Taking Another Look at 'No-Work' Deal

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.)