Dod Probes BAH

8/10/2019 Dod Probes BAH

1/69

N871 78A

- BOOZ, LLEN HAMILTON, INC


2/69

DEPARTME , OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR N E R L

OFFICE

OF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR

GENERAL

FOR INVt :STIGATIONS

DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE

CONTROL

TITLE

REPORT BY:

M DE

T

STATUS

PURPOSE

DETAILS

SYNOPSIS

WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE

900 SOUTH WASHINGT ON STREET SUITE

204

FALLS CHURCH VIRGINIA 22046 4020

OCIS REPORT

OF INVESTIGATION

8710078A-31-CCT-86-01DC-E3C/F

BOOZ, LLEN

HAMILTON,

INCORPOR TED

Vienna,

VA

Washington,

D.C.

Closed

Final Report

of Investigation

May

22, 1987

1. Investigation was

initiated

after

this office received

a referral from

Defense Logist ics Agency

(DLA)

alleging BOOZ, ALLEN HAMILTON, Inc.

(BOOZ), f raudulent ly bi l l ed the Department of

Defense

(DoD) for

unauthorized

charges relative to

a contract a t ROME AIR

DEVELOPMENT

CENTER

(ROME), Griff iss AFB, NY. The

investigation

determined ROME i:ersonnel

issued changes to the contrac t t ha t mandated cost. increases to . the

contract. Ha.vever,

BOOZ

started

using

the

new

charges

prior

to receiving

af{>roval

of

the Contracting

Officer

(CO). On March

6,

1987, BOOZ

agreed to

a

reduction of

$198,814 to the cost

of the

modified contract which

was

executed April

27, 1987. This

invest iga t ion has been closed af ter

receiving concurrence

from the Department of Justice, Defense Procurement

Fraud Unit (DPEU).

STATUTES

2. The applicable criminal violations involved in

this

matter were 18 US::

lOOl(False

Statements an:l 18 USC 287, False Claims .

B CKGROUND

3 . Inves t igat ion was in i t ia ted after Defense

o i s

~

Defense

Contract Administration Services

Region

(DCASR),

Yillilllillllil

b) 6), b) 7) C)

referrerl a Defense Contract

Actninistration

Services

Management

Area (DCASMA), Balt imore, MD,

reques t

for c r imina l

invest igat ion da t

ed

October

15,

1986, to

this off ice

for

appropriate

action . I t was alleged

that BOOZ

improperly

bi l led

the

oco

for inflated

costs and received progress payments

based

on unapproved costs . The

1

Fff 1AL

US

nNI V


3/69

2

8710078A-31-


4/69

3

8710078A-31-0CT-Ol.CX:-E3C/F

CONTACT WITH

DATE: May 22,

1987

b) 6), b) 7) C)

7.

DCAS.Mr>. Baltiroore, was contacted on several

occasions

to

review his

Request

for Criminal Investigation

dated

October 15, 1986.

lllfil

advised he was the 1111 and he had reviewed the ROME contract

E'-30602-83-C-0164

and

determined

an

overcharge

of $518

,814. 1111

acknowledged

the

apparent

need

for

the contractor,

BOOZ,

to

increase costs;

however to do so without

authority

was in violation of the law.

CONTACT

WITH OOZ

8. On October 31, 1986, BOOZ,

was

contacted

concerning

t i s inquiry. stated

BOOZ

.had entered

into negotiations

with

ROME to

resolve

any dispute in the pricing and/or

changes of alleged

unallowable

costs.

STATUS

OF

PROSEaJI ION

b) 6), b) 7) C)

9. On May 26,

1987,

Department of Just ice ,

Defense

Procurement

Fraud

Unit,

declined

prosecution

in

this matter.

STATUS

OF INVESTIGATION

10 . Investigation is corcplete. No further activity is planned.

COM-1AND tDTIFICATION

1 1

A

copy o f t h i s r e p o r t w i l l be

fo

rwarded to

ROME

and

DCASR-Philadelphia.

W A R N I N G

.

CL

SS FIC TION

H

s

QFF\Sl l


5/69

4

8710078A-31-CCI -01DC-E3C/F

DATE May

22

1987

EXHIBITS ATTACHMENTS}

1. Referral to OCIS from

DCASR

dtd Oct 23, 1986

2.

Amendment

of solicitation/modification of contract dtd Apr

22

1987

3.

Price

Negotiation

Memorandum dtd Mar 6 1987

4. Letter

from

BOOZ

to ROME

dtd

Oct 31 1986

DISTR 0003/0CASR-PHI-G/lONY/lOSY

L SSIFI TION

OFFlel L HS

NLY

PP


6/69

N871 4561

BOOZ,

LLEN

HAMILTON, INC


7/69

I

DEPART

M._NT

OF

DEFENSE

INSP ECTOR

_,ENERAL

orF1c i : : OF ASS ISTANT INSPECTOR GENCRAL FOR I NVE ST

I C A T JO N S

.

DEFE NSE CR I

M

INAL

INV EST IGA

T

IV

E

SERVICE

DAYTON

FIELD

OFFICE

C/O GENTILE STATION

1000 FRANKLIN

STREET,

SUITE 2

DAYTO

N, OHIO 4 5

444 -5330

8 7 1 4 5 6 I O S M A Y 8 7 3 ~ D Y

E 4 C

/ F

BOOZ

ALLEN' HAMILTON INC., Bethesda, MD

BOOZ

ALLEN &

HAMILTON,

INCORPORATED

Appl ied Science

Divis ion

4330 East-Wes t Highway

Bethesda,

MD

20814-4455

& Hamilton

August 17

1993

CASE TERMINATION : On May 5, 1987,

t h i s

inves t iga t ion

was

i n i t i a t e d

fol lowing rece ip t of i n f o r ~ a t i o n a l leg ing t ha t

o f f i c i a l s o f Booz

Allen

& Hamilton had

mischarged

employee

l abor

hours

fo r

opera t ion of

the

SURVIAC

Center ,

a

cos t plus

f ixed fee

co n t r ac t

sponsored by

the

Defense Elec t ron ics Supp.ly cen ter to

numerous cos t

type

pro jec t s

sponsored

by othe r Department

of

Defense

a c t i v i t i e s under the

same co n t r ac t

DLA900-85C-0395. The

a b l i s h e d t ha t and

o f f i c i a l s of Booz

Allen

&

Hamil ton,

had

d i r ec t ed

a r t i f i c i a l i n f l a t i on of

co s t

propos a l s s

ubmit ted

for

four

Spec ia l

Tasks, and then

had d i r ec t ed

em

ploy

ees of t he

SURVIAC Center , Dayton, OH to mischarge t h e i r l abor to

these

Si e c i a l Tasks. The inves t iga t ion

a l s o

es tab l i sh e d t h a t

llWEP'

@ 18111 had d i rec ted employees of o the r Booz Allen

&

Hamilton

work s i t e s to mischarge l abor

hours

to

accounts

o f

the

SURVIAC

Center .

The

t o t a l value of

these mischarged

l abor hours was

$209

,

699.72.

Booz-Allen

made

p a r t i a l r e s t i tu t i o n

o f

$96,178.75

on May 1 1988 . A Report o f Inves t iga t ion w

as i ssued

on September

3 1991 .

On September 21, 1992,

t he

case

was

dec l ined

fo r c r imina l

prosecu t ion and was

r e fe r red fo r

eva l

u

a t i o n

o f c i v i l remedies.

N :

F

''

,.)""J?-

0,.1

..,

1

..,

.

.

._,

. .a.

.i.

.....,11

...

.i;.-1.1'\ l 1

. iy

I

W A f l N I H G

>ropc11y

of

1he

Ocpanmcn

t

of De fense

In

. . ii_

o

any party under

t >, ~ i o n

or

c

u t ~ < oucside hc rcce1vtr1 th

e

soec C ic

f>riot author11a11()1\ of

hr.

AuH-'t\ t lns.c>


8/69

8710456I - 05 -MAY-87-35DY-E4C/F August 17,

1993

BOOZ

LLEN

& H MILTON INC . ,

Bethesda,

MD e t a l ) Page 2

on

June

11, 1993, Booz Allen & Hamilton and the

United

s ta tes

entered

into

a

set t lement agreement under

which

Boaz

Allen

& Hamilton paid an addit ional

261,000

in

r e s t i tu t ion

of

all

c

la i

ms.

Under

tha t s e t t l

ement,

the government

agreed not

to

pursue debarment of the company, and

not

to seek c iv i l or

cr iminal prosecut ion

of

the company

or

it s off icers and

employees.

The company

agreed

to modify it s t ime charging

pract ices ,

perform

in ternal

reviews

of

time-keeping

procedures,

and accomplish

various ot

her in ternal

programs

to

prelude

future

rnischarging pract ices .

All invest igat ive repor ts and other documents prepared

in

the course

of th i s

inves t iga t ion

were

previously

submitted,

and

th i s

invest igat ion

i s

closed

.

b) 6), b) 7) C)

Prepared

b) 6), b) 7) C)

Dayt

on

FO

DISTR: 03B/DESC- G

PP

.

ASSIF

I

CATION

W A RH I H G

FQi; QFFJ;QJiAfs W Silii Q}lJsY"

dis1ribu1cd

ou tside the rcce1v1

. -


9/69

N8810603T - BOOZ,

LLEN

HAMILTON, INC


10/69

DEPART

1v1ENT

O F DE FE NS E

N S P E C T ~

GE NE RA L

OFFICE

OF ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS


WASHINGTON

FIELD

OFFICE

900

SOUTH

WASHINGTON STREET. SUITE 204

FALLS

CHURCH, VIRGINIA 2 2 0 4 6 4 0 2 0

DCIS CASE

ACTION

CONTROL :

8810603T-24-JUN-88-01DC-AlW/R

July 6 1988

TITLE

TITLE

CONT

REPORT BY:

MADE AT

STATUS

PURPOSE

DETAILS

BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INCORPORATED, e t

a l .

Arlington, Virgin ia

b) 6), b) 7) C)

Bi r t h

Employment:

b) 6) b) 7) C)

SSN:

UNK

b) 6) b) 7) C)

Washington,

D.C.

Open/Closed

b) 6), b) 7) C)

USN,

SSN

:

UNK

UNK

Referral of

Hotl ine

Complaint

DoD Hotl ine

Complaint

88-T44293

On

June

17

the DoD

Hotline

a l l e

i l

ed

t ha t

USN, and

W

W Mjl had met on April 21, 1988, for the purpose of. i n f l u e n n ~

the

award

of

Contract No .

N00019-87

- R-0122 to BOOZ ALLEN. wtl JW

has been ident i f ied in the jo in t Federal Bureau

of

Inves t iga t ion

FBI) and . the Naval Inves t iga t ive

Service

(NIS)

inves t iga t ion

ca l l

ed ILLWIND

as

having been involved

in

t

he

se

l

l ing

of

procurement sens i t ive information to various DoD contractors . On

June

24, 1988,

the attached

DoD Hotline complaint was refer red to

NIS, and

Joseph

Aronica, Ass i s an

Sta tes Attorney, Eastern Dis t r i c t

of

Virginia,

f

appropriate .

t

b) 6), b) 7) C)

DISTR: 000 3/NIS /HL

L

us

r

ON Y

APPR:

W A R N I

NG

This docume nspector General and

is

on loan to your a en to any party under investigation

nor

ment be

distributed

o

ut

side

the receiving ag

c

spe

cific

nrinr authorization of the Assistant Ins ector General for lnvesti ations.


11/69

N9 1 852R

BOOZ, LLEN HAMILTON, INC


12/69

INSPECTOR

GENERAL

DEPARTMENT

OF

DE:FENSE

DEFENSE CR IMI NAL

INVESTIGATIVE

SERVI CE

Washington Field

Office

1111 Jefferson

Davis

Highway, Su ite 108

Ar

lin gton, Virginia 22202-4306

9010852R-12-JUL-90-01DC-E3A/R

July 12, 1990

BOOZ, ALLEN HAMILTON, Inc.

4330 East

West Highway

Bethesda,

M

20814-4455

CASE

INITIAT ION/REFERRED:

This inv

es t i ga t i

on

was

i n i t i a t ed

upon

rece ip t

of a

Suspected Ir

regu l a r i ty

Referra

l

Form

DCAAF

2000.0)

from the Defense Contract Audit Agency

(DCAA)

a l l eg ing

tha t Booz, Allen

Hami I ton (BAH)

Inc .

a subcont rac tor

to

McDonnel

I

Douglas, INCO, Inc . had provided fa l se bi 1 1

ing

info

rmation

which

r esu l ted in

excessive bi

I I

ings paid

by

the U.S

.

Government. On Ju l y 1

1, 1990, Report ing Agent (RA), accompanied

by Air Force Off ice of Spec ia l

Inves t igat ions

(AFOSI)

met

w i

th

Defense

Contrac t

Audit Agency

(DCAA),

Beltway Branch Off ice Germantown,

Maryland. The

purpose

of the meeting was to discuss the DCAAF

2000.0 he had

recent ly

completed and submit ted to DCIS. A i

had

recent ly comp le ted

an audi t of

a F i rm Fixed

Price Leve

l of

Effor t

BAH

subcont rac t

valued

a t approximately 3 mi

I I

ion

to

provide t echnica l serv ices .

Allli s ta ted tha t from the resu l t s of his audi t BAH

f raudulent ly

committed

labor

subs t i tu t ion

in the amount

of

approximately 124,87

1 by

subs t i tu t ing

Program

Manager

(PM) r a t e s

as

sec re t a r i a l

support ra te s in order

to

meet f inal requirements

which

were

t a rge t

hours.

Grant

s t a t ed tha t the

PM ra te s

a re

approximate

ly

60

.

07 per hour

versus

sec re ta r ia l support ra te s a t

approximately

18.94 per hour.

A

review of a l I records and re l a t ed mate r i a l s disc losed tha t

the prime

con t rac t was awarded

and adminis tered

by

Rome

Air

Development

Center , Gri f f i s s

Air Force

Base, New

York. Based on

the above informat ion, t h i s

matter is refer red to

AFOSI

Detachment

41 1, Bol I

ing Air Fo

r

ce, Washington,

D .

C. for f inal

dispos i t ion .

Attachment:

DCA

AF

2000.0

dated

June

8,

1990

b) 6), b) 7) C)

Pr

e

par

e d

by

DISTR: 038/AFOSI

IC T I

ON

OFFICIAL

USE

O ~ L Y

Wa

shi

n

gton FO

APPR:

b) 6), b) 7) C)

W A R N I N

urnen

1

1s

the proocrtv o f th

r, Deoar1men1

o f Defense

Inspec

to r nd is

on

loan to Y nw

may

not bed v under 1nves119auon

nor

m v 1h

1s


13/69

N91112 9 BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON

INC


14/69

INSPECTOR GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVE

ST

IGATIVE

SERVICE

WashingtonField Office

l l l l Jeff

erson

Davis

Highway, Suite 108

Arlington, Virginia

22202-4306

REPORT OF

INVESTIGAT

ION

91112090-29-MAY-91-0lDC-EOS/U

December

18,

1991

8002, ALLEN

AND HAMILTON INC.

4330 East West Highway

Bethesda,

MD

20814-4455

DISTRIBUTION:

DCIS eadquar ters ( 0038

US Army Labora tory Co

mm

and, f f ~ c e of

Cou

nse l

FlC TIO

N:

BFFtet

-

l

u-s.

ut v

I

I

I

1

W R N I N G

Th cument is the property

of

th e Department of Defense

n

nd is .

on

loan

to

you

11v

_

party

under

investiga

tion

.

nor

11

uted 9uts1 e h ut the specific '

prior authorization or the .Assistant Inspector General for Investigations .


15/69

2

91112090 29 MAY 91 0lDC EOS\U

T BLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION

Narra t ive

A

den t i t y

of Subjec t

B

Exh

i b i t s

c

L SSIFI T ION .

W R N I

NG

This documen

t is

the property

of the

Department

of Defense Inspector Gen

d

IS

g

I

I AL YS

n

'

on ents

may

not

be

di


16/69

3

91112090 29 MAY 91 lDC EOS\U

Narrat ive

.

1.

This

inves t iga t ion

was

i n i t i a t ed

on May 9 , 1991

fo l lowing

the

r ece ip t of

informat ion

from

the

Off ice of

Chief Counsel ,

U. S .

Army Laboratory Command (LABCOM) , Adelphi , MD, which impl i ca t e s

Booz, Allen and

Hamilton,

Inc.

8 0 0 2 ) ,

4330

East West

Highway,

Bethesda, MD

20814-4455

in

a procurement i r r e gu la r i t y .

b) 6) b) 7) C)

2 . On May 9 , 1991, - _

, LABCOMr

advised tha t

review of con t rac t DAAL02-90-C-

0075

(C-0075),

Task

Order

P00006,

revea led

t ha t

the

d i r e c t

l abor

cos t s

proposed by Booz

were

i de n t i c a l to th.e d i r e c t

l abor

cos t s

on the I nd

ependent

Government Cost Est imate (IGCE) . In add i t ion ,

the o r ig in of the IGCE

was

ques t ionab le

in

t h a t

t was

unsigned

and

had no i nd ica t ion of i t s

source

. Normally , the IGCE should

be s igned

by the government

Reques ter , and

accompanied by the

Statement

of

Work

SOW)

when

forwarded to the o v e r n m ~ n t

con t rac t ing off i ce

.

Exhib i t

A s e t s fo r th d e t a i l s

of

the Emery

in te rv iew.

b) 6), b) 7) C)

3 . On

May 9 , 1991,

Off ice

of

Chief

Counsel ,

LABCOM, adv ised t h a t C-0075,

Task

Order

P0006

was

reques ted by

the Off ice of the Di rec to r of

Net

Assessments (DNA), Off ice of

the

Under

Secre ta ry

of

Defense

fo r Pol icy (OUSD(P)), in suppor t

of

Operat ion Deser t

S ~ o r m C-0075 i s Time and Mater ia l s .

con t rac t

in

support of Technology Base,

and

was awarded on Ju ly

25, 1990

with a ce i l i n g p r i c e of

50,000. The cos t s on

C-0075

were determined by a l i n e i tem schedule which es tab l i shed . ho u r l y

~ a t e s

based on l abor ca tegory .

The

cos t s

represented

on both the

Booz

proposal and

on the IGCE

in

ques t ion re accura te as

co

mpared to

the es tab l i shed l abor ra t es .

Exhibi t

B s e t s fo r t h

d e t a i l s of the Spi tza in terview.

-

advised

t ha t

in

the

F a l l of

1990

Booz

presen ted

an

unso l ic i t ed

proposal

fo r

the

Econo

m

i c ,

Mi l

i t a ry ,

and

Demographic Enhancement of the Regional

Assessment

Methodology (RAM). DNA, OUSD(P) i n i t i a l l y r e j ec t ed t h i s

proposa l . Following

the

i n i t i a t i o n of

. Qperat ion Desert Storm,

-A-1-

W N IN

1 do c um

ent

the

properf)' of

ttie Depar

tment

of

De

fense Inspector Generaf and

s

C L ASSIF I

CATION

.on loan t nts

may not

be disclos

1

ves t1ga t1

on

nor may

this

dcxument

be

a

ncy

w11hou1

the

spec

1

f1c

prior t e Assistlln t Inspector

General

for lnves 1


17/69

4

91112090 29 MAY 91 0lDC EOS\

U

DNA, OUSD P)

developed

a need

fo r the RAM,

but wanted

the SOW

in

support of t ~ Opera t ion . It was determined t ha t a so le source

procurement e f f o r t

wou l d t ake up

to

t ~ r e e

~ o n t h s

hqwever,

the

need required immediate ac t ion . LABCOM con t rac t

C-0075

was

subsequent ly i den t i f i ed

as

an

appro

li i t e con t rac t veh ic l e .

Exhib i t C s e t s fo r th d e t a i l s of the in terview .

-

Booz adv ised t h a t the R M was an

ana ly t ica l

methodology

developed

by

Booz

under

con t rac t

to

DNA

.

The RAM was developed

p r io r

to

C-0075.

In the Fal l of 1990

lll?JWI

presen ted an u

nsol ic

i t e d prqposal to

DNA,

OUSD P) fo r the

RAM sp e c i f i c to Economic, Mil i t a ry

and

Demographic Enhancement .

This r o p o s a l

was essen

t i a l l y a SOW with cos t f igu res

a t tached

.

WIML

was subsequent ly contacted

by

DNA, OUSD P) and

asked

f

o r

l eve l of e f f o r t es t imate

t a i l o r ed

to

be

in

support of Ope

r a t i o n

Desert Storm . OUSD P) personnel next

con tac ted

him

req u

es t ing

t h a t

his

co s t es t imates be converted

i n to spec i f i c l abor

ca tegor ies . 119 provided the same informat ion to Booz>s

con t rac t of f i c e , which

submit ted a formal cos t

es

t imate to LABCOM

fo r Task

Order P0006 .

Exhib i t

D

s e t s fo r th d e t a i l s of the

1 9 9 1 -

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OUSD P) advised t ha t , concerning

the RAM,

DNA

would

normal ly h

ave issue< l

a s o l e source

con t rac

.

t' to

Booz .

Time cons t ra ins stemming f r o ~ the

war

e f f o r t required t h a t .

OUSD P)

f ind

an a l t e rna t ive .procuremen t source . Her. o f f i c e

subse quen t ly

made

a Mil i t a ry In te rdepar tmenta l

Purcha

se

Req

ues t

MIPR )

to

.LABOOM . The RAM

e f fo r t

was added

to

co n t rac t c-0075

a s

Task

Orde

r

P00006. The SOW

was

taken d i r e c t ly from Booz>s

o r ig in a l . unso l i c{ ted

proposal

. . IJMtiJll

prov.ided

119 1' supra)

with break

out

.

of the

r equ i red

l abor

catego r i e s , and reques ted

an

es t imate based on sp e c i f i c ca tegor ies .

Tl1e IGCE was

then

es tab l i shed

by

comparing

pg>mp

l abor

hour

e .s t i m

a t e

to

the

.

l abor

ca tegory

r a t e schedul

e

for

C-0075.

Exhibi t

E

s e t s f o r t

h

d e t a i l s . of

the

WlI9' IJI

in terview

.

7.

Sin.cs

no

cr imina l a c t iv i t y

has

b e ~ un.covered, t h i s case i s

c losed.

No j ud ic i a l

ac t ion

wil l occur . There i s no known lo s s

to the

Governme n

t .

-A-2-

CL SS IFIC TION W R N I N

8 Ff

lelAL

HSE

.

ANLV

the property

of me Department

of

Defense Ins ec

on

loan to your agen . party under- 1nvest1ga11on

..

no"

may

this

doc

outs

ncv

wi thou

t t

he

specific

.p r1zat1on

of

the Assistant Inspector General for ln vest1ga


18/69

91

112 9 29 MAY 91 lDC EOS\

Iden t i ty of Subjec t s

BOOZ ALLEN AND

HAMILTON INC

4330

Eas t West Highway

Bethesda

M 20814-4455

5

Commodity: 8 0 0 2 Allen and Hamilton prov ides computer sof tware

packages

to

the Department of Defense

-B -

L SSIFI TION

W A R H I H


19/69

6

9

111

9 29 M

AY 91

l DC

S\U

EXHIBITS

A

8

c

D

E

DCIS Form 1 ;

Interview

of

DCIS Form 1;

Interview of

DCIS Form 1; Interview of

DCIS Form 1;

Interview of

DCIS F o r ~ 1 ; Interview of

(b) (6), (b)

c6l c6I


20/69

N9210122A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS INC


21/69

INSPECTOR GENERAL

DEPARTM

ENT

OF DEFENSE

DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE

SERV

ICE

Washington Field Office

l l l l Jefferson

Davis Hi

ghway,

Suite

108

Ar

lington,

Virginia 22202-4306

9210122A-22-0CT-91-0 1BT-E3ZZ/U

TELECO

MMUN

ICATIONS SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED A n n a p o l i s , MD

CASE TERMINATION: This c a s e

was

i n i t i a t e d upon a r e f e r r a l

f rom

Defense

C o n t r a c t Management

D i s t r i c t M i d - A t l a n t i c (DCMDM-G), Phi l a d e l p h i a , PA. 1"9'P'

i

n d i c a t e d

t h a t

she

had

r e c e i v e d

a

Depar t men t

o f

Defense

(DoD)

H o t l i n e (No.

91-L-49312)

f rom

an

i nd iv idua l i d e n t i f i e d

Booze, Al len and

Harni I

ton

(BAH), B

e the s da , MD

and ESA, Tampa,

FL.

1'9'liJlllll

r e l

a t e d

a scheme by TCS and BAH t h a t

c o n s i s t e d

of f r a udu le n t

mi s c h a r g i n g

on DoD c o n t r a c t s . The a l l e g a t i o n s a l l e g e d

t h a t

o f f i c e r s o f

res

and BAH pr ov ided

approva l f o r

c h a r g i n g

non-

a l

lowab

l e c o s t s a s d i r

e c t expenses

to c o s t r e i mb u r s a b l e

c o n t r a c t s . A l l e g e d l y ,

t h e s e c o s t s

inc luded

t h i n g s such

a s

b i d

and pr oposa I (B P) man hours , r e n t a I c a r s

prov ided to

consu I t a n ts

for

t h e i r

pe r sona l

u s e , i n d u s t r y c on f e r e nc e s be ing

c h a r g e d

to

r e imbur sab

l e

c o n t r a c t s ,

and

p e r s o n a l

v a c a t i o n

tr ps

cha r ged

t o

d i r e c t

c o n t r a c t s .

This was a

jo

i n t i n v e s t i

g a t i o n

w i t h

t h e

Naval

I n v e s t i g a t i v e S e r v i c e

NIS) ,

B a l t i mo r e , MD and t h e

U.S . Air

Force ,

O f f i c e o f

Spec ia l

I nve s t i ga t i on (AFOSI) , Ba l t i mo r e , MD.

NIS

was c o n s i d e r e d

t h e l

ead agency

in

t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and

i s

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t he f i na l Repor t o f Inves t i g a t i o n ROI) . A copy

o f

NISs

RO I wi I I

be f i l e d upon

i

ts

r e c e i p t .

On November 12, 1991,

wz m Wl fDI

was in t e rv iewed a t h i s

p l a c e

o f r e s i d e n c e by

age n t s . l K l i f ~

d e n t i f i ed t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y

of

t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t TCS, BAH as wel I

a s

new a l l e g a t i o n s

a Q a i n s t ESA

were

based upon as sumpt ions t h a t he made w h i l e

Wfl'" Ce

When

con

f r

on

t ed by

age

n t s "'lj m '-m

.10. _.

a d m i t t e d

t h a t

he

d id no t

have any

d i

r e c t

knowledge

t h a t

TCS,

BAH

o r ESA had per formed any wrong do ings .

1''2IWVl I

a l s o adv i sed

a e n t s t h a t

he

had no t iven a sworn s t a t e m e n t to h i s

a t t o r n e y ,

no t i f i e d

a g e n t s

t h a t he or

ig i

na l l y

had f i l e d

su

i t

W A R H I H G

ThlS

document is 1he

proprty

of the Department of Defense

Inspector General and 1s

on lo

an

to

yo

ur agency

.

Conten

t s

may

not

be disclosed

to

any party

under

i

0

nvestigation

nor

may h s

do cu

me

nt

be distributed

outside the receiving

agency

w1thou1 1hc spc


22/69

2

9210122A-22 - 0CT -

91

-

01BT

-

E3ZZ /U

May

26 ,

1992

agains t

ES

in

the

Southern

Di s t r i c t

of Ohio, Wes t e rn Divis ion,

Dayton, Ohio. However, t h i s

su i t

was

thrown out

because i t

had

been f i l ed improperly. JIWIMll sa id t ha t he had

no

in ten t ions

of

r e - f i

I

ing

the

s u i t .

I t appears

tha t the major i ty of

the compla inan t s

al

legatlons were based

so le ly

on

assumptions and

tha t

very

few of

the

al legations , i f

any,

could be substan t ia ted .

In

addi t ion ,

the U.S. Attorney s

Off ice USAO), Balt imore ,

O has

shown

minimal

prosecut ive in te res t

in t h i s case a t th i s

t ime.

Accordingly,

t h i s

inves t igat ion

is closed.

Prepared y

Balt imore

R

b) 6), b) 7) C)

DISTR:

003B/01DC/250R/NIS

) /AFOS

I


23/69

N961 559D

BOOZ-ALLEN HAMILTON, INCORPORATED


24/69

9610559D 18 APR 96 60DC J1ZX/D

REPORT OF

INVESTIG TION

BOOZ-ALLEN AND HAMILTON INCORPORATED

SKY

ONE STORAGE

INCORPORATED

53 2 Leesburg Pi

ke

al l s Church

V 22 41

DISTRIBUTION

DCIS

Headquarters

Department of

Transpor

t a t i on IG

U. S . Coast

Guard

July

2

1996


25/69

9610559D 18 APR 96 60DC J1ZX/D

NARRATIVE :

1 .

This

i n v e s t i g a t i o n

was

i n i t i a t e d

based on

a

compla

i n t

from

t h e

U.

S. Department

o f

Transpor ta t ion

(DOT) ,

Uni ted

S ta t e s

Coast Guard

{USCG) ,

Washington

,

D.C

. , t h a t

t h e USCG was s to r in g

a Sun Sparc -

20

Cent ra l

Process ing

Un

t

(CPU) sys tem wi th Booze ,

Al len , and Hamil ton, I

nc

.

(BAHI),

5203 Leesburg Pike , Su i t e 509 ,

F a l l s Church

,

VA

and

t was

discovered

miss ing

and

presumed

s to len . Exhibi t 1)

2 . The USCG r ece iv ed th e

Department

o f

Defense (DoD)

purchased CPU

,

which

was des t ined

fo r t h e DoD J o in t Drug Task

Force (JDTF) in September

1994

. The

CPU

was

to

be p laced in t h e

JDTF c l a s s i f i e d f a c i l i t y b ut , a t t h a t t ime t h e r e was no room fo r

t h e

i tem

.

The

USCG

u t i l i z e d

BAHI

under

an

ex i s t i n g

U. S .

Navy

con t rac t

to prov ide

se rv ice s

to

t h e JDTF. The

USCG

rece ived

permiss ion

to s to re

under

t h e CPU

under

t h e

Navy con t rac t . The

i tem , c o n s i s t i n g

o f

12 boxes , was placed in s to rage a t Sky One

Storage ,

Inc

. In March

1995

when

t h e USCG r e t u rn ed to p i ck

u p

the CPU system,

t

was discovered t h a t s ev e ra l

o f

t h e boxes w

e re

miss ing from

t h e

s to rage

f ac i

l

i t y .

In May 1995 ,

an

i n v en t o ry

t aken by t h e USCG a t BAHI conf i rmed t

he boxes

were miss ing .

Contac t wi th t h e BAHI f a c i l i t i e s manager by t h e USCG r ev ea l ed

t ha t BAHI

checked

t h e i r own inven tory but

cou

l d not f ind

the

miss ing

i tems

. The BAHI o f fe red no exp l ana t ion fo r t h e l o s s nor

would

t

accep t

r e s p o n s ib i l i t y fo r t h e

l oss .

3 .

The

USCG rev iewed ts

own inven tory a t

ts c l a s s i f i e d

work s i t e s and f a i l e d

to

f i n d t h e miss ing CPU s .

4 . In te rv iews o f USCG and BAH personnel by t h e r e p o r t i n g

agent v e r i f i ed the fac t s repor ted in t h e

aforement ioned

paragraphs bu t

of fe red no l eads as

to

t h e

c i rcumstances

sur rounding t h e CPU

' s

disappearance

.

Exhib i t s

2 , 5 ,

6,

9 , 10

and 11)

b) 6) b) 7)C )

5. ,

c la imed

t h a t BAHI

n o t i f i e d

hi s

bui ld ing

' s

s e c u r i t y

o f f i c e

,

the

bui ld ing land lo rd ,

t h e l o ca l

pol i ce

and the manufacturer o f the CPO . Exhib i t

3)

6 . Contac t with the bui ld ing l and lord , bui ld ing s ecu r ty

and t h e l o ca l p o l i ce f a i l ed

t o v e r i f y 1 '9 c la ims . Exhib i t s

7, 8 and 12)

2


26/69

96

0559D 18 APR 96 60DC JlZX/D

7 . Contact with

the

CPU manufacturer

conf i rmed

they had

been con tac ted by BAHI but

the re

i s no program in place to

recover

the

i t em i f

the

i t em was l a t e r

serv iced

by them under

warranty

. They

f u r th e r

ver i f i ed

they

had

no

record

of

se rv ic ing

the

CPU in

the

p as t . (Exhibi t 4)

8 . Contact wi th

a l l these

aforement ioned p a r t i e s revea led

no

l eads as exp la in the CPU s l o ss .

b) 6) b) 7) C)

9 . , denied r e sp o n s i b i l i t y

fo r

the l os s of the

computer

in

wri t t en correspondence c i t i n g BAHI

they had

no con t rac tua l ob l iga t ion to

s to re

the

miss ing i t ems .

He explained t he re

was no

pol ice

r epor t because t he re were

no

s igns

o f

a

break- in

and

the

lo s s was discovered dur ing a

rou t ine

inventory .

This

was

cont ra ry

to

the

USCG

s ta tements

t ha t

the

i tems

were

discovered miss ing when they went to pick

up

the

i tems from BAHI s s to rage . - fu r the r c i t ed

t ha t

BAHI had a

verba l agreement with the USCG t h a t

BAHI

would not be

respons ib le should

something

happen

to i tems whi le in

BAHILs

s to rage f a c i l i t y . This i s a l so

cont ra ry

to s ta tements by the

USCG and

manufac ture r

had been no t i f i ed t h a t i the mi s s i n g i t em i s

se rviced

to n o t i f y BAHI .

This a l so i s

con t ra ry to in fo rmat ion

the repor t ing

agent

rece ived

from

the

manufacturer

which

acknowledged

contac t with BAHI

and

the

f ac t

it

had no

record o f

se rv ic ing

t he

miss ing

i tem . Exhib i t s

6,

10

and

13)

10

.

The USCG

denied any such

agreement ,

but

acknow

l

edged

the re

was

no

con t rac tua l

obl iga t ion

with which they could

force

BAHI

to

make

good

the

Government

s lo s s .

Exhibi t 6)

11 . The BAHI counsel

fu r the r claimed it had

taken

a l l s teps

necessary to

both safeguard

the

CPU and

to

recover t he miss ing

i t em

upon

discovery o f its lo s s .

(Exhibi t

10)

12. The

case was

presented to

Connie

Fragale , Ass is tan t

U.S

.

Attorney,

Department

of

Jus t i ce , C iv i l

Divis ion

,

Eas te rn

D is t r i c t o f

Virgin ia ,

Alexander, VA who dec l ined to t ake

f u r th e r ac t ion c i t i n g the

Government

would be hard

pressed

to

t ake

BAHI

to

t a sk fo r the loss

o f

t h e CPU.

13.

The l oss to the Government for the mi

ss ing

CPU

sys tem

i s

25 , 445 . The inves t iga t ion did not i d en t i f y d e f i c i en c ie s

3


27/69

9610559D 18 APR 96 60DC J1ZX/D

su f f i c i en t enough to warrant a

Management Control Defic iency

Report . However , the contractor s lack of abi l i ty to safeguard

U. S . Government proper ty

and i t s fu r the r ins i s tence

t ha t t

was

not

respons ib le fo r

the

Governm ent s

lo s s

sugges t s

a review

by

the con t rac t admin i s t ra to r

as

to the con t rac to r s ab i l i t y to

perform fu tu re Government work.

4


28/69

9610559D 18

APR 96 60DC JlZX/D

IDENTITY OF SUBJECTS

BOOZ-ALLEN

ND

H MILTON

INCORPOR TED

SKY ONE

STOR GE

INCORPOR TED

53 2 Leesburg Pike

Fal l s

Church

V 22 41

Commodity

: The

Configura t ion computers fo r

U. S . Coast

Gua rd . B HI i s a

Top

1 DoD ontractor .

5


29/69

9610559D 18 APR 96 60DC J1ZX/D

EXHIBITS :

1 - U. S .

Coast Guard

Report

of

I

nves t iga t ion

dated

September

10 1995.

2 - DCIS

Form

1 ;

In te rv iew

of

BAHI

employee

Apri l

18 1996

.

3 - DCIS

Form

1 ;

In t e r

view

of

BAHI

1996

.

b) 6) b) 7) C)

4

-

DCIS

Form

1;

I

nterv iew

o f Manufacturer

5

-

DCIS

Form

1 ; In te rv iew

o f

BAHI

employee

6

- DCIS

Form

1 ;

In te rv iew

o f

7

-

DCIS

Form

1 ;

Contac t w it

h

BAHI

Wf ' h

Apri l

18

Apri l 18

1996.

Apri l

18 1996

.

Apri l

18

1996

.

8

-

DCIS

Form

1;

Contact

wi th Bui ld ing Secur i ty

Apri l 18

1996.

9

-

DCIS Form

1 ;

In te rv iew o f BAHI

Secur i ty

10

- DCIS

Form

1 ;

In te rv iew

o f

b) 6), b) 7) C)

11

- DCIS

Form 1; In te rv iew o f

BAHI

Apri l 18

1996.

b) 6) b) 7) C)

Apri l 18 1996

.

Apri l 18

1996.

12 - DCIS Form 1 ; Contac t

wi th Loca

l

Pol ice Apri l

18 1996.

13 - DCIS Form

l ;

Contac t

wi th B HI

11' 1' 1'

May 28

1996

.

Prepared

by

b) 6), b) 7) C)

Mid -

Atlan t ic FO

APPR:

6


30/69

N971 198W

- BOOZ LLEN HAMILTON, INC


31/69

9710198W-24-DEC-96-60DC-E3W/U

SPECIAL INTEREST

C SE

DOD HOTLINE

NO

.

96-T63927

TOP

100

CONTR CTOR

BOOZ

, AL

LEN H MI

L

TON

, I

NCORPOR TED

McLean , Virg in ia

DISTRIBUTION :

DCIS

Headquar te rs

03FB)

DOD

Hot

l in

e

Defense

Contrac t Audit Agency

,

Ft

.

elvoi r

,

V

NARRATIVE

August

9 ,

1998


32/69

1. This invest igat ion

was

in i t i a ted based on the rece ip t of

Department

of

Defense

DOD)

Hotline complaint number

96-T63927, al leging t ha t Booz,

Allen

Hamilton,

Incorporated (BAH), had overcharged labor

and re la ted

costs on i t s

DoD

and other

Federal

Government contracts . (EXHIBIT 1) On

December 12,

1996 the complainant fur ther alleged tha t BAH i s

bi l l ing

unallowable costs as allowable ; has ghost employees; i s bi l l ing a t

dif ferent

overhead

and

general

and

administra t ive

ra tes

than

agreed;

is

bi l l ing fr inge

benefi ts

with no associated direc t

labor,

and has hidden ''

costs

i n the i r

accounting system

.

2 .

I t

was

determined

tha t

the

same

complainant

had

f i led similar

al legat io ns in March 1996 and

August

1996, with the Defense Contract

Audit Agency DCAA), the Federal

Bureau of

Invest igat ion

(FBI)

and the

Agency

for Internat iona l Development Office

of

Inspector

General

(AID-

IG) . Some

of the issues addressed in the DoD Hotline

compl

aint

dated

October 1996 ,

had

been addressed in the previous complaints . Some of the

al legat ions

had

been

reviewed and resolved during t he

course of DCAA

audits

a t

BAH . Other i s s ues re la ted specif ica l ly

to

an AID

contract

with

BAH

,

number

09001010179 , which AID-IG and

the

FBI were already

invest

i

gating

,

with

the

support

of

DCAA.

3 . A

review

was

conducted

of a sampling

of

BAH/DoD contracts , and the

re la ted

DoD con tract administra tors were

interviewed,

to determine

whether the

mischarging

found on the AID

contract could occur on

the

DoD

contracts

. (EXHIBITS 2 3) I t was

determined

tha t due to the

language

used in the

DoD contracts ,

acts

of mischarging

similar to those occurring

on the AID

contract could

not and did not

occur

on

the DoD contracts

.

DCAA further conf i

rmed

tha t

they had not seen th is type

of

mischarging on

DoD contracts

.

4.

AID- IG and

the

FBI

are

pu

rsuing c iv i l remedies pertaining to the

AID

contract , through

the

United States

Attorney ' s

Office

, Eastern ist r ict

of Virginia

.

5 . Numerous

meeti

ngs

were

held

with DCAA wherein completed

and ongoing

audi ts

a t BAH were discussed and reviewed as they re la ted

to

the

remaining

al legat ions . EXHIBI

TS

4& 5) DCAA

was

not able

to

corroborate

any

of the DoD re la ted al legat ions

made by

the

complainant

nor were there

any

audi t

finding s tha t were not immediate ly noted and corrected during

the i r

audi t s ,

with respect to DoD contracts and bi l l ings

.

Furthermore,

DCAA was in the process

of

completing

contract audi t c losing revi ews for

the time

period

in question

and did

not find

any

deficiencies nor

questioned costs during these

reviews

.

BAH, and

of

t

he Hotline complainqnt

, was i

nterviewed.

(EXHIBIT

6) He provided information tha t fur ther c lar i f ied the

al legat ions

. He

also

provided

copies of a briefing

package

he had

created per taining to

findings of

the

complainant, during

his

employment

a t BAH. This briefing

package had been presented

to

the executives

a t

BAH by Ulll illll and the

complainant, wh ich resul ted in

an

outside accounting firm being hired

by

BAH to review the issues. llWll believed the issu es

had

been resolved

through the revie

w and follow-up of

the

outside firm ,

in coord

i nation

with DCAA .


33/69

7. for

BAH

was interviewed. (EXHIBIT 7)

He tha t the

issues

were presented,

reviewed

and

corrected in

coordination

with

DCAA He further

confirmed tha t

due

to the automated accounting system B H

i s

currently using , t

is

impossible

for

many

of

the

i ssues raised in

the

allegations

to

re-occur

.

8 . Additional

meetings with DCAA fur ther confirmed

the fac t

tha t the

issues

raised

in

the

al legat ions

had been addressed and corrected , and

tha t checks

and balances within

the

current BAH

automated

accounting

system

meet with DCAA s sat isfact ion

9.

Since

no criminal

act iv i ty related

to DoD contrac t s has been

uncovered, th i s

invest igat ion

is

closed as unfounded.' '

No

judic ia l

or

administ rat ive action will occur

related

to

DoD

contrac t s . There i s no

loss to

the Department of

Defense.

10. No management

control

deficiencies were

identif ied

during

the course

of

th is invest igat ion.


34/69

IDENTITY OF SUBJECTS

BOOZ

ALLEN

HAMILTON INCORPORATED

8283 Greensboro

Drive

McLean Virgin ia

22102

Commodity

:

Booz

l len

Hamilton

Inc . i s a

consu l t ing

company

.

Booz

Allen

Hamilton Inc . i s

cons idered

a Top 100

Department of Defense cont rac to r .


35/69

EXHIBITS

1

2 .

3 .

4

5 .

6 .

7 .

Ho

t

ne

complaint

number

96-T-63927

dated October 10

1996

Report

of

contract review

dated January 7

1998

Report

of

contract

review

dated January 8 1998

Report of meeting wi th DCAA

da ted June 18

1998

Report

of

meeting

w

i th

DCAA

dated

June

19

1998

Report of

in terview

wi th

ated August

20 1997

Report of in terview wi th dated

August

9 1998

Prepared by

b) 6)

, b) 7) C)

MAFO

A.PPR

:

E W M


36/69

N9810289Y SCIENCE APPL INTER CORP ET AL)


37/69

INSPECTOR GENERAL

DEP RTMENT OF

DEFENSE

DEFENSE


38/69

the

NSES contrac t

was to

replace

in

which

TRW

,

BAH, and

SAIC

par t ic ipa ted in provid

i

ng support to OM and NIMA .

Addi t ional ly

, the

TRW representa t ives a l leged

t ha t

t

rumored tha t

b

) 6) b)

7

)

C)

had been

-

may

have

been

having

post-Government

employment

discuss ions

with SAIC

during

the

t imeframe

of the NSES procurement

.

Approximately for ty boxes

o f NIMA records regarding the

NSES

procurement have

been . seques t ered by t h i s invest iga t ion .

On F

ebruary 19

,

1998

,

the Federal

Bureau

o f Invest iga t ion (FBI)

was

briefed regard ing

th

i s i

nvest

i ga t i on , and

the rea f

t

er

t

he

FBI

jo ined

the

invest iga t ion

.

1998

UPDATE Dur ing t h i s period

,

regarding

his

involvement

with

No other inves t iga t ive

were

conducted

due to the

non

-

ava i l ab i l i t y

of the FBI co - case

agent , and

other

operat ional

needs involving

case agent .

JULY

3

1998 UPDATE . During th i s

per iod ,

in terviews

were

conducted a t NIMA, and TRW

.

SEPTEMBER 3

1998 UPDATE:

During t h i s

period, NIMA

records regarding

the

NSES procurement

were

reviewed.

Addit ional ly ,

t h i s

matter

was

reviewed

with

Assis tan t

U. S .

A tt

orney John

Klein o f the

United Sta tes Attorney Off ice

for

the

Eastern Dist r

i

c t

of Vir9 in ia USAO -

EDVA)

.

NOVEMBER 3

1998

UPDATE

During

th

i s

per iod

, add i t i

onal

NIMA records were reviewed

.

JANUARY 3 1999 UPDATE: During t h i s per iod in terviews

were conducted

o f

NIMA

source se lec t ion team members

.

MARCH

3

1999 UPDATE

Dur

ing

t

his period, no

invest iga t ive

leads

were

conducted

due

to

the

non-avai lab i

l i t y

of the FBI

co-case

agent ,

and other opera t iona l needs involving

case

agent

.

As a

resu l t

of a supervisory

case review

conducted on February

24 , 1999,

t

was decided tha t

interviews

o f

, and

b) 6) b) 7 )C )

conducted as soon as

poss ib le .

Subsequently, t h i s matter w i l l

be

reviewed with

the USAO-EDVA to determine

i f fur ther

invest iga t ive s teps would be

necessary.

QFFIGl

ft h

W

E LY


39/69

MAY 3

1999

UPDATE were

conducted with

b) 6), b)

and

Addi t iona l l y ,

di scuss ions

were conducted with the Off ice o f

General

Counsel

fo r

both

B H

,

and

SAIC ,

wherein

they

pledged .

to

cooperate with t h i s inves t iga t ion . I t i s

an t i c ip a t ed

t ha t an

add i t iona l d i scuss ion wi th

the

B H

Genera l Counsel w i l l be

requ i red

as a

r e s u l t o f ~ n f o r m t i o n

l

earned dur ing the

aforement ioned in te rv iews . Moreover t i s

an t i c ip a t ed

t hat

t h i s

mat te r

w ll be b r i e f ed to

the

US O - EDV dur ing

the

next

repor t ing per iod pr io r to producing a repor t o f

inves t iga t ion .

JUNE 22

1999

UPDATE

was conducted of B H General

Report

o f

Inves t iga t ion wll

Du r i ng t h i s per iod , an in te rv iew

Counsel . Dur ing

t he

next p e r i o d a

be prepared .

SEPTEMBER

22 1999

UPDATE Dur i ng

t h i

s repor t i ng p e r i o d no

i n v es t i g a t i v e

e f f o r t

was

expended.

A Report o f Inves t iga t ion i s

be

ing

p r epa r ed and should be completed with in the next

repor t ing

period

.

DECEMBER 22 199

9 UPDATE

Du r ing

t h i s repor t ing per iod

no

i nves t i

ga

t ive

e f f o r t was

expended . Due

to unre l a t ed ope ra t iona l

ex igenc ies , and assignments repor t ing agen t

was

unab l e to

complete prepa ra t ion o f the Report o f

I nves t iga t ion during t h i s

pe r iod . A Repor t of Inves

t

ga t ion i s being prepared , and should

be

comp

l

e ted

within

the

next

repor t ing

per iod .

MARCH 22 2000 UPDATE

During

t his repor t ing

period,

a

Report

of

Inves t i

ga t ion

wa.s submit t

ed

. This case was

closed

as

dec l ined.

b) 6), b) 7) C)

Prepared by

DISTR :

3TO

Mid

- A t lan t i c FO

APPR :

OFFICI L

USE

ONLY

WARN ING

This document is the property of the Department of Defense Inspector General and

is

on loan

to your agency. Conten

ts

may not

be

disclosed

to

any party under investigation nor may this

document be distributed outside the receiving agency without the specific authorization of

the Assistan t In

specto

r General for Investigat ions.


40/69

INSPECTOR GENERAL

DEPARTMENT

OF

DEFENSE

DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVESTJGATIVE SERVICE

Mid-Atl

an

tic Field Office

1111 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 712

Arlington, Virginia 22202-4306

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

9810289Y-18-FEB-98-60DC-EOG/D

SPECIAL INTEREST CASE

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

McLean V 22102

BOOZ-ALLEN, HAMILTON, INCORPORATED

McLean , V 22103

DISTRIBUTION

DCIS Headquarters

(03FB)

federa

l

Bureau of nves t iga t ion

National

and

Ma A e nc - OGC

L SS

IF ICATION

January

3

1 2000


41/69

9810289Y

-

18

- F

EB

-

98

- 60DC- EOG/D

January 31,

2000

N RR T

IVE

1 .

The Nat ional Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) Off ice

o f

General Counsel OGC)

furnished

a

compla int t h a t

was

rece ived

via

I n t e l l i g en ce

Community

channels

from

TRW

Incorpora ted

.

The

TRW compla int a l l eged

v io l a t i o n s

o f the

Procurement

In

t

e g r i t y

Act

[41 USC

423 a) 3)]

r e l a t i v e

to

a NIMA Request

fo r Proposal

(RFP) NMA202 - 97-R-0001 fo r

t he

NIMA Systems Engineer ing Serv ices

(NSE

S)

by compet i to rs

Science Applica t ions

I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Corpora t ion SAIC), and Booz-Allen Hamilton ,

Incorporated

BAH) . During the NSES compet i t ion , SAIC

and BAH

t eamed

t oge the r

aga ins t TRW , and ul t ima t e ly

the

NSES con t rac t was

awarded t o the SAIC/BAH team . The

TRW compla int a l l eged t ha t

BAH rep re sen ta t ive s were aware o f

a

NIMA source

s e l ec t i o n

dec i s ion regard ing

a

reques t for

a

Best and Fina l Offer

(BAFO)

on

o r

about

October

20 ,

1997

,

t h o ~ t h

NIMA

Procurement

Con

trac t ing O ffi c e r

(PCO)

had no

t

an ounced

a

dec i s ion requi r ing

a BAFO submission

from the

compet i to rs

un t i l

November

9,

1997 .

i t i o n ~ l l y TRW a l l eged

t h a t SAIC

knew t ha t they were

awarded

the

NSES

con t rac t on or about December 16,

1997, even though

the

o f f i c i a l n o t i f i c a t i o n o f the winne r o f

the

NSES compet i t ion was

not

to

have occurred

unt il January

9 , 1998 .

2 . On February 3, 1998 , a

review of

the TRW a l l eg a t i o n s wi th

TRW rep re sen ta t ives

was

conducted

,

at tachment

(

1)

. I t was

determined t ha t TRW

had some e - mail

messages

and

witnesses t ha t

support

i t s

a l

l

ega t ions

regard ing

the a l leged

illi it

di sc losure s of the

NSES

BAFO

, and NSES award

dec i s ions weeks in

advance o f

the

NIMA con t rac t ing o f f i c e r ' s o f f i c i a l n o t i f i c a t i o n s

fo r each

even t .

Furthermore

, it was

a l l eged t ha t

b) 6) b)

7) C)

had

knowledge o f

the NSES

procurement

sens i t ive in fo rmat ion

regard ing

th

e BAFO ,

and con t rac t eva lua t

i

on/award t ha t

was

supposed

to

have been known only to . NIMA source

s e l e c t ion

a u t h o r i t i e s . Addi t iona l ly th e TRW

represe

n t a t i v e s

a l l eged t ha t

it had been rumored

t

hat 11111

D1f ' @'

- - may have been having pos t -

Government

employment

discuss ions

wi th SAIC during t

he

t imeframe

o f

the

NSES procurement.

3 . On Februa ry 19 , 1998,

the

Federa l Bureau

o f

Inves t i g a t i o n

(FBI )

was br ie fed on t h i s inves t iga t ion

. The FBI

Northern

Virg in ia Resident Agency jo ined t he inves t iga t ion .

The

per t inen t FBI case

con t ro l number was

46A- WF-211297 .

A-1

IFICATION

OB

OFFIC I i

5

OM

y

2


42/69

9810289Y 18 FEB 98 60DC EOG/D

January 31 , 2000

On

March

10

,

1998 , an

in te rv iew

was conducted o f

He

denied

any

post-Government

employment

discuss ions

w

i t h

SAIC;

al though

he advised

tha t

he had v i s i te d with SAIC s pres ident , r e t i r ed

Vice Admiral William

Owens ,

in December 1997

, in regard

to

t ha t

during

Admiral Owens he

never

discussed

any knowledge

he had concerning

the NSES

procurement

. He s ta ted

t ha t

he was

not

br ie fed

as

to

which contrac t ing t

eam

had won the

NSES

award unt l

January

1998 . He s ta ted t ha t t was only a t tha t time tha t he was

advised t ha t the SAIC

lead

t eam had won the NSES con t rac t

5 . Interviews were conducted

of

TRW employees who were

involved wi th

wri t ing

the l e t t e r of complaint

on

which th i s

i nves t iga t ion

was

predicated , at tachments 3) . and (

4)

. These

in te rv iews re i t e ra ted

a l l egat ions de ta i led in paragraphs and

2 .

Addi t+onal ly,

interviews

were

conducted

of

the

NIM

con t rac t ing

o f f i ce r , and

source

se lec t ion team

members

who were

responsib le for the conduct of the

NSES

procurement , at tachments

(5)

through

( 8) .

6 .

s t a t ed tha t

due to an apparent conf l ic t of i n t e r e s t

involving the

NSES

procurement,

NIM required tha t he recuse

himsel f from any

source se lec t ion ac t iv i ty

involving the NSES

procurement .

He

denied

tha t he had inf luenced the se lec t ion

o f

SAIC

as

the

winner

of

t

he

NSES

procurement.

7 . On November 5 , 1998, an

in

t e rv i ew

was

conducted of

llWIP

the NSES contrac t

on the

resu l t s of

made the

decis ion

to award

and

i t s

team o f

subcontractors

based

contrac t compet i

t ion

. He

s ta ted tha t

A-2

W RNING

3

R

QFFl Ab

IJfSli

Ql\ilY

hi cument is the property of the Department of Defense Inspector General and is on loan

to your ag not be disclosed to any party under inve is

document

be

distri u

t

ed outs

i e e

spec

ific authorization

of

the Ass era or Investigations


43/69

9810289Y 18 FEB 98 60DC EOG/D

January 31

,

2000

the

mem

bers o f the

NSES Source

Selec t ion

Evalua t ion

Board

rev

i

ewed the con t rac to r proposa ls t ha t

we r e

submi t ted

,

and

eva lua ted the compet i tors o ra l pre sen ta t ions

. He

advised t ha t

the

dec i s ion to conduct

a

Best and Fina l Offer

(BAFO)

re su l t ed

from

discuss ions

with

t

he

NIM

Off ice

o f

General

Counsel

,

and

the Procurement Contrac t ing Office r

in Oct.

Ober 1997 .

He

s t a t e d

t ha t

he

was unaware

o f

anyone with access to the

NSES

source

s e l e c t

i

on

sens i t ive

i n f

or mat i

on

prov id i ng i ns i ghts t o in t e r n a l

dec is ion

making regarding the

NSES

procurement

.

Moreover

,

un t i l

he

was provided a copy

o f the

TRW

complaint

,

he

was not

knowledgeable

t

ha t

,

o r any o the r

.

con t r ac

t o r

had

any advanced

knowledge

o f t h e B FO , .and con t r a c t award dec i s i ons

before the se

dec is ions were o f f i c i a l l y

announced .

Addi t iona

lly ,

he

defended

the

NIM

co

n

t r a c t award to

SAIC

, s i

nce

SAIC s

s k i l

l

mix

,

and

cos t provided

the bes t value for

N

IM

.

In regard

to

b) 6), b) 7) C)

involvement

in

NSES ,

he

s t a t e d t ha t

-

was

recused

from

the

NSES

procurement

due t6 an apparen t c o n f l i c t o f

i

nte

r

est

. He

s t a t e d th a

t

NIM

managemen

t

made a conscious

ef fo

r t

to ensu

r e

t ha t

- h

ad no inf luence on the

NSES

source

s e l e c t i

on .

8 .

On

November

b) 6), b) 7) C)

NIM

acqu

i s

t

ion

.

he was unaware o f

having

any advanced

knowledge

of the ~ O and con t rac t award

dec i s ions

before these

dec i s ions

were o f f i c i a l l y

announced .

Addi t iona l

ly

,

he

defended

the

NIM

con t rac t

award

to

SAIC ,

s ince

SAIC s

s k i l l mix

,

and cos t

provided t he

bes t value

fo r

NIM

. He

expla i

ne

d t ha t SAIC s proposal

had

more accura t e ly addressed t h e

Governm en

t

Est im

a t e

o f

43

5

Fu

l l Ti me Egu i l i van ts (FTE) ,

than t h e

TRW pr

oposa l . He s t a t e d tha t t h

ough

t

he Governmen

t Est i mat e

was

s t a t e d

in

the

Request

fo r Proposals

, rRw

appeared

to

have

igno

r

ed

the s t a t e d

Gover

n

ment Est mate

i n

i t s proposa l

.

In

regard

to invo l

vement

i n NSES,

he

s t a t e d t ha t

- was recused from

the NSES

procurement due to

an apparent

conf

l

i c t o f i n t e r e s t

.

9 . On

November

19,

1998

,

an

in

t erview

was

conducted

o f

-

b) 6), b) 7) C)

NSES

Source

Selec t ion Evalua t ion

Board

(SSEB) .

She s t a t e d t h a t she coordina ted the ac t ions o f

the var ious members o f the

SSEB ,

and documented ts a c t i v i t i e s

To

her

knowledge

, no one rece ived advanced

access

t o t

he

NSES

source

s e l ec t i o n s en s i t i v e

informat ion

t ha t

provided

i n s ig h t s

to

b) 6), b) 7 ) C)

A- 3

IFICATION:

WARNING

4

ment is the property of the epartment of Defense Inspector General and is on loan

ae

a

sr: c

.

ws

ePdL

to your agenc . be disclosed to an art ay this

docume

nt

be

distr

i

out

the

specific authorization

of

the nspector General for Investigations.


44/69

9810289Y 18 FEB 98 60DC EOG/D

January

31 2000

i n t e rna l dec is ion

making regarding

t he

NSES

procurement

.

In

regard

to involvement in NSES,

she

s t a t e d t h a t

lli was recused from the NSES procurement

due

to an apparent

c onf l i c t o f i n t e r e s t

.

10

. On March 15 1999 an in te rv iew was conducted o f l'i P'P'

b) 6), b) 7) C)

NSES,

at tachment 9 ) . He s t a t ed tha t he had no advanced knowledge o f

the NIM dec is ion

to

reques t

a

B FO

in

the

NSES

procurement

. He

s t a t e d t ha t he had no understanding o f

any

of the i n t e rn a l NSES

procurement

dec i s ions

and t h a t he

was not

aware

o f

any

Government o f f i c i a l s i l l e g a l l y providing

such

informat ion to

anyone . on

the

SAIC/BAH team . He s t a t e d t hat t hough he knew

b) 6), b) 7) C)

b) 6), b) 7) C)

as

a B H employee he

was not

aware

t h a t lllWll

had

sen t

any

e - mails to engineers

a t

TRW in an at tempt to r e c ru i t

them

.

He s t a t ed t h a t he was

not persona l ly

involved with the NSES

procurement .

He s t a t e d t ha t he

had no knowledge o f whether o r

not

had

been given advanced knowledge o f the

NIM

dec i s ion to reques t a BAFO. He s ta t ed t ha t he

was

i

nvo

l ved wi th

the Defense Science

Board

DSB) panel t ha t recommended the

es tabl ishment o f NIMA,

and

t ha t had

i n v i t ed

the

members

o f

the

DSB

to t he

NIM

Geospacial

demonstra t ions;

but

there

were never any

discuss ions regarding t he

NSES

procurement .

He s t a t ed t hat t was t rue tha t he was bes t man in

wedding and t ha t he

i s

a

personal

f r i end o f 1111

b u t he has

never discussed t he

NSES

procurement with

e i the r

, o r M '91' i n t h e con tex t

o f

t h e i r

f r i endsh ips .

He

s t a t e d t ha t

SAIC

has never rece ived

any

advantage as a re su l t o f h i s p e rsona l r e l a t i ons h i ps wit.h

-

A 4

IFICATION:

WARNING

5

O

R

OFFICI L

USE

ONLY

This document is the property of the Department of Defense Inspector General and is on loan

to

your agency. Contents rnay not

be disc

losed

to

any party under investigation nor may this

document be distributed outside the receiving agency without the specific authorization of

the Assistant

Inspector General for Investigations.


45/69

98 289Y

8

FEB

98

60DC EOG/D

January

31

, 2000

appearance o f c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t . She s t a t e d t h a t SAIC

in formed NIMA in w r i t i n g as

to

her

p a r t i c i p a t i o n

i n t h e SAIC

proposa l e f f o r t fo r NSES, so t h a t t h e approp r i a t e mi t i g a t io n

could

be

under taken . She s t

a t ed

th a t

b

)

6) b) 7) C)

avoided

any

discuss ions o f

work

re

l

a t ed ma t t e r s

in

t h e i r

persona l

l i f e ,

and t h a t

they

never had any

discuss ions

rega rd ing

the NSES procurement .

13

. Approximately 40

boxes

o f

NIMA

records

p e r t a i n i n g to t h e

NSES procurement were rev iewed

dur ing

t h i s

i n v e s t i g a t i o n

,

at tachmen t (12) .

14 . During t h i s

i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,

p e r t i n en t records mainta ined by

t h e NIMA OGC

were

rev iewed ,

at tachment

(13)

.

This

r ev iew

noted

t h a t NIMA management p ro p e r ly addressed apparen t c o n f l i c t o f

i

n te r e s t s i t u a t i o n s

invo lv ing

,

and

b) 6), b) 7) C)

In

each case

t h e ap p a ren t co n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t was due to t h e

imputed f i n an c i a l i n t e r e s t

invo lv ing

WW

t 1

11 and

b) 6), b) 7) C)

f inanc ia l i n t e r e s t s were proper l y r ep o r t ed

to

NIMA management

via

the Conf iden t i a l Sta tements o f

F in an c ia l

I n t e re s t s

OGE -

450)

submit ted by MP 91 and

119' 9

NIMA

management

removed -

from any source

s e l ec t i o

n a c t i v i t i e s

r e l a t

i ve to t h e NSES

procurement . In

t h e

case o f

'9 19

NIMA management de te rmined

t h a t apparen t c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t was not

s u b s t an t i a l , and

t h e r e fo r e

a waiver by t h e head o f t h e agency

was

gran ted

.

b) 6), b) 7) C)

15 .

Addi t iona l ly

, fu rn i sh ed p e r t i n en t

documen

t s

rega rd ing

his

r ecu s a l

from

the NSES

procurement

, a t t achment

(14) .

16

.

A d d i t io n a l ly ,

discuss ions were conducted wi th t h e

Off ice

o f

Gene r a l Counse l f o r both SA I C, and BAH

,

a t t achments

(15)

and

(16)

. SAIC

counsel disc losed cor respondence wi

t h

NIMA

da ted

A p r i l 1 , 1997,

wherein

SAIC reques ted NIMA

to

as sist SAIC in

mi t i g a t i n g the apparen t c o n f l i c t o f

i n t e r e s t

invo lv ing SAIC

Moreover , SAIC counse l prov i ded

in fo r mat i on

rega rd ing

how SAIC decided t h a t 435 FTE ' s

were

t h e

bas i s

fo r t h e

Go v

ernment

' s

es t imate

. In

t h i s

r eg a rd

a copy of

sec t ion

L-14 e n t i t l e d Government

Est ima te

o f Tota l Leve l o f

E f fo r t

from

the NSES RFP.

d e l i n ea t ed

t h e 435

f u l l

t ime

equ iva len t s (FTE) f i g u re . BAH counsel d i s c l o s ed BAH

records

A- 5

IFICATION:

Q

i i t f t l ~

A

I

'

1>11

y

6


46/69

9810289Y 18 FEB 98 60DC EOG/D

t h a t pe r t a ined

explained t ha t

January 31, 2000

advised

t ha t

t h i s was not a

sanc t ioned BAH

a c t iv i t y .

7 .

This mat te r

was

reviewed

with

Assis tant

U. S . Attorney

(AUSA)

John

Kle in o f the United

S ta t e s

Attorney fo r the Eastern

D is t r i c t o f

V

i r g in i a

USAO - EDVA) . AUSA

Klein

concluded t h a t

the

EDVA

had

littl i n t e r e s t in

prosecu

t

ing

a l l eg a t i o n s

o f

vio l a t ions o f

the

Procurement In teg r i ty .Act 41

USC

423) unless

it could be

es tab l i shed

t ha t

something

o f

value

had

been

used

to

impact

the

NI

MA

d ec i s

i

on

to

award

the

NSES

con t rac t

to

the

SAIC team .

As

no evidence

of

t h is natu re

has

been discovered by

t h i s

inves t iga t ion ,

the

EDVA

has no i n t e r e s t in pursu ing the

a l lega t ions t h a t pred ica t ed t h i s case .

18

.

Since no cr imina l p rosecu t ion

,

o r

c i v i l

l i t i g a t i o n has

r esu l ted fYom t h i s inves t iga t ion t h i s i n v e s t i g a ti on i s

c losed

as

\ \decl ined

. Addi t iona l ly ,

the re

were no management

con t ro l

d e f i c i en c i e s t o repor t . There was no lo s s to

the

Government.

A- 6

8FFl811 :

1 181 8PAl :

V

7


47/69

9810289Y-18-FEB-98-60DC-EOG/D

January 31 2000

IDENTITY

O

SUBJECTS

Science

ppl icat ions

In te rna t iona l

Corpora

t ion

McLean

V

22102

Commodity : Top

100

Department of Defense con t rac to r with

s a l e s

pr imar i ly involving research

and

development i n t eg ra t ion o f

systems

and .

engineer ing se rv ice s

.

B-1

ICATION

os

c

s

i i

otii

v

8


48/69

9810289Y 18 FEB

.

98 60DC EOG/D

IDENTI TY OF

SUBJECTS:

Booz

,

Allen

, Hamilton

Incorpo

r a t ed

McLean V

22103

January

31

2000

Commodity : Top 100 Department

o f

Defense

o n t r ~

t o r

with

sa l e s

pr imar i ly involving resea

r ch and development ,

systems

i n t eg r a t i on and eng ineer ing s.

e rv ice s

.

B- 2

S

IFICATION

F

Fl&I

P: s

iii

Q kV

9


49/69

9810289Y-18-FEB-98-60DC-EOG/ D

EXHIBITS

1

2

3

( 4)

5

6

7

8

9

(

10)

11)

DCIS Form-1 : TRW r eco rd s dated

DCIS

Form

- 1 : I n t e r v i ew o f

FBI 302 : In te rv iew o f

DCIS Form-1 : In te rv iew o f

FBI

FD-302 :

In te rv iew of

1998

FBI

FD-302 :

In te rv iew o f

FBI FD-302 : In t e rv

iew

o f

DCIS

Form

- 1 :

In te rv iew

1998

DCIS Forrn-1 : In te rv iew o f

DCIS Form-1 : In te rv iew o f

DCIS Form-1 : In t e rv iew o f

1999

January 31 , 2000

February 18

, 1998

dated March 10 ,

1998

da ted June 11 , 1998

dated June 11 , 1998

,

da ted

November 3 ,

November 5, 1998

da ted November 6, 1998

da ted

November 19 ,

da ted

Apri l 6,

1999

d a ted

A p r i l

7 ,

1999

da ted

A p r i l

7 ,

12) DCIS Form-1 : Review o f NSES records , da ted J u l y 1 , 1998

13) DCIS

Form-1

: Review

o f OG records

da ted September

22,

1998

(

14) DCIS Form-

1 : Review

o f Records,

da ted November 5 , 1998

(15) DCIS Forrn- 1 : Review o f Correspondence

from

McKenna

Cuneo , da ted

Apri l

12, 1999

. (16)

DCIS Form- 1 :

Review

o f Booz-Allen

Hamil ton

Records w i th

Counse l

, d a ted

June

2,

1999

10

b) 6). b) 7) C)

Prepared by

ICAT I

ON:

l IG

IS

Q laV

b) 6), b) 7) C)

Mid-At lan t i c FO

APPR :


50/69

N9810501R ELECTRONIC DATA

SYSTEMS

CORPOR TION


51/69

(

I n v e s t i g a t

i

on s

INSPECTOR

GENERAL

DEPARTMENT

OF

DEFENSE


MID-ATLANTICFO/WASHINGTON

Il l l JEFF

DAVIS

HWY 712

ARLINGTON, V 22202-4306

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

98

10501R-19-MA

Y-98-60DC-DOW

/U

January

27

, 2000

SPECIAL INTEREST CASE

DoD HOTLINE NUMBER

OO-L067872

TOP 1 DoD

CONTR CTOR

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTE

MS

CORPORATION

Herndon,

VA

BOOZ, ALLEN HAMILTON, INCORPORATED

McLean,

VA

DI

STRIBUTION

DCIS Headquarters

DoD Hotline

Qi'lt'iliQIA* ngp WI Y

WARNING

the prope r ty of the Dep

art

ment of

ur

a

ency

. Con

any party under

inves t i

at en t

be dis t r ibuted

outs ide

the

rece

wl thout

the

specific prior

aut

o

the

Ass s

ant Inspector

Ge

n

eral fo

r I n

vestigations

.


52/69

9810501 R 19 MA Y-98-60DC-DOW

U

arrative

1. This investigation was initiated upon the receipt of a letter sent to the Department of Defense

DoD) Hotline alleging that Booz, Allen Hamilton, Incorporated BAH) and Electronic Data Systems

Corporation EDS), engaged in conduct in violation

of

the Federal Acquisition Regulations FAR) and

federal law by colluding during the bid and award phase

of

a multi-million dollar National Guard Bureau

procurement of a Distance Learning Network DLN).

b) 6) b) 7) C)

2. The complainant, alleged

that

EDS was permitted to engineer the specific system to be purchased and to make special financial

anangements with the manufacturer prior to the release of the request for bid; that

MCA

Corporation, a

company which PDI was a consultant to, was verbally advised that they had submitted the lowest bids, yet

they were not awarded the contract and were subsequently told that they had overbid every item; that EDS

was

permitted

to

submit a best and final offer BAFO), which

won

them the procurement, while the other

bidders were not given the opportunity to subm it a BAFO.

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

. , General Services Administration, Federal

Systems Integration and Management Center FedSIM), Falls Church, VA, stated FedSIM contracted with

BAH to handle the entire DLN for

the

National Guard. There were several steps to the DLN. One of the

steps involved a Bill of Materials BOM) for the DLN classroom and classroom network. BAH was hired

by FedSIM to send out a Request for Bid RFB) and award the BOM to the lowest bidder.

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

. BAH, was interviewed and explained

the

process leading up

to the award of he contract. The BOM was developed through the National Guard Bureau Joint Systems

Engineering and Integration Group JSEIG). This group is comprised

of

members

of

the National Guard

and several competing contractors throughout

the

project, including

EDS

and

MCA.

Each contractor had

input as to what manufacturers would be used on the BOM and the specifications. It was a group effo1t

with the National Guard making the final decision. After the BOM

was

developed , a RFB was sent

out.

The BOM

was

distributed to each contractor

BAH

had

on

its

li

st of potential conhactors.

5. Six contractors bid on the BOM. Three contractors were unable to bid completely, so they

were disqualified.

Of

the tlu ee remaining contractors, EDS was the lowest bidder, not MCA

as

the

complainant

al

leges. BAH took t

he EDS

bid

and

returned it to EDS, asking them

to

lower their bid even

further. EDS complied and lowered their bid, giving additional savings for the government.

6. Contract documents confirmed the legality of he process. The process was monitored

by

the

JSEIG and the National Guard for accuracy and fairness. To confirm the process was accurate and fair,

,

was

contacted concerning the process.

stated he was

in

a position

to

know ifthere was a problem with

the

procurement or award of the

onlract. The entire acqu isition process goes th.rough several channels

in the

National Guard Bweau, and

if

there was a problem, they would

ha

ve found

it

and notified the appropriate persons. ll m was never

notified, and since has not heard

of

a problem concerning BAH or EDS and the DLP.

7. Since no criminal activity has been uncovered, this investigation is closed. Nojudicial or

administrative action will occur. There is no loss to the

U.S

. Government. No management control

deficiencies were identified during

the

course of he investigation.

WARNING

any par t y

under i nves t

c

urn

ent be d i s t r i u te d o u t s ide

the

ncy

wi

th

out

the

specific

prior

au

t he

As

s i

stant Inspector Gen

er

a l

for

I

nvest

i

ga

t ions


53/69

981050 IR-19-MAY-98-60DC-DOW U

dent i ty o f

Subjects

Electronic Data Systems Corporation

13600 EDS Drive

Herndon Virginia 2 171

Commodity:

EDS

performs government contracts mainly dealing with computer systems and hardware.

EDS is considered a Top I 00 DoD contractor.

WARNING

t he Department

of

Defense I n s

ec to r

Conte

i sc lo sed

to

V&il 9 Uisll

be

d is t r i u ted

outside

au he


54/69

I d e n t i t y o f Subjec ts

Booz Allen Hamilton Incorporated

8283 Greensboro Drive

McLean Virginia 22102

Commodity: B H is a management and technoogy consulting firm focusing on business strategy and

transformation. B H is considered a Top 100

Do

D contractor.

Prepared by

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Mid-Atlantic FO

PPR W M

WAI\NING

T document

i s

the property

of

the

Department

of Defe

ns

e Inspector

Ql?il EQIM '8'88 8Uf5"

Genera n to your agency . contents sed

to

any p r ty

under investiga

the receivin

a

nspector

General


55/69

N981 637C BOOZ LLEN HAMILTON INCORPORATED


56/69

nves t

i

g a t

io

ns

INSPECTOR

GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


HARTF

Dod Probes BAH

Documents