The Buzz

Terrorism Vs. Disasters

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina led to criticism of how the Homeland Security Department allocates funds between fighting terrorism and natural disasters. In grants to first responders, the focus on terrorism is lopsided, but not necessarily to the detriment of disaster response.

Presidential directives and legislation require DHS grants for first responders to focus largely on terrorism. Legislative language for the three largest -State Homeland Security Grants, the Urban Area Security Initiative and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program-specify funds are to be used for preparedness for terrorist attacks. And almost three of every four grant dollars appropriated to DHS for first responders for fiscal 2005 went to those three programs, the Government Accountability Office said in July (GAO-05-652).

For fiscal 2006, the Bush administration has requested almost $3.4 billion for DHS preparedness grants; $2.6 billion would go for terrorism-focused grants and $720 million would fund all-hazards grants.

GAO found that most of the capabilities that DHS grants are targeted to improve are common to natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks-for example, communications, citizen preparedness, risk analysis, fatality management and public information and warning. But first responders argued they needed more help for natural and accidental disasters, and favored "dual use" training and equipment. In fiscal 2005, DHS added flexibility for dual usage.

Buying Boost

The acquisition workforce-usually thought of as those who write and administer contracts-recently got a big addition: program and project managers. According to the April 15 policy letter from the Office of Management and Budget, agencies must now consider those employees as part of their contracting force.

That definition change is boosting the number of staffers counted among the acquisition workforce, which has been dwindling. It also could affect procurement decisions, which often are criticized for not including the preferences of program staff. Acquisition officials say new workforce members will need training, which can be costly. C. Ford Heard, Veterans Affairs Department acting deputy assistant secretary for acquisition and materiel management, says he'll have to rely on appropriated funds to pay for training and online classes to save money.

David Safavian, the head of OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy, says he made the change in order to follow the Pentagon's definition, which includes program and project management. He has focused on aligning Defense and civilian acquisition policies in other areas as well, including uniting the two training and certification programs. OMB also required agencies to appoint a manager by Oct. 1 to "manage the identification and development of the acquisition workforce." Their identities are not yet available.

Demoting the Messenger

Members of Congress have called for an investigation of the removal of Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse, who was until Aug. 27 a senior procurement executive at the Army Corps of Engineers. Her lawyer says he has evidence that her removal was directly related to her outspoken critiques of the Army's contracting practices.

"She was doing away with the old boys' network, and once the commander who had given her that responsibility retired, the old boys' network was after her head," says Michael D. Kohn of the Washington law firm Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto LLP.

In June 27 testimony before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, Greenhouse said contracts awarded to a Halliburton Co. subsidiary during Iraq reconstruction violated acquisition rules. She said they were made without competition and that the subsidiary participated in drafting the proposal, which should have excluded it.

Within two days of her removal, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.; Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.; sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld asking him to reinstate Greenhouse until he investigated. "Retaliation against employees for providing information to Congress is illegal and entirely unacceptable," they said.

A June letter from the Army Corps said Greenhouse's removal was based on poor performance, not criticism.