About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

AFMD-83-67 1 (1983-05-23)

handle is hein.gao/gaobabmzc0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


                     UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548


ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL
  MANAG M 4IT DIVISIONMA                                         23 1 8

       B-211772                              121412         MAY23 1983


       The Honorable James J. Howard

       House of Representatives

       Dear Mr. Howard:

            Subject: Army's Handling of Whistle Blower's Contract
                     Allegations and Merit Systems Protection
                     Board's Investigation (GAO/AFMD--83-67)

            Your November 19, 1982, letter (encl. I) asked      i review
       the action by the Department of the Army against M.   ary Levinson
       as a result of his allegations of improprieties in a 1980 contract
       between L & G Engineering, Inc. and the U.S. Army Communications -
       Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Your letter also
       expressed concern about the Merit Systems Protection Board's Office
       of the Special Counsel's (OSC's) investigation of possible harass-
       ment and the incidents that led to Mr. Levinson's eventual termina-
       tion from Federal service.

           We determined that the Army had investigated this case three
       times: once by the Inspector General, Headquarters U.S. Army Commu-
       nications - Electronics Command, Ft. Monmouth (CECOM-IG); a second
       time by the Army Audit Agency; and finally by the U.S. Army Crimi-
       nal Investigation Command. We also determined that the CECOM-IG's
       investigation was reviewed by Headquarters U.S. Army Materiel De-
       velopment and Readiness Command. The Army's investigations found
       the following:

           --Questionable conscious management decisions were made
              in awarding the 1980 contract for analytical studies.
           --The contract was poorly administered and the contractor's
             efforts poorly managed.

           --The work contracted for could have been performed in-house.

           --Because the contract covered equipment not due to be pro-
             cured until fiscal 1985, the studies would become outdated
             before they could be used.

           --Since the studies would be outdated by fiscal 1985, the Army
             paid $30,000 for a product it could not use.


                                                               (911563)

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most