Objective
We determined whether Mission and
Installation Contracting Command (MICC)
controls for award, funding, and
administration of contracts supporting
Fort Polk, Louisiana, Directorate of Public
Works functions were effective. This
audit is in response to allegations of MICC
contract mismanagement made to the
Defense Hotline.
Findings
For the three contracts we reviewed,
Fort Polk controls for funding contracts
were generally effective, but controls for
awarding and administering contracts
needed improvement. A Fort Polk program
official improperly authorized out-of?scope
work; and a contracting official authorized
out-of-scope work valued at $105,944,
and Fort Polk contracting officials did not
effectively monitor contract performance.
These conditions occurred because the
contracting officers at the time did not
ensure contracting policies and procedures
were implemented. In addition, Fort Polk
contracting officials incorporated
inappropriate construction-related Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses for
work requirements that were maintenance
and repair in nature and incorporated
poorly defined performance work
statements into the two contracts. This
occurred because contracting staff were
in a hurry to obligate expiring operations
and maintenance (O&M) funds; MICC
supervisory reviews were inadequate; and the contracting
officer did not request legal reviews of proposed contract
awards as required by Army policy.
As a result, Fort Polk officials created an unauthorized
commitment by improperly authorizing out-of-scope work on
the Horton contract. Furthermore, controls over Fort Polk
contract award and administration efforts should be
strengthened to eliminate unnecessary risks associated with
supporting the Fort Polk Directorate of Public Works function
and ensure that the government receives what it paid for.
We partially substantiated two of six Defense Hotline
allegations. We found the other four allegations to
be unsubstantiated.
Recommendations
We recommend the Commanders, MICC and Installation
Management Command, respectively, review the contracting
officers’ and project manager’s actions regarding one contract
award and, as appropriate, initiate management or other
actions to hold them accountable. We also recommend the
Commander, MICC, determine whether the unauthorized
commitment may be properly ratified in accordance with
FAR 1.602-3; require detailed supervisory review of
proposed contract awards; require contracting officers to
take various actions to ensure thorough outside contract
review; fully monitor contractor compliance, as required
through regulation; and adopt several practices to ensure
contracts specifically and accurately describe the projects
to be undertaken.
Management Comments Required
The Commanders, MICC and Installation Management
Command, did not respond to the recommendations in the
report. We request that the Commanders provide comments
on the final report.