Federal Emergency Management Agency's Contracting Abuse

AN ANALYSIS OF FEMA'S HANDLING OF THE BRADFORD COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION'S
CONTRACT AND FEMA'S INTERACTIONS WITH THE FEDERAL
RADIOLOGICAL PREPAREDNESS COORDINATING COMMITTEE

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:

The Congressional Research Service appreciates this opportunity to contribute to your hearing on a contract that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided to Bradford Communications. This contract required Bradford

Communications, which is a small publishing and computer firm, to provide FEMA with training materials specifying how emergency responders should deal with radiological emergencies.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF OUR ANALYSIS

During recent hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee, serious questions were raised regarding FEMA's contracting policies. As a result of an intensive investigation of several FEMA contracts, Members of Congress and several FEMA staff alleged that vouchers had been forged, improper or questionable contracting procedures had been followed, Federal funds were improperly used or wasted, and FEMA employees were ordered to prepare justifications for actions that they would not have otherwise approved. 1/

1/ Unpublished hearing before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Science and Technology Committee, Dec. 12, 1984 and Mar. 4, 1985.

CRS-2

As documented in our testimony, FEMA's handling of its contract to Bradford Communications illustrates some of these same concerns, but it also brings out a case in which FEMA was generally unwilling to cooperate with, and follow the advice of, other Federal agencies. This last issue is especially ironic when one considers that for FEMA to carry out its mission, this Agency must coordinate and cooperate with other Federal agencies.

Even though FEMA has stopped its distribution of the Bradford training materials, the Agency's handling of this contract as well as other contracts and its interactions with several Federal agencies suggests several opportunities for congressional and administrative action. For this reason that the Congressional Research Service has been asked to analyze all of the documents that the Subcommittee has obtained pursuant to its investigation of the FEMA contract. At the Subcommittee's request, we have also identified issues and concerns regarding this contract and offered several options that are designed to improve FEMA's contracting policies and interactions with other Federal agencies.

As explained in detail in the remainder of this presentation, our analysis

of FEMA's handling of this contract indicates:

1. In attempting to respond to the needs of State and local governments, FEMA awarded a contract to Bradford Communications for a revision and delivery within 30 days of copyrighted, training materials. FEMA officials argued that Bradford's training package almost immediately could begin to help the Agency meet its responsibility to assist emergency responders and planners. In awarding this contract, FEMA's overriding concern allegedly was having the ability to meet the training needs of others.

2. FEMA awarded this contract against the advice and guidance of a group of Federal scientists and educators who worked for FEMA or other Federal agencies. From the beginning of the contract, FEMA officials recognized

CRS-3

there were problems with Bradford's training materials and they were unwilling to fully endorse these materials. Repeatedly, FEMA officials tried unsuccessfully to convince the Federal radiological health community to approve the Bradford materials. After almost two years of debate, FEMA finally has decided not to distribute this training package.

3. FEMA's award of this contract on a non-competitive, sole-source basis raises questions of fairness, effectiveness, and efficiency. FEMA officials eliminated several other companies with years of technical expertise and experience from competing for the contract. Agency officials used a compressed time schedule to process and evaluate competing proposals and did not fully inform competing companies of the time urgency surrounding this contract. In addition, FEMA officials did not reveal the criteria that would be used to determine whether a respondent to their advertisement in the Commerce Business Daily was a potential source of the materials requested. It appears that FEMA's procurement process was used in such a manner as to ensure that Bradford Communications was the only real competitor for FEMA's contract.

Because FEMA was unable to distribute the Bradford materials, the Agency has not met the needs of State and local governments as effectively as it originally intended. In addition to FEMA's spending considerable time and funds on training materials that it has decided not to use, other Federal agencies have also spent considerable time and funds persuading FEMA not to distribute the Bradford materials.

4. On at least two occasions, FEMA officials have inaccurately recorded the minutes of official meetings of the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee (FRPCC) or its Subcommittees. The minutes originally prepared by FEMA officials did not fully reflect member opposition to the

« Anterior Continuar »

Libros

Federal Emergency Management Agency's Contracting Abuse: Hearings ..., Volumen4