In a Dec. 5 audit report on the U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC), the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General said it found that the ACC “potentially overpaid up to $3.3 million for communications equipment purchased for the Afghan National Security Forces.”
The object of the IG’s investigation “determined whether the U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC) obtained fair and reasonable prices for communications equipment procured from Datron World Communications, Inc. (Datron),” the audit report summary states. “Specifically, we reviewed 37 contract actions, valued at approximately $328 million for 127 items, on contract W15P7T-09-D-D212 and identified 75 items with associated commercial sales, valued at approximately $219 million.”
The audit report — which is not available unless a Freedom of Information Act request is successful — states that the IG found that “contracting officers did not obtain fair and reasonable prices for communications equipment procured from Datron to support the Afghan National Security Forces.
“Specifically, contracting officers did not conduct sufficient pre- or post-award price analysis,” the findings portion of the audit report summary states. “Additionally, contracting officers did not obtain the most favored customer price on 40 of 75 commercial sales items.”
The audit report summary further states that contracting officers “failed to verify that proposed prices were fair and reasonable” in keeping with protocol. It also said officers failed to “adequately review prices changes as authorized by the contract” or did not “enforce the most favored customer status” and obtain the correct sales data.
“As a result,” the findings portions of the audit report concludes, “ACC potentially overpaid up to $3.3 million for communications equipment purchased for the Afghan National Security Forces.”
The IG’s recommendations to fix the problem said ACC should “establish quality control procedures,” includes those to identify overpayment.
The audit report summary said ACC leadership has addressed all but one recommendation, for which additional comments are being sought.
No description of what type or the quantities of the “communications equipment” is provided in the audit report summary.