Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness

Inspectors General are supposed to be the independent eyes and ears of taxpayers inside government agencies. That tradition goes back to the beginning of the country. Ever since Congress passed the Inspector General Act in 1978, expanding their authority, IGs across the government have turned up billions in contracting fraud, waste and abuse.

But not all IG's are built alike. And not all federal agencies appreciate their probing and prodding. Lately, troubles with the IG system have become a hot topic with some lawmakers.

Readers of the Washington Post may recall that GSA Administrator Lurita Doan, a former contractor appointed by President Bush, last year proposed cutting $5 million in spending on IG audits and shifting some responsibility for contract reviews to small, private audit contractors.

Doan said she was trying to make the agency more efficient. She said that some agency employees had complained that some IG auditors used intimidating tactics. GSA Inspector General Brian Miller said she was trying to undercut his independence and undermine contract oversight.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration IG Robert Cobb, meanwhile, has come under fire for allegedly being too close to his agency's administrator and misusing his authority. The allegations include details about private lunches and golf outings with the NASA administrator. In testimony on the Hill last month, he described those claims as "unjustified allegations."

Yesterday, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a hearing called, "Strengthening the Unique Role of the Nation's Inspectors General."

In his opening statement, committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) acknowledged the inherent tension that IG scrutiny creates in the agencies. But he rightly described IGs as "vitally important" players in government who deserve both support and scrutiny themselves. He noted that last year IG audits had turned up $9.9 billion in potential savings. And that's not counting billions more resulting from related civil and criminal investigations.

Some procurement "reform" advocates, along with some contractors, would like to see the authority of IGs curbed. Some critics contend that IGs create inefficiencies. In the IG Act, Congress said the inspectors general are supposed "to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and to prevent and detect fraud and abuse" in government operations.

I know that a lot of government workers like the sound of that, and so do many taxpayers. It seems to me that IG oversight of rising government spending is more important now than ever. For anybody who cares, there's a Web page devoted just to IGs.

By the way, the IGs have the power to get a lot of contracting documents that reporters don't have. Anybody out there have any documents they want to share with this reporter? I can be reached at oharrowr@washpost.com

By Robert O'Harrow |  July 12, 2007; 6:23 AM ET Inspectors General
Previous: The Price of Good Service | Next: Procurement Debate Goes Feline

Posted by: FP Guru | July 12, 2007 9:42 AM

Posted by: Just Curious | July 12, 2007 10:10 AM

Posted by: Mr. Contracts | July 12, 2007 10:14 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.