Pacific

WASHINGTON — In the macho world of the Pentagon, Darleen Druyun was rare: a woman who had scaled the heights of power, controlled billions of dollars in weapons programs and could punish or reward global corporations and the men who ran them.

Once the most-feared woman in the world of military contracting, Druyun, 57, helped direct the Air Force's $30 billion procurement budget — nearly three times the size of the Army's.
...
Druyun is an imposing figure with a sharp — and sometimes vulgar — tongue, who was right at home in the male-dominated Pentagon world. Her renown as a tough government negotiator and stickler for the rules led her superiors to rely on her judgment, according to industry insiders.

For nearly 40 percent of her time at the Pentagon she had no supervisor at all. Her rise to power coincided with a governmentwide push to build closer relationships with contractors.

"I was surprised that someone who was around (during the Ill Wind investigation) would be in essence doing the same things that Ill Wind was all about," said Joseph Aronica, the lead prosecutor in that investigation, now a lawyer with Duane Morris. "I guess these things in a way are cyclical. She may have thought no one was looking any more."
...
But no sooner had she climbed the heights of Air Force procurement than she became involved in a controversy over work she had done three years before. She and four other Air Force officials were accused by Pentagon inspector general of improperly funneling $349 million to McDonnell Douglas in 1990 to keep the C-17 transport aircraft program on track.
After a separate Air Force investigation found no wrongdoing, Defense Secretary Les Aspin dismissed one general and disciplined three others, saying the program was poorly managed. Druyun was cleared.
...
The fortunes of defense contractors rested on Druyun's decisions on competitions, her policy decrees and her awards of bonuses. In 1999, she emerged as the Pentagon's top advocate of the F/A-22, a boon to Lockheed, the fighter jet's manufacturer.
...
... Druyun told Sambur that she intended to retire. Federal regulations restricted what kind of job Druyun could take in the defense industry, but she soon forged a handshake agreement to join the executive ranks of Lockheed, the Pentagon's largest contractor.

Meanwhile, Druyun also met with Lockheed's largest rival, Boeing, about a job, according to court documents. She initially used her daughter Heather as intermediary. In e-mails to Sears, Heather said that her mother insisted on a position with considerable responsibility.
...

Given that Druyun had unparalleled power and at one time seriously considered employment at Lockheed, is it not logical that she feathered that nest as well as Boeing's? Seems like Boeing might consider a fall back position that "they also did it" so they can share blame wiith Lockheed.
Unfortunately this article has picked up the spin that Druyun was a "loner" who did stuff by herself. This is pure BS!


This writer Renae Merle and the writers at Government Executive Magazine have consistently provided great insight into these issues. This article and Jason Peckenpaugh's similarly deep one like this and this are required reading for those who want to understand the Druyun Debacle.

11/24/2004 01:53:20 PM



Washington Based Air Force Civilian Writes About Effects on USAF

The Crisis Of The Air Force

Saturday, November 20, 2004
...
Given my day job, I can't really comment in detail here. I not only enjoy my anonymity, I also don't leak, so I ain't gonna tell anyone anything they don't already know.

But the whole Druyun Affair is eating the Air Force alive...

...
I believe the Air Force line, and not only because I'm professionally obligated to parrot it. I *still* can't fathom the whole Druyun-going-to-jail thing. Sure, she's admitted she's guilty, but part of me wonders how much of this is a witch hunt, blowing things way out of proportion.

Besides, having known many of the second-tier personalities involved in these issues, I simply cannot fathom widespread corruption.

Hey, I am no rube. I understand Washington. I understand all too well how something like Ill Wind could have happened. But these are honorable Air Force men and women, who, had they known something unethical-- let alone illegal-- was going on, they would not have stood for it.

Right?

Right???

Anyways. . . like I said, this is only the beginning. And I have a feeling it may get worse before it gets better. Part of me wants to look for another job, to run away from dealing with the fallout from this (and dealing with it while, oh, there's a war on-- i.e., other things we should be paying attention to).
...

This shows how many loyal AF people have been taken in by the USAF party line.

Druyun has been eating at Air Force credibility since she got MG Butchko fired for following her (illegal, verbal, yet unproveable) direction in the mid 90s. She drew the ire of Congress for that (illegal progress payment on the C-17) and for a multitude of capers that infuriated Defense, Authorization and Appropriation Committee members, for example a last minute sole source contract to Lockheed Martin to upgrade C-5s. In that move she broke with the dictates of competition and also managed to break Congressional funding rules!

She skated away from these and many other abuses of rules, regulations and law. How did she get away with such acts?

If you read the story of Druyun getting generals fired when they tried to cancel her position while she was on leave, you get the idea that she had so called "sponsors" as do many generals and especially those who aspired to more than one star equivalence.

Who were her sponsors? Clearly the Clinton appointees and some say her sponsorship went all the way to the White House.

She was in a key position to assuage the bruises provided by the 1995 BRAC, base closures. In particular she helped the high electoral States of California and Texas when Air Force depots were closed. Getting offsets to the lost Defense jobs was a high priority, and Druyun delivered while many Air Force executives, military and civilian went along. These pork programs eviscerated the logic of the BRAC process and many officers and high ranking civilians turned a blind eye.

Interestingly the blindness was assisted by the examples Druyun made of killing many career aspirations. Her vindictiveness is legendary – for example the summary firing of the F-117 Program Manager who would not fudge the cost analysis that clearly showed economies from lifetime support by the Air Force rather than Lockheed. No smoke screen or semblance of competition was needed after heads rolled at McClellan AFB, even after Congress was made aware of the firings.

The reputations of the Air Force as an institution and many of its leaders will suffer however their oaths of office were greviously broken so I have little sympathy. Gutless behavior by others, year after year, pumped Druyun from an unattractive, acid and in many ways incompetent government executive, to the powerhouse she became. It is important that she received a Presidential Senior Executive Service award, which brought the highest possible bonus. I wonder whose signatures are on the recommendations and approvals for her awards?


11/24/2004 07:32:52 AM

Monday, November 22, 2004


The Air Force does a shuffle and says the sky is not blue!

I fear the official Air Force is going to hurt itself by standing with Roche and Sambur! (and by implication Rumsfeld)

This will mean a purge when the truth finally comes out, then the USAF will be without leaders who are not tainted.
(Note: The following USAF article is posted in its entirety since it probably will be re-accomplished, edited or deleted entirely as embarassment grows.)


Good-faith efforts


Commentary by Brig. Gen. Frederick F. Roggero
Director of Air Force Public Affairs

11/22/2004 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- A recent newspaper article raised some important points that need to be clarified so they don’t distract our Airmen as they fight the war on terrorism.

First, our senior Air Force leaders’ very highest priority has always been the best defense for our nation.

Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche aggressively executed his direction by the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2001 to "take the gloves off and fight ... fight hard for resources, fight hard for your department." He took this task seriously so the Air Force could achieve another goal, also directed by this chairman, "that the United States of America maintain its superiority in the skies."

Dr. Roche understood that to follow this directive he had to tackle the troubling issue of aging aircraft, a problem he pointed out in this same testimony. Dr. Roche’s professional judgment led him to begin that work by jump-starting the recapitalization of the nation’s large Eisenhower-era tanker fleet.

Dr. Marvin R. Sambur, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, also realized the dependence of air superiority and mobility on a weakening backbone of aging tankers, but was wrongly accused of writing e-mails that improperly pushed the lease deal. In fact, the DOD inspector general confirmed Dr. Sambur was executing a negotiating technique designed to obtain the best terms for the government and was subsequently cleared.

As is done with all four-star generals, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman charged General Gregory Martin, commander of Air Force Materiel Command, and Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General Michael Moseley to always provide their professional judgment when testifying before Congress, even if those opinions differed from others. These officers stuck to that commitment, and when asked their opinions regarding the replacement of aging aircraft in open sessions of Congress, they provided truthful answers based on their combat leadership and multiple command experiences. They understood the needs of the joint warfighters and provided that information, honestly demonstrating the Air Force core values of integrity, service and excellence.

It is also important to understand that our senior Air Force leaders were engaged from the start of their administration in correcting the acquisition process faults highlighted by former Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management Darleen Druyun’s crimes. In fact, almost immediately upon Dr. Sambur’s confirmation, he recognized the potential for abuse existed within the principal deputy position. Well before any evidence of wrongdoing, Dr. Sambur moved to strip Ms. Druyun of her authorities and then eliminated the position upon her departure.

The fact the system worked and she was caught and is being punished for her crimes proves the accountable nature of the system and restores integrity to the Air Force acquisition process.

Finally, the Air Force has been as forthcoming as possible in providing information requested by Congress. More than 800,000 pages of information have been turned over and the Air Force has made good-faith efforts to be transparent throughout, including responding forthrightly to all requests for documents based on guidance from DOD officials.

In short, the Air Force is earnestly working in good faith with the Congress to defend this great nation. Any perception otherwise is a distraction we can ill afford in this time of war.

It is time to get back to the business of defending this country. Our fellow soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have a war to win.


The PA folks didn't choose their words very wisely here - She was actually the "Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary" but she lacked "Principle" in her dealings! Her title should have been Un-Principled Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition.

This says the Air Force was working on removing Darleen? Really! So exactly who had the guts to attack her? Lets see some emails that prove that everyone knew Darleen was the "Lone Ranger" here AND they were doing something (besides cowering in the corner).

Roche was supposedly following the direction of Senator Warner to "fight hard for your department" - but Roche was using clearly unethical and probably illegal tactics. I think Warner will be insulted by this.

The system worked? I don't think so.
I believe Druyun started such abuse as far back as the scandal which got General Butchko fired, based on following verbal direction from Druyun. She wiggled out of that wiith the IG unable to find a signature. All but a few of the Air Force acquisition officials went along with her illegalities for 10 years! The prime accomplices were the contracting and legal officials. Most of the Air Force general officer corps is up to their buns in this, especially Handy who has his fingers both in Materiel Command and as transporter extrodinare.

The statement "senior Air Force leaders were engaged from the start of their administration in correcting the acquisition process faults" could be stated in another way. Darleen's conduct was so awful that they looked at ways to wash their hands. But at the same time they, as the Clintonians did, used Darleen as a "hit man" to get some things their way.

Any perception (that the Air Force is covering up) is probably near the truth! Provide the unedited guidance issued to PA officers at the affected Agencies and Commands regarding this debacle (Like what was Robins PA told to do?).

The support of bloated mega corporations and the political uses of funds intended for soldiers is a disgrace to them and the Nation.

11/22/2004 10:29:57 PM



Whoopps!


Boeing Chiefs Knew of Insider Data, Lockheed Says


By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 19, 2004; Page E01

Citing unreleased documents, Lockheed Martin Corp. alleged in a court filing that former Air Force official Darleen A. Druyun shared with senior Boeing Co. officials proprietary Lockheed information during a 1990s rocket launch competition.

The November court filing relies on notes from a meeting Druyun attended and an e-mail from Harry C. Stonecipher, Boeing's chief executive, but details from both are redacted in the version made public. Lockheed declined to release an unedited version.

"High-level Boeing officials discussed their proposal strategy and Lockheed Martin's pricing with Ms. Druyun shortly before final EELV [rocket launch] proposal submissions," according to Lockheed's filing. "The inescapable conclusion is that the very apex of Boeing's management structure was privy to and willing to exploit the bribery scheme between Boeing and Druyun in connection with the EELV competition."
...

Looks like Stonecipher has his coattails stepped on by Darleen!

11/22/2004 10:24:43 PM



Washington Technology Magazine - A Lawyer's View

Infotech and the Law: Druyun fallout will be felt long and hard

11/22/04; Vol. 19 No. 17

By Richard Rector

The federal government has long imposed unique ethical responsibilities on its contractors. Following the defense procurement scandals of the 1980s such as Operation Ill Wind, Congress considerably increased the number and types of ethical considerations governing federal contracts.

The result is a maze of ethics-related statutes and regulations with which companies and their employees must comply or face civil, administrative or criminal sanctions. Despite this labyrinth of mandated ethics, the regrettable conduct of Darlene Druyun once again has cast a shadow on the government contracting community, and the effects may be felt for years to come.
...
Last month, Druyun admitted that she had acted against the government's interest by favoring Boeing in certain contract matters:
...
• As the selection authority for the $4 billion procurement to upgrade the avionics of the C-130 aircraft, she chose Boeing over four competitors, despite her belief that an objective selection authority may not have selected Boeing.
(Emphasis mmine)

This whole C-130 AMP effort was to be a Warner Robins program until it was yanked to Wright Patterson. Was Druyun worried that she could not control the outcome if it stayed here in Georgia? Was she worried that logistics considerations would be too prominent in the program, keeping maximum contract profits from happening?
Mmmmmm?

11/22/2004 05:35:14 PM



Druyun Contract Mess


Pentagon to Reopen Air Force Tanker Contract to New Bidders



Nov. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The pentagon will open to new bidders a contract to provide aerial-refueling tankers to the U.S. Air Force after Congress withdrew an earlier proposal worth $23 billion to Boeing Co., Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said.

``After we have selected an appropriate alternative, we intend to require competition,'' Wolfowitz wrote late Nov. 19 to John Warner, the Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee...

Wonder if the Air Force has any contracting officers who can run a true competition?

11/22/2004 05:30:45 PM

Saturday, November 20, 2004


DRUYUN DEBACLE RAISES LARGER QUESTIONS

Boeing improperly awarded multi-billion-dollar contract?

Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Issue Brief
October 15, 2004

The Wall Street Journal reports today that Pentagon officials are investigating whether Boeing was improperly awarded a multi-billion-dollar contract to develop the nation's next generation of photo-reconnaissance satellites. Known as the Future Imagery Architecture, the program has been afflicted from its inception by cost growth, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls. It has also led analysts to reassess Lockheed Martin's management, which was widely criticized for losing big competitions to Boeing in which Lockheed was thought to have an edge. These include the Future Imagery Architecture, the
C-130 Avionics Modernization Program and the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.

It's tempting to try to connect these and other questionable awards into a conspiracy of epic proportions, but as of today, the evidence is ambiguous at best. Boeing has admitted that middle-level managers misused thousands of pages of proprietary Lockheed Martin documents in the launcher contract, and the Air Force has reversed the original award to favor Lockheed. But the launcher competition hasn't been tied to Druyun, and Boeing denies knowledge of improper behavior on her part favoring its interests.

It isn't clear how to fix the damage Druyun has done. Most observers expected Lockheed Martin to win the $4 billion contract for upgrading electronics on C-130 transports, because it built the planes and had won similar contracts in the past. But other companies were also competing, and they too potentially lost business as the result of a biased selection process. Boeing has gone on to win other C-130 upgrade contracts with the Navy and foreign militaries, at least partly on the strength of its work on the original contract. Even if Lockheed Martin can be compensated for its direct losses, how do you factor in the loss of confidence it suffered among investors? And how can you calculate any loss incurred by taxpayers?

And then there's the question of how to prevent similar abuses in the future. Political appointees and senior officers come and go with such frequency that it's not uncommon for career civil servants who stay in one job series to accumulate great power based on their superior knowledge of processes. Yet these officials often earn little more than the median household income in nearby Fairfax County, even though they oversee billions of dollars in programs. Is it realistic to expect that the prospect of post-government employment won't influence their actions, when they know private-sector counterparts with similar experience are making some multiple of their income? Congress has barely begun to ask such hard questions.


Hilarious! Here is the "pundit for hire" Loren Thompson, talking about abuses and chicanery. Thompson'd exploits as the de-facto leader of the "Depot Coalition", paid at that time by Lockheed, included any and all methods (including abuses of position)of getting the Clinton Administration to outsource depot work like that won by Robins in the C-5 competition. The Depot Coalition collected "successful" examples of outsourcing to provide to the Clinton era Defense Department appointees.

I was with Thompson on the day the announcement was made that Robins had won over Lockheed, and his disappointment and resignation that he had been outmaneuvered was evident. He stepped to the podium at an outsourcing conference in a hotel ballroom in Washington and declared that the "fight" was going to be won by political might and that the politicians supporting government workers and depot communities had simply won. He did not even consider the possibility that the Robins bid was the best for the government!!

Too bad that the question of what was best for the Nation and most cost effective for taxpayers was furthest from his mind and all the rampant outsourcers who took aim at depot workloads. He wanted Robins to lose and worked to support what Druyun did, rampant outsourcing and drawdowns in depot personnel and responsibility.

Note that the Lexington Institute is really a PR (public education aka. propaganda) firm dedicated to supporting whomever pays them and you only have to read their "opinion" pieces to see whose payroll they are on. At the moment it seems to be Lockheed management's as was the case when Thompson was given space in the Macon Telegraph to push the F-22. The Lexington Institute does not provide disclaimers about where their funding comes from and presents themselves as independent. Whenever you see them add "Paid Advertisement" to the bottom of the article or their quote in the media!

11/20/2004 09:51:28 PM



Sen. McCain releases documents describing a push for the company to win a tanker contract.

Air Force E-Mails Reveal Cheering for Boeing


By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post
November 20, 2004

Air Force Secretary James G. Roche asked a lobbyist for Boeing Co. to use the company's Washington contacts to "quash" a deputy undersecretary of defense and make him "pay an appropriate price" for objecting to the Air Force's decision to lease Boeing 767 tanker aircraft, according to e-mails released Friday by a Republican senator critical of the tanker deal.

Roche also pressured independent military cost analysts who questioned the high price of the lease, described other internal Pentagon critics as "animals," and ridiculed executives at European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co. and Airbus, the European consortium that offered a competing plan, the e-mails show. He told his top public relations aide to "blow … away" the EADS chairman for raising questions about the Air Force decision to work with Boeing.
...
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has conducted an equally vigorous campaign against the lease, said in releasing the internal Pentagon communications in a speech on the Senate floor that the missives reflected a "systemic Air Force failure in procurement oversight, willful blindness or rank corruption."

McCain said top Air Force officials had recently been trying to "delude the American people" into believing that a single person was responsible for misconduct in the $30-billion leasing plan — namely, Darleen Druyun, the Air Force contracting official who pleaded guilty to overpricing the tankers as a "parting gift" to Boeing before she became one of the company's executives.

"I simply cannot believe that one person, acting alone, can rip off taxpayers out of billions of dollars," said McCain, who said he would keep pursuing internal Defense Department and Bush administration communications until "all the stewards of taxpayers funds who committed wrongdoing are held accountable."

Roche and Marvin Sambur, the Air Force's top acquisition manager, announced their resignations several days before McCain's speech. ...
Druyun expressed fury in a Sept. 5, 2002, e-mail to Roche about published remarks by an Airbus executive about the lease plan, for example. Calling his remarks "slime," she added: "His day of reckoning will come hopefully." Roche's response was "Oy. I agree." He also said he wished Druyun could have "tortured him slowly" over a period of years.


This is typical of Druyun's methodologies of the past - a vindictive approach at the personal level, at the organization/corporate level while using that vindictiveness to quash opposition inside government to kill careers of military and civilians.

On the other hand Druyun rewarded those who would do her bidding and supported the programs she favored such as FAST at Robins. With FAST in place, directed awards to those in favor could be easily rigged. Unfortunately many government managers went along to protect their positions and retirement income. They let those who objected swing on the gallows and turned their heads.

Robins people who can document such awards can go to the DoD IG and should do so NOW. Contractors who lost to such unjustified awards should take the opportunity to protest as soon as some internal documentation comes to light.

11/20/2004 09:20:14 AM

Friday, November 19, 2004

(Click here to contact Marshall)


You can help Middle Georgia!!

Congressman Marshall would like to understand the role which Druyun may have had in pushing Robins workload to other locations (government or contract). These could be acquisition programs shifted to Wright Patterson or Hanscom for example or contracting out Robins workloads (often before Robins could even start the work). Druyun also made rulings or Air Force policy which steered programs or types of work elsewhere.

Many RAFB connected persons can help educate our Congressman. If you can point out programs which demonstrate how Druyun affected Robins, use the link above to send him information.

I suggest that at first, you only provide him examples of Druyun's hacks at Middle Georgia, using the program name and the value in dollars or jobs. If you can provide leads to documentation/contracts or e-mails indicate that you can do so, but wait to be asked for the backup information.

Then Marshall's staff can then gather the information and start getting together documentation. Here is a way you can affect our local economy for the better! If multiple people let him know the impacts on an overhaul program or a software engineering workload, then he may be able to redress the problem in our favor.

Note: The Air Force is buttoned up and not talking about the issues of Darleen's effects on Robins. It would be good for Congressman Marshall to know if Robins officials have directed workers to shut up, and about what specific programs or data.

11/19/2004 05:56:55 PM


Senator reveals Air Force-Boeing e-mail exchanges, demands accountability

DAILY BRIEFING November 19, 2004
By Amy Klamper, CongressDaily

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., stood on the Senate floor Friday and read e-mail exchanges between Boeing Co., executives and Air Force officials that he said revealed an improper relationship aimed at securing a $30 billion tanker lease deal.
...
"This appears to be a case of either a systemic failure in procurement oversight, willful blindness or rank corruption," McCain said. "Either way, accountability among Air Force leadership is in order."

McCain's actions ended months of silence regarding the contents of thousands of internal government documents related to the Air Force's contentious plan to lease Boeing aerial refueling tankers.
...
in his floor statement McCain said Roche's e-mails indicate he favored Boeing over its European rival, EADS North America.

In a September 2002 e-mail to Raytheon executive William Swanson Roche wrote, "Privately between us: Go Boeing!" and about EADS North America chief Ralph Crosby, "The widespread feelings about Crosby in the Air Staff, [Gen. John] Jumper especially, will only make their life more difficult."
In a subsequent e-mail to Darleen Druyun, then the Air Force's acquisition deputy, Roche spoke of torturing Crosby "slowly over the next few years until EADS got rid of him!"
Other e-mails confirm Roche brought pressure to bear on top Pentagon officials critical of the lease.
...
Roche and his acquisition chief, Marvin Sambur, resigned their posts earlier this week under a cloud of controversy surrounding the deal.

Read all the story and see how brazen the Air Force hierarchy was. They brought vindictiveness along with the favoritism and showed how contracting offices can be used to exact retribution against companies and individuals! I wonder if anything like that ever happened at Warner Robins???
11/19/2004 05:47:30 PM


Boeing Chiefs Knew of Insider Data, Lockheed Says

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 19, 2004; Page E01

Citing unreleased documents, Lockheed Martin Corp. alleged in a court filing that former Air Force official Darleen A. Druyun shared with senior Boeing Co. officials proprietary Lockheed information during a 1990s rocket launch competition.

The November court filing relies on notes from a meeting Druyun attended and an e-mail from Harry C. Stonecipher, Boeing's chief executive, but details from both are redacted in the version made public. Lockheed declined to release an unedited version.
....

When will Boeing start making accusations against Lockheed?? Against politicians?
11/19/2004 08:15:43 AM

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Lockheed wants details of Boeing-Druyun talks

Thursday, November 18, 2004

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Lockheed Martin lawyers want to know if a former top Air Force official, recently sentenced to prison, played a role in the awarding of a space-launch services contract that Lockheed claims was tainted by the misuse of trade secrets by a competitor, The Boeing Co.
...
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla Spaulding agreed last week to let Lockheed lawyers question a Boeing representative about communications with Druyun on six contract competitions, including the rocket launch contract known as the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program, or EELV.
...
"Any attempt to inject Darleen Druyun into this case is a strategy to sensationalize Lockheed's claims, influence government decisions elsewhere and develop evidence to support Lockheed's bid protest," Beck said.
....


Interesting that the Lockheed pot is calling the Boeing kettle black! Druyun provided "gifts" to Lockheed earlier in her career before she settled on working for Boeing and helping her daughter. She did so to help political appointees and elected officials, and she received Senior Executive Service (SES) bonuses including a Presidential award. They provided her "cover" when Air Force officers wanted to can her.


11/18/2004 09:23:43 PM

Thursday, November 11, 2004
No Stone Left Unturned (Stonecipher that is)

Boeing dilemma: restoring faith using tarnished ties - Up Front

Los Angeles Business Journal,  Jan 5, 2004  by Peter Robison

In a speech in April 2001, Boeing Co. Chief Executive Harry C. Stonecipher, then the company's president, touted the "partnership" he helped create with the U.S. Air Force.

He singled out for praise Darleen Druyun, then the Air Force's second-ranking acquisition official, who had described herself as the "godmother" of Boeing's C-17 cargo plane.

"We all campaigned together, the service, the company and our suppliers, for the needed support in Congress," Stonecipher said at the Air Force-sponsored conference in San Antonio.


Stonecipher has a significant credibility problem because of his C-17 ties as well as the Tanker program


From the same article:


But Stonecipher's contribution to a "win at all costs" company culture may come under scrutiny, said Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based group that tracks government spending. "He isn't a Boy Scout in this," Ashdown said. "There are ethical issues from his tenure that are still very relevant."

....


Stonecipher arrived at McDonnell Douglas from Sundstrand in 1994--in the midst of another crisis with the Pentagon. The C-17, one of the company's three largest military-aircraft programs, was on the verge of cancellation because of delays and cost overruns.

Stonecipher insisted on monthly quality, cost and performance goals, then touted the improvements during regular meetings with officials in Washington, said Don Kozlowski, a retired McDonnell Douglas executive who was the C-17's senior vice president. The Air Force has since agreed to buy 140 more for $24 billion.

The turnaround made Stonecipher friends in the military. "He's respected as a good, trustworthy manager," said Jacques Gansler, the Defense Department's acquisitions chief from 1997 to 2000.

Stonecipher's military ties also present hazards.

He said in his 2001 speech that the company worked with the Air Force to reduce bureaucracy on the C-17. When lower-ranking managers couldn't resolve annual contract disagreements, program managers "would settle the outstanding differences themselves, without the help of their staffs," he said.

Sen. John S. McCain, R-Ariz., and other critics say that tight relationship helped the company secure a sweetheart deal.

I wonder why the Air Force suddenly cancelled the bids for the C-17 software support center at Kelly AFB? I wonder if Stonecipher was around for that meeting in Long Beach?

I also wonder also when the Druyun investigations will shift to Jacques Gansler and his henchmen while he was at DoD??






11/11/2004 04:07:06 PM

Pentagon Expands Review of Boeing Deals
It will look at hundreds of contracts overseen by an ex-Air Force official for possible misconduct.

By Peter Pae
Times Staff Writer
November 10, 2004

Boeing Co. probably will remain barred from seeking military rocket work until all the defense contracts overseen by a former Air Force official who admitted giving the company favorable treatment are reviewed for possible improprieties, a top Pentagon official said Tuesday.

The review could prolong Boeing's suspension for six months, dealing a blow to efforts by the world's largest aerospace company to recover from scandals that have tarnished its reputation.

........
Wynne said that Pentagon auditors would now begin poring over hundreds of contracts that Druyun handled dating to 1993 when she first began working as a senior acquisition official.

A rocket contract that Boeing won in 1998 will be among those reviewed, Wynne said. Druyun was the so-called source selection authority, or the ultimate decision-maker on that contract.

.... Wynne gave no timetable for the review, " but added that he hoped to have some preliminary report from the group by mid-February.

He said he was creating a second task force consisting mostly of outside experts who would look at "management practices and circumstances" that gave one acquisition official so much power.

Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the company had been cooperating with Pentagon investigators and was eager to "get back into the business of meeting their launch needs." He added that Boeing was willing to wait to "make sure their concerns are addressed."

Boeing, headquartered in Chicago, is the largest private employer in Southern California with 36,000 workers.


------ I recommend reading anything that this reporter writes, because he does his homework!

So lets see - which California politicians might have been involved since 1993? Boxer and Matsui were known to frequent Sacramento Air Logistics Center, especially after the BRAC announcement of McClellan AFB's closure. And who was the White House Chief of Staff?? Panetta I think!

Heh.

11/11/2004 02:56:26 PM

Top Air Force officials expected to resign later this year

By Amy Klamper, CongressDailyPM
November 10, 2004

Air Force Secretary James Roche and his chief acquisition officer, Marvin Sambur, are expected to resign before the end of the year, according to government and defense industry sources.

Roche and Sambur have been under a cloud because of their association with the Air Force's effort to acquire Boeing KC-767 tanker aircraft.
....
In recent weeks, the Air Force has come under scrutiny for its handling of the tanker deal and other large contracts during the tenure of former Air Force acquisition official Darleen Druyun, who admitted in federal court last April that she gave preferential treatment to Boeing before accepting a senior executive position with the company. This week, the Pentagon widened its investigation into Druyun's actions to include a broad review of acquisition methods across all the military services. And in September the White House initiated a federal probe of Roche, a former Northrop Grumman executive, for allegedly offering to help a senior OMB official land a job for her brother with Roche's former employer in exchange for backing the tanker proposal. Sambur, who was Druyun's boss, also is the subject of a federal probe in which investigators are said to be reviewing 113 of Sambur's e-mails related to the tanker deal. Sambur, former president of ITT Defense, oversees the Air Force's $37 billion annual procurement budget.


Read it all!
Going to be interesting as the older contracts start to implicate other apppointees and politicians. Because of the major hits to California's economy from the BRAC decisions California was "given" jobs back that should have transferred to other states.


The real dirt at Sacramento involves the shift of F-117 logistics support to Lockheed over the objections of Sacramento Air Logistics Center managers Colonel and GM-14/15) whose analysis showed that the work should be retained in government rather than outsourced. Druyun fired the then System Manager and his civilian deputy when they refused to doctor the analyses to favor contract performance.

Suspect also is the retention of an Air Force function at the ALC dedicated to solving problems of out of date and obsolete electronics. This organization was transferred to work under DoD rather than the Logistics Center so the jobs would stay in California. That workload would probably have come to Robins AFB. This is how to thumb your nose at the BRAC!

11/11/2004 02:24:46 PM

McClellan job loss is probed

By Dale Kasler -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, November 11, 2004

Six years after Sacramento's dying McClellan Air Force Base lost its struggle to hold onto 3,000 high-paying jobs, the Pentagon is reviewing the case as part of a growing investigation into the dealings of a disgraced Air Force contracting officer.

While in charge of Air Force procurement, Darleen Druyun shipped the McClellan workload in 1998 to a team in Utah led by Boeing Co. Since then she's admitted she illegally steered work to Boeing on several occasions because the aerospace contractor had agreed to hire her and two family members. Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison in October.

While she hasn't said anything about McClellan, her work on the 1998 contract is part of a broad review launched by investigators with the Pentagon. A separate investigation, by Congress' Government Accountability Office, also is expected to get under way, but it's unknown if it would include the McClellan contract.

.....

In addition, the Pentagon has referred to the GAO - the watchdog arm of Congress, formerly known as the General Accounting Office - complaints against Druyun filed by Lockheed Martin, BAE System and L-3 Communications Holdings. The three contractors had complained about Druyun's awarding a $4 billion contract to Boeing to upgrade the C-130 aircraft - a contract that Druyun later admitted was tainted by her desire to curry favor with Boeing.

.....
In 1998, McClellan was a doomed facility but had been given an opportunity to retain $1 billion worth of aircraft-maintenance work. That would have been enough work to keep up to 3,000 highly paid mechanics working for several years after the base's July 2001 shutdown.

To award the contract, the Air Force established a competition in which McClellan and Lockheed Martin bid against Boeing and Utah's Hill Air Force Base.

Druyun, in a decision announced in September 1998, chose the Boeing-Hill team and called it "the clear winner." She said the Boeing-Hill team underbid McClellan-Lockheed $1.1 billion vs. $1.25 billion.

Sacramento officials have said they believed Druyun refereed the contest fairly


Druyun's admissions about helping Boeing, while surprising, are just the tip of the iceberg. Helping California and Texas was high on the Clinton administration's priority as the elections loomed. It would be interesting to look at who signed Druyun's Presidential SES award about then, which provided her a BIG bonus. (Possibly for helping with the electoral votes of the two most populous states?)

Mmmmmm
there ought to be a paper trail of Darleen entering the White House too??

11/11/2004 02:19:35 PM

Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Watch Out Mr. Clinton!

Posted 11/9/2004 6:50 PM

U.S. probe widens into dealings of Boeing with Air Force official
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon said Tuesday it has asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate a wide range of Air Force contracts that involved Darleen Druyun, a former senior official who has admitted giving special treatment to Boeing Co.

The review will include all contracts handled by Druyun during nearly a decade as a top acquisition official of the Air Force, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Most of what Druyun did regarding specific contracts was at the beck and call of the Clinton administration, especially in the "after BRAC" turmoil. Fingers will be pointed at the White House!

Also watch out Lockheed and other big contractors. You who were indebted to Druyun for a free wheeling paring and ignoring of contract law and process. Druyun was urged on by the likes of Steve Kelman, Clintonian OMB type and Dr. White, the jerk that hijacked the "Roles and Missions" Commission into a massive outsourcing binge. Druyun wielded the axe but the direction came from political appointees!

A Presidential Commission today might be able to use the Druyun mess to throw rocks at Democrats and could certainly soften the blows which will be coming at the hands of aggressive Justice Department prosecutors (I hope!).


Boeing Satellite Suspension Continuing-Pentagon
Acting Pentagon acquisitions chief Michael Wynne said a thorough review was needed to assess whether former No. 2 Air Force acquisitions official Darleen Druyun helped award Boeing the lion's share of a $1.9 billion contract under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.

"It's really hard for the Air Force to move forward now that this has all come out," Wynne told reporters at his Pentagon office. "We've got to sweep away any allegations of ethical misconduct."


(Emphasis mine)

Sweeping away or just under the rug?

11/9/2004 07:12:34 PM

Sunday, November 07, 2004
Air Force wants help reviewing Boeing ties

Washington, DC, Nov. 5 (UPI) -- The Pentagon is considering a massive, independent review of the Air Force's contracting procedures and major weapons programs awarded to Boeing.


Would be great if some Warner Robins related contracts were evaluated. For example Druyun's decision to have Boeing care for the C-17 software for life! I'm sure there is no backup showing the cost effectiveness of that, and Druyun summarily cancelled the software lab for San Antonio, the first step to begin organic support. (The USAF paid for a lot of data it never needed!) That workload would have brought many jobs to Middle Georgia!!

Boeing profits up 78 percent
DAVE CARPENTER

Associated Press

CHICAGO - Burgeoning military sales lifted Boeing Co. to a 78 percent increase in third-quarter profits, its bottom line thriving despite the ethics scandals that have roiled the aerospace giant for the past year.

The results Wednesday handily surpassed Wall Street's expectations, and Boeing raised its estimate for full-year earnings.

Guess the adage crime doesn't pay doesn't apply any more.
11/7/2004 09:33:52 PM

Monday, November 01, 2004
Government Executive Magazine

Her History

February 15, 2004

The Rise And Fall of A Maverick
During her 30-year federal career, Darleen Druyun charted a course that made her one of the most influential acquisition executives in government. Her career was characterized by an aggressive, risk-taking approach to managing a series of complex, controversial, multibillion-dollar deals

11/1/2004 09:52:57 PM

Fallen Star

February 15, 2004

Fallen Star
By George Cahlink
gcahlink@govexec.com
The cautionary tale of a celebrated federal executive's corporate flameout


How about "A crook finally gets her due"
11/1/2004 09:46:07 PM

Ex-Pentagon procurement chief pleads guilty to conspiracy

DAILY BRIEFING
April 20, 2004

From CongressDaily

A former Air Force procurement officer who later served as a top executive at Boeing pleaded guilty Tuesday to conspiring to help the aviation company obtain a multibillion-dollar Pentagon contract, the Associated Press reported.

Darleen Druyun entered the plea in U.S. District Court to a single count of conspiracy, which carries a maximum five years in prison.

"I deeply regret my actions and I want to apologize,'' Druyun said.

Yea and then she lied to prosecutors and got caught in a lie detector test!
11/1/2004 09:42:15 PM

Ex-Pentagon procurement executive gets jail time

"Within a year, her nemeses in the Air Force, a three-star general and a political appointee, had left the service. 'They're gone, but I'm still here,' Druyun would later tell a colleague."


This deserves to be read closely. Great story.
11/1/2004 09:21:27 PM

Monday, October 18, 2004

==================================

My daughter-in-law's father sent me this. Seemed to apply especially well to contracting officers and other officiials under (or beside) Druyun.

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

==================
Mmmmmmmm?


10/18/2004 01:52:15 PM

The "official" Air Force position seems to be a defensive protest that only one person was responsible for the massive frauds perpitrated by Darleen Druyun. Many of the government agencies involved, both in the Executive Branch and in the Legislative, publically attribute all illegal activities to this single individual in a ritual handwashing.

That is widely viewed as ludicrous, as Senator John McCain told General Gregory Martin, current Commander of Air Force Materiel Command, under which the Robins comander directly works. The General tried to tap dance away from culpability in an open hearing for his confirmation to head the military in the Pacific theater. An AP story dated October 8th entitled " General Not Mad At McCain" described General Martin and Senator McCain's face off over Martin's invovement.
In a telephone interview from his Air Force Materiel Command headquarters at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, Martin said he played no part in the Boeing contract negotiations. His name has appeared on some internal e-mails related to the tanker plan...
It was noted during the Martin confirmation hearing that Ms. Druyun did closely work with General Martin during 1988-1989. Around this time the responsibility for the C-130 AMP program, was abruptly shifted to Wright Patterson, after Druyun had assurred Robins that the program would be based in Middle Georgia. Druyun's written admission that another unbiased evaluator would not have awarded the $4 Billion program to Boeing sparked protests by Lockheed Martin and BAE. Some speculated years ago that Robins' loss of the program stemed from who Darleen could intimidate. Martin would have approved that responsibility transfer.
... Martin said he had seen no inappropriate behavior during the year or so they worked together in the Pentagon. McCain responded, "General, I'm questioning your qualifications for command."...

In the same article, McCain's ire was aimed at Martin and what he viewed as stonewalling regarding Martin and others' correspondence about the refueling tanker program
"I will strongly object to your nomination leaving this committee until we get all of the e-mails and all of the answers, of which I have very many," McCain told Martin, whose wife, Wendy, and brother, Steve, were in the audience and were introduced at the start of the hearing. ...
With those words from McCain, Martin said, he realized that his nomination was probably doomed.
... 'I had absolutely nothing to do with it,' said Martin, who hours after the hearing announced he was withdrawing his nomination to head U.S. Pacific Command."
We would wonder how such blatant acts were missed by so many!?

In another protest that is perhaps much too much, Lockheed complained about the award of the modification program to Boeing.
Tom Jurkowsky, a Lockheed spokesman, said ... "We have to find a remedy for an injustice caused by Ms. Druyun through her chicanery," .
The amusing part of this is that although Boeing got lots of "gifts" from Druyun in the past few years, Lockheed was a past beneficiary of her summary decisions as well. In a smaller but parallel move Druyun had made a "stealth" award of the C-5 avionics modification, without competition. See the Air Force Magazine announcement in April 1999. In another case, over the objections and cost analysis results of Sacramento ALC managers, Druyun directed the sole source contracting of F-117 sustainment to Lockheed. In that situation she had the SPM and deputy fired for not following her verbal direction. This was brought to several Congressional committee staff through copies of letters sent to Druyun's superior (who just happens to work for Boeing!) It would seem that Lockheed "doth protest too much" given their previous "gifts"! It also seems that Daleen had developed a disdain for Lockheed. I wonder why?

Some other links of interest:
10/18/2004 11:50:01 AM

Sunday, October 17, 2004
Gene Rector has done us a service by starting the ball rolling October 17, 2004. I hope Bobby Harnage gets a copy of today's Macon Telegraph.
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE - This month's courtroom confessions by a former top-ranking Air Force civilian official are casting a dark cloud over a system that awards contracts worth billions of taxpayer dollars a year - and could affect future work and hundreds of jobs at Robins Air Force Base.
This story is a good start in educating our area about a woman wielding power far beyond reasonable limits, and in doing so, she stole much economic growth from Mid Georgia. Two situations were highlighted in the story. First and most important is the damage to the reputations of many contracting personnel who looked up to Darleen and must have understood the rules being broken. This includes local people since many of these actions were common knowledge around the base. Second were the recent contracts she "tilted" in favor of Boeing, but which excluded Robins from bidding work at more competitive prices than by contract.

General Rick Goddard:

"We've grown a generation of young acquisition officers who have been tainted by Darleen's mode of operation - a culture that believes that was the right way to do business," he said. "They must understand their responsibility to run an absolutely flawless, above-board system so there are no questions when the onion is peeled away."

The "Darleen way" that is mentioned is simply a culture of ignoring rules, regulations and law as a day to day activity. Throughout Goddard's tenure, and in fact through his predecessor Ron Smith's, Darleen ran completely amok, breaking both precedent and law. She taught contracting personnel by example about a power based process of contracting, exacting money, careers and mission assignment retributions against any blocking her way. Early in Darleen's heyday she verbally directed a few general officers to do something illegal, that was make progress payments not earned by contract provisions. Three senior officers were forced to retire for following her direction. Unbelievably the Air Force , DoD and Congress were unable to exact even a portion of the punishment levied on the military officers. This was in 1993 and the contract was for the C-17 development!

The "tainting" of contracting people that needs to be attacked from the Mid Georgia viewpoint is the majority of "Acquisition" personnel's ingrained assumptions, that assigning work to depots is a last alternative to contracting out. Many of the jobs she directed to contracts should have been assigned to Robins!

"Ron Smith, also a retired Air Force major general and former local center commander, said"
"he would be surprised if a number of contracts are recompeted. 'It would almost be mind-boggling,' he said. 'We're already down the road with millions - probably billions - of taxpayer dollars invested. ....'We need to find out what happened, correct it and look forward not backward.' ... 'I was not a Darleen fan,' he said, 'but I was shocked with all of this. The whole thing baffles me. Maybe she did all of those things just because she could. It's sad ... really, really sad.'

I am baffled how senior officials deny knowing of the abuses and I'm remindedof the kids who blame others when something is broken. Smith accurately predicted
"... the fallout will paint with a very broad brush."
and much of that fallout will be on the "Heads of Contracting", mostly senior civilians, and those with the authority to approve contracts, senior military.
In addition to the military officers and the senior civilians who knew better, but still supported Darleen's acts, Congress is definitely to blame. I personally explained some of Darleen's improper acts to then Congressman Chambliss face to face. I provided documents to his staff however:
"Clyde Taylor, military assistant to Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said Chambliss 'will press for some answers the next time he meets with the Air Force secretary."
I would hope so and I would hope he threatens Mr. Roche (who is hardly blameless himself) that if Robins is not provided recompense - heads will roll.
I completely agree with General Goddard that:
"It's going to be political"
And political cover with career ending threats were the weapons Darleen held in her hand to get by with all that she did. She did the bidding of contractors with her politician "Godfathers" watching from the shadows. If she was attacked as the "hitwoman" they would help get her out of hot water. These are the people who must really be losing sleep, that perhaps Darleen might not want to buy her way out of another few months of jail by implicating them.

10/17/2004 03:37:58 PM

Friday, June 20, 2003


Tale of Two Robins Grads



Darleen and Bobby


Robins Veterans Lead Privatization Battle

Many in Washington, catch the so called "Potomac fever"' the disease of power. It is a belief that the whole world, and more surely, the USA, revolves around Washington DC. Conversely they often believe that nothing of significance could possibly happen elsewhere (like in Middle Georgia). But two pivotal Washingtonians passed through Middle Georgia years ago on their way to our Nation's Capitol. They have contrary viewpoints on issues affecting work accomplished here, local jobs and thus our Midstate economy. This column uses their careers and positions to illustrate a battle where Georgians are in the line of fire.


Prelude

Once upon a time (1970-72) there was a young civilian contracting officer working at Robins AFB. She was noticed by superiors as intelligent and exceptionally hard working, had ambition, and was respected. Her name was Darleen Druyun and she retired January 2003 from the Air Force, capping her career as Air Force "Acquisition Czar". Today she is a vice president at Boeing.



In 1963 a young man, raised in Moultrie, completed his four year military tour as a police investigator at Robins AFB. He was a competitve sharpshooter and traveled widely, representing Robins and the Air Force. Bobby Harnage left military life, but not Robins AFB, becoming a sheet metal worker in Maintenance. His energetic ways soon spread beyond cutting and bending aircraft parts, to leadership in the local union. He too was noticed by Robins officials but perhaps in a more combative way. Today he is national President of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).



Both these "veterans" of Middle Georgia find themselves at odds over workload policies directly affecting Mid Georgia. Their careers are notable and their positions notably illustrate a national controversy, so here is a story of

Privatization and Outsourcing of Federal Jobs



The Issues

Over the past decade a concerted trend to move jobs from public workers, to for-profit corporations, has swept across cities, states and the Federal government. Outsourcing is evident in corporate America and indeed in Middle Georgia, as shown by a look at Ikon in Macon, a major provider of services to business. Ikon's concept is that specialists, coupled with consolidating workloads can provide economies and professionalism. Another example is that payroll companies generally do a good job for small and medium businesses and at a much lower cost than to do it in-house. In government, this trend, rides the coattails of politicians (Carter, Regan, Clinton and our sitting President for example) whose calls for "reform" regularly disparaged public accomplishment of services. Businesses do it "better" is the conventional wisdom. In government circles outsourcing means "privatization" of public jobs. "Everyone knows" industry can do it cheaper?! Mmmmmm. Perhaps - Perhaps not!



The Players

The two people highlighted in this column both came through Middle Georgia but their views don't coincide. In my opinion (having worked in Air Force procurement since 1967) Druyun is a foe of small business, Robins and all Air Logistics Centers. She is very pro outsourcing (Privatizing) and pro large business, is quite dismissive of logistics in her presentations, as displayed during her visits to Robins for "Acquisition Reform" weeks (which I attended). I guess that her early impression of Robins was very negative, and comes from an "on the hill" viewpoint, from a paper pushing procurement job. Harnage on the other hand seems to have a distinctly "down the hill" viewpoint keeping some distance between white collar jobs on the hill, overlooking (in several senses) the blue collar maintenance functions of the bulk of civilian workers. He tends to look at "management" as the enemy, as any AFL-CIO union head would. (AFGE does represent some white collar workers!)



But to divide these two people in terms of blue collar vs. white collar is an oversimplification. Druyun put her career as her ultimate priority, taking repeated job shifts to work herself up the acquisition ladder. Her career was mostly spent in acquiring new systems from large businesses and she sees things from that viewpoint. Her loyalties clearly lie with management, with direct political contacts with at least the Clinton White House. Harnage seems to have reluctantly moved, following a single mission, the union. He is clearly combative with many personnel issues of the government, but does deal directly with legislators and negotiates with the Executive branch. Both are considered very successful, but are also disparaged. Critics of Druyun point out her imperious ways, seeming vindictive and threatening methods. Critics of Harnage point out his almost blind support of government workers amid the general public's cynicism of unions.



The difference between them concerns workloads historically done by mostly civilian workers at Robins or similar "depots". Losing jobs to industry is not something that might happen in the future, but it is an ongoing loss of positions over years, draining the economic engine of Middle Georgia, Robins AFB. It has been characterized as "death by a thousand cuts". When the Air Force closed two of its five depots, Robins felt assured of a future, since workloads like the C-17 would offset the retirement of the C-141. But what is being worked at Robins is a small portion of the work. Few will admit the heavy losses experienced by Robins, including base leaders and local politicians. But Harnage has taken the battle to Congress and recently sent a letter to the Editor of Washington Technology and his warnings need to be heard here. His messages are that fair consideration is not being given to government workers, but also one of taxpayer interest, higher costs.



Actions of Druyun and Harnage

In reviewing both people's careers their accomplishments are significant and pivotal to Middle Georgia. Their testimony before Congress would fill books, so summarizing is difficult. Using the example of the new airlifter support, the C-17 however, illustrates Middle Georgia's stake. Druyun was pivotal in deciding Air Force acquisition strategies including the C-17's. She was accused of funneling unwarranted payments to McDonnel Douglas early in the program (which is now part of Boeing). Although generals working under Druyun were forced to retire over the C-17 payments, Druyun avoided blame (but knowledgeable people say she was involved). At the time of the last base closure round, Kelly AFB, similar to Robins was closed. Many C-17 jobs were planned to go to Kelly and logically, these positions would have come here. Druyun, however, maneuvered to privatize the C-17 support to Boeing during the transition. (Note that Robins got some dregs of positions, no real software engineering and is not hands-on managing the parts and repairs. The maintenance work Robins gets is actually decided on by Boeing!. Legislators seemed powerless to stop the process, though done without cost comparisons typical of such decisions.) Druyun is now retired from Civil Service, and works for Boeing, making her previous decisions obviously suspect.



Harnage has continuously done battle against such privatization, but is also tainted by a seemingly self serving position, as union leader for civilian Defense workers. Unfortunately government workers are not in high esteem and widely assumed to be less efficient than industry. He is assumed to be biased, with both legislators and the public discounting his views, seeing a conflict with government's best interest. Even when he points out that the legislators' own investigators, the General Accounting Office, agree with him, he has a difficult time being heard.



But this column is really focused on on the decision to privatize sustainment of the C-17 not Harnage or Druyun. This decision, discounting many similar ones, has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars not coming to the Middle Georgia's economy, through government and local business salaries and purchases. The decision was made without independent cost analysis (Most Efficient Organization study) and thus Middle Georgia has a vested interest which was not protected.



A good primer to this specific situation is the Project On Government Oversight's C17 Report In which they describe a "Sweetheart Deal" which "Helps (a) Defense Contractor", Boeing. What is not mentioned in their report however is how much it cost Middle Georgia! Boeing simply has been given lifetime assured work to maintain the C-17 in lieu of support by Robins with no competition! [See references below]



This also causes serious effects on our military budget and thus to us as taxpayers! The situation was described by a local car dealer, who said he'd discount an automobile significantly, even giving it away, if he got the lifetime maintenance (at dealer prices!). What makes this even better for Boeing? there is no hope of the Air Force getting parts or service anywhere else since the decision was made not to buy the drawings etc. so the prices are all the taxpayer can bear! Then the C-17 is to be designated as a "commercial" item which exempts them from justifying costs, thus insulating Boeing from overcharging accusations.



Conclusion

We need some way to remove the apparent biases of Druyun and Harnage and get to the bottom of this, because we are taxpayers, and because we are Middle Georgians. Both of them assert that "their way" is most cost effective and not a conflict of interest, but the stakes are too high not to independently find out. Cynisism and apathy can be our reaction, but this hurts all of us! Write your legislators!

On our web site at http://members.cox.net/maconwaves/ there are links to e-mail them. Better yet call their local offices!

================================================


Druyun and C-17 sources:

Druyun Joins Boeing as Deputy General Manager for Missile Defense Systems

is a Boeing press release.

================================================


"Godmother of the C-17"


================================================


Project On Government Oversight (POGO) C17 ReportHeavy Lifting for Boeing:
Sweetheart Deal Helps Defense Contractor and Hurts Taxpayers.


================================================


Nature & Politics - Eat the State! (January 20, 2003) Pentagon, Inc.

discusses the integration of large business with the Department of Defense.

================================================


Former Air Force acquisition officials joins Boeing



================================================


================================================


Harnage Sources:

Letter to the Editor of Washington Technology pointing out multiple issues.

================================================


In the article "OMB touts A-76 circular revisions" Harnage took on the Office of Management and Budget which has significantly simplified putting governemt work out for contract. Harnage argues that the rules changes “will lead to greater costs to the federal government,” as OMB allows contractors to “submit less responsive and more expensive bids than federal employees and still take work from federal employees.”

================================================


Defense Mechanism. by Michael Wallach. June 5, 2003. describes the conflict between Harnage and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. "He's talking out of both sides of his mouth," said Harnage of Rumsfeld.

================================================


Harnages's union had taken the preferential treatment of American Indian tribal business over Federal employees all the way to the Supreme Court - and lost.
NCM: Preferential Contracts for Native Americans OK

================================================


More Help Coming for Members of the Military, at Least (washingtonpost.com) Harnage is quoted by the Washington Post "This hasty action is an insult to the terrific men and women in DoD and a real disservice to our country," AFGE President Bobby L. Harnage Sr. said.

================================================



Now What?
It's important for citizens to speak out through our elected officials.

Here are contacts for you to express your opinion. Click to mail them now!



shallow waves

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?