Skip to comments.Firm That Vetted Snowden Gets New $190M Contract
Posted on 07/03/2014 12:16:43 PM PDT by PoloSec
Newser) You might think that giving a green light to Edward Snowden and Aaron Alexis and allegedly fraudulently submitting 660,000 other background checks without actually completing them would prevent you from getting future government contracts. But you'd be wrong, because the Department of Homeland Security has awarded a $190 million contract to US Investigations Services, the Wall Street Journal reports. Why? Because USIS hasn't actually been suspended, and, as one immigration official explained, unless there is such a suspension in place, "by law and policy, we have to go with the lowest bidder."
USIS isn't barred, the Office of Personnel Management says, because it has taken steps to deal with "actions by their employees and previous leadership." Then again, in 2012 the OPM's inspector general warned that the OPM lacked a strong suspension and disbarment system for contractorsand particularly for contractors performing background checks. However, the inspector general did say yesterday that the agency has bolstered those efforts in the past year. USIS' new contract is for five years, but it could lose it if it is later suspended.
Jeh misread USIS as ISIS and thought he was giving money to his favorite terrorist group.
Lots of money
Actually this firm really didnt do anything wrong if they checked what they were supposed to. How could they tell he was planning to steal all that info.
The people who screwed up are those who shared their passwords with him.
I’m certain various, and assorted Democrats are reaping benefits from this, but the Democrat party coffers are the ultimate beneficiary.
Well, God B!ESS America!
While she lasts..
That's correct; having worked for this company, while there were certainly issues aplenty, the problem with Snowden most likely wasn't at the field investigation level, but at the review or vendor security review level. Ultimately, the vendor has the duty to accept or decline the subject of investigation, in addition to evaluating the report of investigation.
Cronyism could explain it.
In this case not really.
USIS is a poorly run company for sure, but it has been around forever doing clearance investigations
USIS is a corrupt organization. That organization first consults with “management” (a/k/a “leadership”) to determine if the “investigation” should result in a pass or a fail for obtaining a security clearance. The pass or fail is often based on the person-being-investigated’s political beliefs rather than on that person’s trustworthiness.
Why would that exclude cronies? It would be a great place for the incompetent friends and families of politicians to get jobs.
I am very familiar with USIS. Politicos have a bit more class then to send their spawn there
A common practice with many larger government contractors is to only price doing about 80% of the work. This allows them to underbid and still turn a profit. Usually they can get a change to add in that pesky 20% and the contracting officer will usually pay.
Perhaps thats what happened here. They probably were also getting pushed to complete the background checks faster then feasible. Or maybe just lazy.
Well, there’s a problem: It’s pretty easy to lie about your political affiliation if the lie was premeditated. What’s more important is whether or not the guy was a paranoid, emotional nutcase who is obssessed with confirming his/her conclusion with a selective bias that the U.S. government is evil. Never mind the fact that all governments on Earth have their bad side, I wouldn’t trust someone who I knew subscribed to a blind government hatred. Period. I also wish that we could have a whistleblower who would be willing, even if it meant sacrifice, to test the channels supposedly promised by law to protect whistleblowers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.