Pacific Views

Faulty Facts in WaPo Walter Reed Piece

Today the Washington Post reported on how part of the problem with Walter Reed was due to privatization. It was good to see the the Post was reporting on this problem, but the story minimized the numbers of people that were working at Walter Reed before IAP was given the contract and thus minimized the actual effect and cost of the contract.

Here's the story the Post is telling their readers:

The Army selected IAP for the five-year deal in January 2006, but IAP did not take over management until last month. During that period, the number of facilities management workers at Walter Reed dropped from about 180 to 100, and the hospital found it hard to hire replacements.

But here's what Rep. Henry Waxman wrote in his letter (pdf) asking Maj General Weightman to come clarify:

According to multiple sources, the decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed led to a precipitous drop in support personnel at Walter Reed. Prior to the award of the contract, there were over 300 federal employees providing facilities management and related services at Walter Reed. By February 3, 2007, the day before IAP took over facilities management, the number of support personnel had drop to under 60. Yet instead of hiring addition personnel, IAP apparently replaced the remaining 60 federal employees with only 50 IAP personnel.

Obviously, this is a very, very different story than the story WaPo told and one that should be explained.

Furthermore there is another major question that needs to be asked. If IAP got $120 million for 5 years to have 50 people do this work on a contract that would have cost less for 300 federal employees to do, what they hell are they doing with the money??

Posted by Mary at March 13, 2007 12:00 AM | Media | TrackBack(1) | Technorati links |