Report shows wasteful flaws in contract system
Published 12:00 am Sunday, August 29, 2004
Tribune editorial staff
Remember the 1980s? It was a time before al-Qaida was part of the daily breakfast conversation. It was before anthrax scares and homeland security.
The 1980s was a period of enlightenment for the American people. It was in the 1980s that a number of government wasteful expenditures were unearthed. Chief among them, or at least the most sensationalized, was discovery of the now infamous $400 hammers supplied to the feds. And, we would be remiss to fail to mention the quintessential example - and ironic symbol - of government overspending, the $640 toilet seat.
An Inspector General's report released last week shows that despite tightening the reins on government procurement, the feds apparently are still quite careless with the issuance of government contracts.
Case in point: Biomass Energy LLC's deal with the United States Department of Agriculture.
The USDA entered into a $2.33 million contract with Biomass to destroy more than 120,000 tons of surplus tobacco at Biomass' South Point facility - the former South Point Ethanol site.
The contract was legal and binding. But the problem is, the USDA signed the contract despite having been shown evidence that Biomass was incapable of fulfilling the contract.
At the time the contract was issued, Biomass did not have an operable facility, the necessary permits to burn the tobacco, nor the permits needed to store the tobacco on its property.
The deal began to go up in smoke when the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency caught wind of the action. An article by this newspaper prompted U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland (D-6th) to ask for the investigation. The result of that investigation was the realization that the USDA's blunder costs the government - and ultimately the taxpayers - more than $180,000.
We suggest further investigation is done to determine how many other such botched contracts are issued each year. Furthermore, can the government reform its system for issuing contracts to better safeguard against wasting public funds?
No action on this matter is akin to taking fistfuls of taxpayer dollars and hurling them squarely at the center of a $640 toilet seat and flipping the handle.