Header
Taking Another Look at 'No-Work' Deal
 By Tom Shoop | Tuesday, November 06, 2007  |  12:52 PM

Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has issued her verdict on Robert O'Harrow's story about how the Air Force arranged a job through an intelligence contractor for Charles D. Riechers while he was awaiting confirmation as the service's top procurement official. After the story, which characterized Riechers' deal as a "no-work contract," appeared, he was later found dead of an apparent suicide.

The Air Force complained to Howell that the story was "highly misleading." Howell's conclusion: "There is nothing inaccurate in the story as a narrow slice of the contracting picture." But, she says, it "lacked important context -- whether such contracts are commonplace or unusual and what specific work Riechers did for [Assistant Air Force Secretary for Acquisition Sue C.] Payton under the contract."

As I've already noted, I think the Post's use of the term "no-work contract" to characterize the deal was unfortunate. Riechers, it seems clear, did in fact work -- just for the Air Force, not the company. The type of arrangement under which he worked, known as a "science, engineering and technical assistance" contract, is not uncommon in government. But, as Howell notes, procurement experts differ as to whether that makes it wise.

(Hat tip: IEC Journal.)



Comments


The Air Force used an existing contract as a front to "gap" Mr. Riechers until he became a government employee. This situation may happen all too often but it is a terrible practice, and most likely a violation of procurement regulations. It was an especially bad example given that this position sets the tone for the integrity of the contracting mission in the Air Force and the legal problems of the previous incumbent. We can feel very sad for this gentleman and his family and at the same time hold the Air Force accountable for not upholding the highest standards of integrity in its contracting practices.

govko  | Wednesday, November 07, 2007 |  05:15 PM


Whether or not the article was technically accurate but lacked context, there is a deeper issue that should be examined.

There used to be rules against personal services contracts, in fact the rules are still on the books, that prevented us from using contractor personnel as civil servants. Avisory and assistance services contract, however, are being used to flout these rules, with Mr. Reichers being a classic example of how it is done. These rules either need to be changed to reflect modern realities or honored in practice rather than in the breach.

wallyp  | Wednesday, November 07, 2007 |  09:03 AM


A brilliant man who served his country well is gone and The Post has responsibility for their distortion of the facts and many readers unfortunately took the bait because negative innuendo sells.

Jetlag  | Tuesday, November 06, 2007 |  11:06 PM


Howell was lazy, she pulled in the same 'experts' for her article (do you really think they wouldn't back up O'Harrow?). the article was designed to be misleading.

shocking that the Post should protect themselves. I have canceled my Post subscription.

Robert O'Harrow was so focused on using Riechers as a 'hook' for the story that he was scoped by the WSJ a few weeks later.

Unfortunately the Washington Post has become a tabloid and helped create the 'bleed to lead'

Mac S  | Tuesday, November 06, 2007 |  09:00 PM



Post a comment



ABOUT 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.

SEARCH THIS BLOG


SUBSCRIBE to this blog's RSS feed

ARCHIVES



CATEGORIES