Here is a GAO Piece regarding DCAA -GFS


GAO (Government Accountability Office)



Allegations That Certain


Audits at Three Locations


Did Not Meet Professional


Standards Were Substantiated


Link to Report:




Here’s another interesting piece of information -GFS


Fraud Awareness:  An Auditor’s Perspective:  Defense Contract Audit Agency






Report to Congress on DCAA:







From POGO: 



GovExec: DCAA ‘Broken,’ Ex-Employees Say

Government Executive reported Wednesday that nearly a dozen former employees of the Defense Contract Audit Agency told them of widespread problems at the agency, which has been embroiled in controversy after Congress’ investigative arm issued a scathing report two weeks ago.  A dubious set of performance metrics that emphasize rapid auditing has been driving the DCAA to too often avoid conflict with the contractors whose contract proposals, past contract performance and internal control systems the agency audits, the former employees told GovExec.

The last third of the article contains some compelling examples:

The ex-staffer in Minneapolis said a branch manager once asked him to falsify a work paper because the supervisor was concerned that a report was late. Uncomfortable with the request, the former auditor appealed to another boss who instructed him “not to make waves with these people and to do what I was asked.” He eventually agreed to falsify the document.

The Minneapolis employee later quit, as did nearly half the new auditors he trained with at the Defense Contract Audit Institute.

Meanwhile, a retired DCAA supervisor with 30 years on the job said he was specifically told not to report fraud. “I was told that I could call the 800 hot line if I wanted,” the auditor explained. “However, I was reminded that GS-13 positions were coming open and that if I wanted to be promoted I should not report the fraud outside the agency. I did not call the hot line.”

An auditor who worked in the Maryland region for a brief time in 2005 said he was warned early on not to be overtly critical of contractors.

“My understanding was that when contractors complain about any particular auditor, bad things happen to that auditor,” said the former auditor, who now works for another federal agency. “When I was there I always had to keep in mind how I interacted with the contractor because if the contractor complained about me it would definitely get back to my supervisor. And there would be some sort of personnel actions or retaliation.”

Another former auditor with 25 years of experience in the Philadelphia region said supervisors forced him to change audits because of a fear that delays with a complicated audit could hurt the boss’ chances at a bonus.

Sometimes, the requests were more subtle. A former auditor with 17 years of experience in the Houston and Florida regions said supervisors would sit on critical reports for more than a year. Other times, managers would direct him to give contractors extra time before releasing an audit.

“They would say, ‘Give them an opportunity to support the findings, give them another chance to support it,'” said the 17-year auditor, who eventually quit the profession because of his experiences at DCAA. “It was a repetitive, ‘Don’t you think it’s getting better?’ type pressure. You almost get to the point where you feel you are not going to get anywhere … This agency is broken.”

— Nick Schwellenbach

P.S. On a related note, we’re still receiving a lot of comments and feedback on an earlier blog post about a letter by a DCAA auditor who takes serious issue with the GAO investigation.  Click here to join the discussion.




More From POGO:






DCAA Lifts Gag Order Against Whistleblower

Government Executive reported on Friday that the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) has rescinded a year-long nondisclosure memo filed against a veteran agency auditor.  The decision to lift the gag order came on September 12th, two days after the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held an oversight hearing on the DCAA in which agency whistleblowers described a culture of retaliation targeted against those who refused to limit negative audit findings.

The nondisclosure memo was filed in 2007 against Diem-Thi Le, who testified at the Senate hearing.  In 2005, after conducting an audit of Fluor Corporation, Le discovered that the contractor’s accounting system was “inadequate,” and concluded that it was over-charging the government.  But Le’s supervisor deleted her findings and altered documents in order to show that Fluor’s accounting system was “adequate.”

After learning that her supervisor had altered her working papers, Le filed a complaint with the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG).  But somehow her complaint ended up back in the hands of DCAA managers, who transferred Le to another team, gave her a poor performance review, and ordered her to see a psychiatrist.  The 2007 nondisclosure memo stated that Le could not access or share DCAA documents with any investigators, and that she had to return any documents in her possession.

After the Senate hearing earlier this month, however, the DCAA apparently decided to change its tune.  The September 12th memo obtained by Government Executive informed Le that she could now share documents with the Office of Special Counsel or any other government investigator.  On the same day, DCAA Director April Stephenson also sent a memo to agency employees reassuring them that they could speak to federal investigators without fear of retaliation:

It is the firm policy of the Defense Contract Audit Agency that employees are encouraged to cooperate with any investigations conducted by representatives of the federal government investigative authorities by providing testimony and documents in accordance with federal law, including the Whistleblower Protection Act, DoD and DCAA policies and regulations.

But Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and others are not fully satisfied with the DCAA’s response.  McCaskill has requested that Stephenson identify the attorney who drafted the nondisclosure memo and release the names of any DCAA managers who may have reviewed it.  The DOD IG is also investigating the incident.

As our loyal blog readers know, the DCAA has been under intense scrutiny lately following the release of a GAO report that questioned the independence of DCAA auditors.

— Michael Smallberg