Winding down war zone contracts.
Author | Altenburg, John D., Jr. |
Position | Ethics Corner |
* The war in Afghanistan appears to be ending. Combat troops are scheduled to leave by the end of 2014, and how many U.S. military personnel will remain to perform other missions remains undecided.
Federal government contracts for services in-country have been declining steadily and this will continue in the corning months. Most of the money left to be earned by federal contractors in Afghanistan will be gained through contracts already awarded. As with any arduous task for which a completion date is announced, the government assumed the risk of contractor lethargy--or worse--when it announced when the war will end.
Aside from the strategic military, diplomatic and political leverage lost by such announcements, one may imagine a scenario where contractors conduct cost-benefit analysis and determine that corporate "best efforts" may be inefficient and hence no longer in the company's interest in winding up Afghan-based contracts.
There are likely few, if any, more contract opportunities there. Contractors may send second- and third-rate employees to Afghanistan and reallocate prime resources elsewhere. The rationale might further assume that even if future contract opportunities in Afghanistan are forthcoming, past performance would be sufficient to maintain the quality ratings to win contracts and not run the risk of suspension or debarment. But such resource strategies are short sighted.
There are pragmatic reasons for meeting an ethical obligation and to give the best effort in performing the balance of existing contracts in Afghanistan. The government has broad discretion to suspend and debar contractors, as well as terminate existing contracts for convenience or default, but the unique circumstances of the Afghanistan theater create conditions that are more serious than in other places with extensive U.S. government contracting.
Security concerns alone make it difficult to consistently provide the best quality employees. Complicating matters are graft, corruption and "protection" concerns. The physically and intellectually demanding environment, the heightened scrutiny of contractor performance by both the legislative and executive branches and the special inspector general for Afghanistan, should translate to even greater attention to internal corporate compliance programs.
Corporate officers are well aware that robust compliance programs coordinate and monitor risks related to regulatory compliance. The best programs have evolved from...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.