JK Calls for Increased Accountability in Defense Contracting

As a decorated combat veteran himself, JK has always stood firm when it comes to supporting the troops. As an influential Senator, he authored the Military Family Bill of Rights legislation and has continued to fight for proper treatment of active-duty troops, returning veterans, and their families on a wide range of issues from proper medical treatment for wounded service members to fair military pay raises. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, he’s also standing up for the economic welfare of military personnel at home as well as in the field.

As PRNewswire reported, earlier this week JK sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates demanding details on the agency’s continual shortfalls in meeting federally-mandated procurement goals for service-disabled veteran-owned businesses.

“America’s service-disabled veteran entrepreneurs have selflessly sacrificed for our nation,” JK said at the time. “The very least their government can do is ensure a level playing field exists for them to compete for lucrative federal contracts, especially with the Department of Defense. Secretary Gates needs to clear the air and affirm once and for all the Defense Department is accountable to federal law.”

Despite a 1999 law establishing the government-wide 3 percent contracting goal with service-disabled veteran-owned businesses, the Defense Department has never met this standard. The agency accounts for roughly 70 percent of all government procurement spending, yet its repeated inability to meet service-disabled veteran contracting goals makes it all but impossible for the federal government as a whole to meet the 3 percent goal.

JK expressed concern about reports that Defense Department personnel are telling veterans that the agency is not beholden to the 3 percent contracting goal, and called on Gates to shed immediate light on the situation. <!-more-> Following are excerpts from the letter JK sent to Secretary Gates last week:

Dear Secretary Gates:

I am writing concerning the Department of Defense’s policy with respect to contracting with service-disabled veteran owned businesses (SDVOBs). Although Congress enacted a government-wide procurement goal of three percent for service-disabled veteran owned businesses, every year since that law has been in place the Department of Defense has failed to meet that contracting goal. In light of the honorable sacrifices that service-disabled veterans have made for our country, I urge you to do everything in your power to meet and exceed the three percent goal required by law.

As you know, in 1999, Congress enacted Public Law 106-50 which set the government-wide procurement goal of three percent with SDVOBs. The law also called on each agency to determine the “maximum practicable opportunity” for these firms (Title 15 Chapter 14A section 644 (g) (1)).

The Department of Defense accounts for nearly 70 percent of all federal procurement spending, totaling an estimated $219 billion in FY2005. Given that reality, it is virtually impossible for the entire federal government to meet the law’s three percent goal for SDVOBs without the Department of Defense. However, in 2005, the Department of Defense awarded a mere .499 percent of contracts to service-disabled owned firms. It is hard to believe that less than one half of one percent of all defense contracts is the “maximum practicable opportunity” for the Defense Department to do business with SDVOBs.

I am especially disturbed by reports that Department of Defense personnel are telling veterans that the agency is not bound by the three percent goal for contracting with SDVOBs. Given these reports and the lack of progress in meeting the SDVOB goal, I would like an immediate explanation of the Department’s policy for contracting with SDVOBs. Please provide a clear statement as to whether the agency intends to meet the three percent contracting goal. If the Department of Defense is not attempting to meet the three percent contracting goal, has the agency formally established its own contracting goal for service-disabled veterans? And if so, what is that goal? Specifically, what is the Department of Defense doing to improve its record on contracting with service-disabled veteran owned businesses?

In another matter, on January 31, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing entitled, “Assessing Federal Small Business Assistance Programs for Veterans and Reservists.” One of the witnesses at that hearing was Ms. Linda Oliver, Interim Acting Director of the Office of Small Business. A number of Senators submitted questions to Ms. Oliver to answer in writing for the record, but it has been over three months, and we still have not received her responses. Enclosed, please find a copy of those questions. I respectfully request responses to them within one week of the receipt of this letter.

Thank you for your attention to this matter of critical importance to me as a veteran, and to the millions of service-disabled veterans who continue to honorably serve their country by contributing to the economy as successful entrepreneurs.

Sincerely, John F. Kerry

5 Comments

New comments for this entry are closed.

SEWP IV is another contract vehicle your office should know about (in addition to VETS). 

This is a GWAC for IT products and is used extensively by DoD as well as civilian agencies.  There are six service-disabled on this vehicle, this should be a no-brainer for the DoD to embrace to help meet their SDV goals.

Posted by Dan Frank | 05/20/07, 05:10 AM EST

Dan,

Thanks for mentioning that.  I checked out the SEWP website - I’m not involved in government contracting but your comment piqued my interest. SEWP-IV seems to provide a streamlined process for awarding contracts and meeting set-aside goals. However, on their contractor overview page, I noticed that they don’t indicate SDVOSBs - your own company is listed as “Other Than Small or Disadvantaged Business.” It seems that if the goal is to increase procurement from SDVOSBs specifically, that classification should be specifically indicated in whatever materials procuring agencies are using to find approved contractors.

Anyway, I suspect that it is largely obliviousness and disinterest in proactively helping veterans, and disregard for Congressional mandates,  that stands between DoD and meeting those procurement goals.  I am glad Senator Kerry is raising the issue. But I wonder about the entrenched so-called Veterans’ groups like the VFW and American Legion. Have they put anything out on this? I find it frustrating that Paul Morin (national commandant of American Legion) has no difficulty finding a megaphone when he wants to complain about someone not meeting his view of “supporting the troops” because he didn’t like something they said; yet why don’t we hear more from him about cases like this, where vets are being harmed tangibly by the government failing to keep its promises?

Posted by MH | 05/20/07, 07:10 AM EST

Excellent idea Mr. Kerry.  Excellent.

Please keep us posted on this site about the success of this bill.  In my research’s for my site I’ve encountered so many in the contracting business it would make your head spin.

Regards,
Mark

Posted by Mark | 05/20/07, 05:06 PM EST

Senator Kerry,

Were you aware of voter fraud in the 2004 Presidential election and still choose to call off a full investigation?  Have you ever addressed the evidence of rampid voter fraud, such as what was filmed in the HBO documentary “Hacking Democracy”?

The need to ensure the accuracy of our ballots preclude any decision we make on Iraq, let alone how to make Defense contracting more accountable.  How can we have an honest discussion about what is best for the American people, if organized voting fraud is allowed to continue?  Democracy only works when the people’s vote count.

A Disenchanted & Former Supporter,
Miami, FL

Posted by Alexis | 05/24/07, 03:32 PM EST

Alexis-
Sen Kerry’s legal team was involved in at least three lawsuits after the 2004 election.  The Senator co-sponsored at least four pieces of legislation in the 109th Congress regarding election reform.

Two and a half years later, there’s still no evidence of election fraud (it’s not voter fraud, btw) that I’m aware of that will hold up in a court of law.

I agree with you that election fraud is a serious issue.  The question right now is what we do to prevent a repeat of 2000 and 2004.

Posted by GV | 05/24/07, 04:24 PM EST