Air Force Work, Contractor Pay
By Tom Shoop | Monday, October 01, 2007 | 02:18 PM
This is especially true if the government position you're about to fill is principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition -- and if that job needs filling because the person who previously held it ended up going to prison for negotiating a job with a contractor while she still worked for the government.
By Tom Shoop | Monday, October 01, 2007 | 02:18 PM
When you take a no-work job with a federal contractor while waiting for your civil service job at the Air Force to come through, here's what you shouldn't tell the Washington Post's Robert O'Harrow when he calls for an interview for a story he's writing:
- "I really didn't do anything for [the contractor] CRI."
- "We needed some way to kind of gap me [between jobs]."
This is especially true if the government position you're about to fill is principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition -- and if that job needs filling because the person who previously held it ended up going to prison for negotiating a job with a contractor while she still worked for the government.
Still that's exactly what Charles Riechers told O'Harrow. And the Air Force insists it did nothing wrong in arranging for him to get the contractor pay while he was actually working for the service.
Comments
Charles Riechers dead of apparent suicide.
An suddenly uphill confirmation battle probably didn't bring this on, so I'm guessing the story is not over.
It's curious how you guys read an article and assume the author both states all the facts and is fairly quoting the interviewee. Probably shouldn't call them interviews, but interrogations. By the way, if the guy gives good advice and service, pay him well. Love our military, their service allows you the freedom to badmouth them.
Scooter00 | Friday, October 05, 2007 | 07:19 AMSpin baby, spin! How does an implication mutate into an assertion in just one sentence? The "no work" headline merely echoes doofuss's reponses to the reporter's questions reintroducing the issue of whether he is smart enough, let alone ethical enough, for the job. I'm sure that when the propriety of what looks a whole lot like a personal services contract comes under appropriate scrutiny by an independent third party (because it's evident it ain't happening among the fellow junior birdmen) that a careful review will be made of his work product by those with appropriate clearances to assure that his services were both proper and value-added as asserted by the AF. Sounds like in just 2 months he may have actually worked himself out of a job since now everything is transformed and modern.
Mike | Wednesday, October 03, 2007 | 09:07 AMSo Charles Riechers was paid over $13K a month by Commonwealth Research Institute to do nothing, while he was actually working for Sue C. Payton, assistant Air Force secretary on acquisition projects? In addition to doing nothing CRI does work faith-based initiatives, specialized welding work and recently got a $45 million sole-source arrangement to provide reports to the National Security Agency, CIA and other intelligence agencies! Can you smell the political hacks at work. According to the US Air Force all this is OK? I am curious to see how this type of personnel management fits into DoD's NSPS plans. As a lowly civil service worker, bizarre stories like these make me a shudder as it appears that cronyism is alive and well and growing by the day in the current administration's creative policies of mixing contract and government work. Perhaps in the future DoD will pay me to do nothing, while I report to a defense contractor. Its not clear to me any more as to who is actually running the show.
John Milton | Tuesday, October 02, 2007 | 10:21 PMEditors Note: The Post article states that Mr. Riechers had a "no-work" contract with Commonwealth Research and implies that the taxpayers received no value for the money that Mr. Riechers was paid by Commonwealth Research. Both of these assertions are untrue. The Air Force had an existing contract under which Commonwealth Research was to provide the Air Force with technical expertise. Mr. Riechers was well qualified to provide these services, and Commonwealth Research hired him to do so. During his two month employment with CRI, Mr. Riechers was employed in a scientific and engineering technical assistant capacity to the Air Force and made recommendations that were instrumental in engineering our acquisition transformation and continuing the Air Force’s modernization of our aging fleet.
From USAF AIM Points | Tuesday, October 02, 2007 | 02:11 PMYep . . . and the phenomenom extends into DFAS when Air Force related jobs are filled.
nobody | Tuesday, October 02, 2007 | 12:55 PMThe sense of entitlement in the Dept of AF is unfathonable. This 100% US taxpayer funded organization is nearly 100% inbred. It has for many decades 'taken care of their [perceived] own' by concocting transparent schemes to hire current or prior Dept of AF staff into its 100% US taxpayer funded positions by using and abusing the federal hiring process. Nearly all purportedly externally 'competed' civilian hires into Dept of AF US taxpayer funded administrative and financial management positions in ythe higher GS grades are made up of only and merely current or prior Dept of AF GS staff or recently retired AF active duty military members who are desirous of obtaining so-called but non-existent under curreny OPM and federal regulations and public policy 'conversions' into GS positions post retirement - as is present in this case - or AF contractor staff. These ridiculous levels of rampant and self-serving inbreeding speaks for itself and to the over the top insular culture that pervades the Dept of AF.
Michael J. Smith, M.P.A. | Tuesday, October 02, 2007 | 11:10 AMWow. If this is the way they want to keep the best and brightest, we're all in trouble.
First, the interview points out that Mr. Riechers is NOT the brightest and lends doubt that he is best.
Second, the level of contractor coziness gives me the willies.
DMB | Tuesday, October 02, 2007 | 10:16 AMWhile agreeing that this is ridiculous, I'm curious why we're not hearing about the legislative shennanigans; Bridge to Nowhere, anyone?
RW | Tuesday, October 02, 2007 | 10:10 AMAh the "Good Ol Boy" system is still alive and well in Washington.
W Jackson | Tuesday, October 02, 2007 | 09:33 AMBelieve it or not to me this is more freakish than the duck guy. The unbridled arrogance of privilege and power. This guy has a military career's worth of ethics training as well as experience working for a government contractor. Considering the history and nature of the position, no way he should get that job. At the very least he's not smart or discreet enough for it. No way CRI should be tax exempt. And, dare I say it having invoked the duck guy, head's should roll at AF for whoever arranged this. Ike was right about the military-industrial complex. This should go a long way to restoring trust in government.
Mike | Monday, October 01, 2007 | 04:43 PMWow....that is simply amazing. It's practically unbelievable. I'm speechless.
Gov't Employee | Monday, October 01, 2007 | 03:10 PMBusiness as usual for the executive branch but I'm pretty sure the legislative branch will have something to say about this.
rc | Monday, October 01, 2007 | 02:34 PMABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor Tom Shoop takes a look at news and events affecting the federal bureaucracy, from the perspective of a longtime observer of government.
feedARCHIVES
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
CATEGORIES
- Comings and Goings
- Congress
- Defense
- Factoid of the Day
- Fedblog
- General News
- Government Operations
- Headline of the Day
- Homeland Security
- Intelligence
- Management
- Oversight
- Pay and Benefits
- Photo of the Day
- Political Appointees
- Press Release of the Day
- Procurement
- Quote of the Day
- The White House
- The Workforce
- The Workplace