[Senate Hearing 112-507] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 112-507 FOOD SERVICE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS: ARE CONTRACTORS OVERCHARGING THE GOVERNMENT? ======================================================================= HEARING before the AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT of the COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ OCTOBER 5, 2011 __________ Available via http://www.fdsys.gov Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental AffairsU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 72-486 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky MARK BEGICH, Alaska JERRY MORAN, Kansas Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director Nicholas A. Rossi, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk Joyce Ward, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT CLAIRE McCASKILL, Chairman THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine JON TESTER, Montana JOHN McCAIN, Arizona MARK BEGICH, Alaska JERRY MORAN, Kansas Margaret Daum, Staff Director Brian Callanan, Minority Staff Director Kelsey Stroud, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statement: Page Senator McCaskill............................................ 1 Prepared statement: Senator McCaskill............................................ 21 WITNESSES Wednesday, October 5, 2011 Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture.................................................... 4 John F. Carroll, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York...................... 6 Charles Tiefer, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, and Former Commissioner, Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan............................ 7 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Carroll, John F.: Testimony.................................................... 6 Prepared statement........................................... 30 Fong, Phyllis K.: Testimony.................................................... 4 Prepared statement........................................... 23 Tiefer, Charles: Testimony.................................................... 7 Prepared statement........................................... 45 APPENDIX Questions and Responses for the Record from: Ms. Fong..................................................... 55 Mr. Carroll.................................................. 59 Mr. Tiefer................................................... 62 FOOD SERVICE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS: ARE CONTRACTORS OVERCHARGING THE GOVERNMENT? ---------- WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2011 U.S. Senate, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in Room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire McCaskill, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senator McCaskill. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL Senator McCaskill. I want to welcome everyone to this hearing today. I have an opening statement that I will give. I have to say, before I begin this opening statement, though, that I am not shocked that this is not a full room. As I began to prepare for this hearing today, I began to understand the nature of the problem. This is really complicated and hard, and it is precisely when something is complicated and hard that bad things happen. Today, we seek clear direction and transparency because that usually translates into better accountability. And I think the lack of accountability in this particular area can be traced directly to the complexity of this issue. So I am really glad that we have the three of you here today. This is going to be one of those hearings that I talk about a lot in this Subcommittee. That is, this subject matter is, as you can tell by the room, not the sexiest in Washington. We are not going to have breaking news online about this hearing today. But this is important work. This really brings ``getting into the weeds'' new meaning. The irony is, everyone is running around this building giving political statements about how we have to bring down the spending of the Federal Government. Well, here we have a line item in the Federal Government that is north of billions and billions and billions of dollars, and yet it is not going to garner the attention as some other sexy headline that I am sure others are covering as we speak over in the main building. So let me give the formal opening statement that has been prepared and then we will get to your testimony and questions. Unfortunately, and Senator Portman asked me to convey to you that he cannot be here today even though he thinks this is a terrific subject for this Subcommittee to go at. I think he would have liked to have been here to discuss even the complexities of this, but he could not, and so he asked me to convey that to you and I am happy to do so. He and I are working well together on this Subcommittee. Today's hearing focuses on how the government buys food. Every day, the government provides meals to our soldiers at home and overseas, veterans, government employees, and to our children through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Every year, billions of taxpayer dollars are paid to the food service contractors who supply the food for dining facilities on military ships, bases, and on the battlefield, as well as at government buildings, hospitals, and schools. When food service contractors buy food for the government they get rebates from the manufacturers, suppliers, and vendors. In their simplest form, rebates often are based on volume purchases that contractors make from food manufacturers and distributors. For example, a contractor may order cases of cereal from a food manufacturer, for which it will receive a rebate in the form of a discounted price or a cash payment from the manufacturer. In cost reimbursable contracts, the contractor will then submit invoices for its food purchases to the contracting agency. The problem is that the invoice price may not include the rebates received from the manufacturer or the distributor. So the agency then pays the full amount of the invoice and the contractor pockets the difference. When contractors buy food with the taxpayers' money, they should not be able to keep the change. Recently, reports of fraud and other abuses on food service contracts have snowballed. Last July, the New York Attorney General's Office announced a $20 million settlement with Sodexo, one of the largest food service management contractors in the world, regarding allegations that the company failed to pass along rebates that it received through its contracts with the New York public schools participating in the National School Lunch Program. In September 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $30 million settlement with U.S. Food Service, another major contractor, based on allegations that it had overcharged the government by inflating food prices on contracts with the Defense Department (DOD) and the Veterans Administration (VA). The Department of Justice also has a major case pending against Public Warehousing Company (PWC), now known as Agility, based in part on allegations that Public Warehousing Company submitted false information, manipulated prices, and overcharged the government for food and related services under its contract to supply fruit to the military in Iraq. This June, the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Inspector General (IG) announced that it would be conducting its third audit of food service management contracts in the last decade. Both of its previous audits, conducted in 2002 and 2005, found serious problems with companies overcharging schools by withholding rebates. The message that these reports and investigations send is clear. We are not doing enough to make sure that the government is not getting cheated. With increased scrutiny of rebate withholding, contractors have turned to new practices in order to avoid passing rebates on to the government or to pad their own profits. One such method is to simply call the rebate another name, such as ``marketing incentives'' or ``vendor consideration.'' What is more, it seems obvious that the problem is even more widespread. For example, some companies have said that their accounting practices prevent them from accounting for the rebates owed to individual clients. Even if the company is giving the government the rebates that may be attributable for the individual contract, there is no way for the government to recoup the overall rebates that may be attributable to discounts based on purchases made by an entire Federal agency or the Federal Government overall. We are here today to learn from some of the Nation's experts on this issue on how contractors can manipulate their prices and invoices. We will discuss barriers to effective oversight of these contracts, including the complexity of the contractors' relationships with their vendors and suppliers and the ambiguities in the Federal regulations relating to rebates. We will also discuss whether the practices that they have seen are exceptions or part of a pattern of fraud in these types of contracts across the Federal Government. In this time of belt-tightening, we need to be more careful than ever to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being wasted--particularly because every dollar that is lost through rebate schemes is a dollar that we cannot use to feed our soldiers and the children who need nutrition. I thank the witnesses for being here today and I look forward to their testimony. Senator McCaskill. And now let me introduce the witnesses and we will begin the testimony. It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses that appear before us, so before I do your introductions, if you do not mind, I would ask you to stand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Ms. Fong. I do. Mr. Carroll. I do. Mr. Tiefer. I do. Senator McCaskill. Thank you all. Phyllis Fong was sworn in as the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on December 2, 2002. Prior to her appointment at USDA, Ms. Fong served as the Inspector General of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) from 1999 until 2002. Among many other positions of distinction, Ms. Fong also served as the Assistant General Counsel for the Legal Services Corporation and an attorney with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Ms. Fong is also currently serving as Chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. John Carroll is an Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the New York's Attorney General, where he is leading an investigation of billing and marketing practices among food service companies. He is also the Deputy Chief of the recently formed Taxpayer Protection Bureau. Mr. Carroll specializes in civil and criminal investigations involving allegations of public corruption as well as complex corporate investigations. Charles Tiefer is currently a professor at the Baltimore School of Law, where he teaches government contracting and legislative process. Professor Tiefer also recently served as a Commissioner on the Commission for Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, a commission that is very near and dear to my heart, and did excellent work. By the way, I should tell you, Professor Tiefer, that yesterday, Jim Webb and I hosted here at the Capitol one of the investigators for the Truman Committee. She was one of the first women ever hired in Congress to be an investigator for a congressional Committee and she was in charge of investigating on the Truman Committee the civilian manpower issues. She was a 1943 graduate of Vassar--and came to work for the Committee for several years. So Senator Webb and I had a chance to visit with her. She is anxious to see the report of the Commission, and asked us to send her one. She lives in Virginia and is a fascinating woman, and if you are interested, I would be glad to give you her contact information, because she told some great stories about the Truman Committee and the work it did and it was terrific. Professor Tiefer has also served in both Chambers of Congress as Legal Counsel and investigated controversies related to Bosnia as well as the Iran Contra Affair. We would ask that your testimony be around 5 minutes, but take as long as you would like, and we will begin with you, Inspector General Fong. TESTIMONY OF PHYLLIS K. FONG,\1\ INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Ms. Fong. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today about the work that our office has done to help improve the Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) oversight of the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs and the relationships with food service management companies (FSMC). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Fong appears in the appendix on page 23. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have my full statement for the Record, so let me just highlight the key points. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, approximately 43 million children participated in the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, which together served an estimated 7.2 billion meals in 14,000 school districts around the country involving $12.5 billion in Federal funds. Generally, as you note, the food service management companies who contract to provide these meals are required to pass discounts, rebates, and credits for USDA-donated commodities back to the local school food authorities (SFA), and those savings can then be used to benefit the students and the local school meal programs. Over the last 10 years, we have issued several reports identifying problems in this program. As you note, in 2002, we audited eight food service management companies contracting with 65 local authorities in seven States and we found that five of those eight companies improperly retained $6 million in cost savings that should have been passed on to the local food authorities. The management companies, who had fixed-rate contracts, received $5.8 million in USDA-donated food, but they did not credit this amount to their local food authorities' accounts. This happened because the FNS requirements on these programs were not clear and because some companies revised their contracts to allow themselves to retain savings that should have gone to the local food authorities. The remaining $280,000 involved companies with cost reimbursable contracts, and in those situations, the bid solicitations would require that rebates and credits be passed along to the food authorities. In those situations, the companies that won the bids either modified their contracts or they ignored the contract requirements. So in 2005, we did another audit to take a closer look. We looked at one management company that had cost reimbursable contracts in 22 States and we found that the company violated its contracts with 106 food authorities in eight States by not crediting them with discounts, rebates, and other cost savings of about $1.3 million. Together, when you look at the recommendations that our audits made, we recommended that FNS needed to develop specific contract terms for State agencies and local authorities to use when contracting with food service management companies. We felt that the terms should ensure that SFAs benefit from the value of the food donated by USDA and also that the SFAs benefit from any discounts or rebates that companies received. We also recommended that FNS amend its regulations to require that these contract terms be included in specific contracts, to require that State agencies approve contracts before the local districts sign them, and to require State agencies to have the local districts enforce the contract provisions. In response to our recommendations, FNS revised its regulations in 2007, and in 2009 issued updated guidance to the State agencies and local authorities. The issue of food service management companies improperly retaining savings, however, continues to be a concern, and due to express concerns that we have received from Congress and others, we have decided to initiate a new audit to assess the effectiveness of these corrective actions that FNS has implemented and to assess the effectiveness of State agency action. We will also be looking to see if the food service management companies with cost reimbursable contracts are passing along the discounts and savings as they should be. So, in conclusion, we are committed to working with USDA to strengthen this program. We welcome the opportunity to answer your questions and appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Thank you. Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Ms. Fong. Mr. Carroll. TESTIMONY OF JOHN F. CARROLL,\1\ ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Carroll. Madam Chairman, please accept the greetings and the thanks of Attorney General Eric Schneiderman for taking testimony on this important topic, what are known as in the industry sometimes as off-invoice rebates. And indeed, Senator McCaskill, you raised the issue of transparency and the Attorney General believes that is exactly the problem with this practice, because it is inherently opaque. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll appears in the appendix on page 30. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am an Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Chief of General Schneiderman's Taxpayer Protection Bureau. Our focus, like that of this Subcommittee, is to investigate and prosecute allegations of fraud and waste in government contracting. The United States and local governments provide millions of Americans with meals every day, and as a general proposition, individuals who are receiving meals from the government are among the most vulnerable. The meals provided by the government include through the National School Lunch Program, meals in health care facilities, and meals for soldiers in the field. The meals are often provided through government contractors known in this industry as the food service management companies. Typically, such companies assume complete operational responsibility for delivering meals in a facility, whether in a Marine mess hall or a local elementary school. One task delegated to food service companies which contract with schools and others to provide this service is the daily task of ordering food to make meals for children, hospital patients, and soldiers. Food is bought either directly from food manufacturers or through distributors. These food vendors pay food service management companies millions of dollars to buy food from them. These payments are called rebates or, tellingly, off-invoice rebates. The Attorney General's investigation has identified several problems with the system which, in other contexts, has been labeled as an unlawful kickback. First, the most obvious problem. Many food service contracts, as, Senator, you pointed out, are some version of cost-plus arrangements, but rebates are most often off-invoice. So, in other words, government customers who should be getting credit for rebates have no way to actually account for the numbers because the entire rebating process takes place behind the scenes, and so they have no way to police their contracts. But there is a second, almost more important and definitely more insidious issue, which is that the rebates create a conflict of interest, and our investigation has seen the conflict of interest play out in such a way that very often food service companies will make food choices driven by the chase for rebates, which for some companies can amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in income, rather than issues of quality or other preferences. So, for example, food service companies are more likely to enter into rebating agreements with large agribusiness and may thereby forego entering into business arrangements with local farmers, which would serve to thwart the National School Lunch Program's efforts to create farm-to-school efforts. So, in conclusion, I am happy to take questions, and once again, the Attorney General expresses his gratitude for your interest. Senator McCaskill. Thank you very much, Mr. Carroll. Mr. Tiefer. TESTIMONY OF CHARLES TIEFER,\1\ PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW, AND FORMER COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON WARTIME CONTRACTING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN Mr. Tiefer. Senator McCaskill and Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am a Professor of Law, as you noted, at the University of Baltimore Law School and the author of a case book on Federal Government contracting. For 3 years, I was Commissioner on the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator McCaskill, you understated what you did for that Commission. You were one of the two cosponsors. You created it. You nurtured it. You inspired it. And, not least, you never let us forget the spirit of Senator Truman and the Truman Committee during World War II. That was a very high standard you asked us to measure up to. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Tiefer appears in the appendix on page 45. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Defense Department operations in the war zone, the government purchases the necessary food by its prime vendor contract managed by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). In recent years, massive criminal and civil fraud charges have been brought against the food services contractor Public Warehousing Company, renamed Agility. The scale of these schemes is breathtaking. Public Warehouse Contracting earned $8.5 billion in revenue from its Iraq food supply contracts, and press accounts have discussed that a settlement of the charges would be on the order between $500 million, $600 million, lawyers said $750 million. Trial has not yet occurred, so I will use the word ``alleged,'' as you did, for purposes of the criminal case, but that does not prevent DLA or GAO or this Subcommittee from taking advantage of what is set forth in the indictment to make the necessary repairs in the program so that this does not recur. In brief, and the pattern is very similar to what my fellow witnesses described, the contract is supposed to charge the government a delivered price, which is what the suppliers are supposed to charge, plus the fee charged by PWC, or the prime vendor. And we are talking about, even though this is a wartime supply program, United States food. It is easy to parse the indictment and see that the bulk of what is being talked about is food that--meat, chicken, desserts--are produced in the United States, supplied in the United States, from U.S. suppliers. And PWC was forbidden to keep rebates or discounts from suppliers. Its pricing intended that this be passed along to the U.S. Government. But instead, it used its marketing muscle to obtain and to keep such discounts, and what made it a fraud case, a criminal fraud case, was covering this up by false statements. I am going to take one of the indictment's examples in a little detail. In 2005, I am quoting from the indictment-- ``U.S. manufacturer S.L. engaged in discussions with defendant PWC.'' This was about discounts. I might say parenthetically, the indictment refers to these suppliers with initials, but the press and blogs have attributed the initials to well-known food suppliers like Sara Lee. ``Through the discussions between defendant PWC and S.L. about discounts, PWC insisted that the discount be called an early payment discount, even though S.L. did not want to use that term and suggested any discount offer to PWC be called what it was, a marketing allowance, a rebate. Defendant PWC insisted the allowance be labeled an early payment discount. Ultimately, S.L. agreed to use the label.'' I could tick off the other U.S. suppliers mentioned in the indictment. My statement covers these. To me, the allegations in the indictment show--just as Mr. Carroll pointed out--that there were conflicts of interest here. I would point out that this amounts to corruption, that the prime contractor who is engaging in kickbacks makes false reports to the government in words, in numbers, and even creates an entire false stream of reporting. It corrodes the whole system of supply for the government and it develops a whole network of suppliers who may, to some extent, be witting in this and are willing to comply with the crookedness, to cooperate in it. I have some suggestions for what can be done about this. I think certifications by the prime vendor and declarations of what they receive would box them in. It would make it extremely easy to prosecute them or have False Claims Act cases qui tam brought against them. There is also an extensive study, an internal study by DLA which is extremely embarrassed that this happened on its watch. It could be helped to remember the reforms that it knows it needs to do. Thank you, Senator. Senator McCaskill. Thank you very much. I have a lot of specific questions, and I promise you I will not ask all of them, but this is an interesting concept, that someone buys a lot of volume from what essentially is a broker, a type of middleman, and the middleman service they are providing is going to go out and locate the various foods that this program needs. But the volume that is necessary is dictated by the size of the customer--the fact that it is the Federal Government, the military or School Lunch Program or whatever. Are they engaging in getting this kind of extra padding when they are dealing with potential folks that are not the government? Is this like the common practice in this industry, that you get an extra padding on the contract because you are buying more than one case of Cheerios? Mr. Carroll. May I? Senator McCaskill. Sure. Mr. Carroll. The agreements can run with food distributors, between food distributors and food service companies, so, for example, not to--just to use the name, just an example, a Cisco or U.S. Foods would be examples of distributors, and rebates can run between the distributors, like Cisco or U.S. Foods, and the Sodexos of the world. Or it can run between a chicken wholesaler, a large national chicken wholesaler and the food service company. And the agreements are not limited to particular customers, the ones that the Attorney General's Office has reviewed. They run--so, in other words, the agreement could be 25 cents rebate on every case of chicken delivered to Sodexo, and so they---- Senator McCaskill. So it does not matter who is buying it? Mr. Carroll. Exactly. Senator McCaskill. And is that the excuse they use? Mr. Carroll. That is one excuse, that the agreements actually have to do with volume across all business lines. So, for example, it could be business for the Senate mess hall or it could be business for a company, and what the food service companies will say is, well, we buy for so many different entities, that is why we are entitled to these discounts. But the excuse kind of starts to fall apart if you consider that the buying power of the United States, based on that, the United States would certainly also be entitled to those discounts. Senator McCaskill. Right. So let me start with you, Ms. Fong. What recommendations are still outstanding on your audits that were done in 2002 and 2005? I mean, how many findings do you have with recommendations that they have not yet implemented? Ms. Fong. We went back to our audit records in preparation for this hearing, and currently, FNS has addressed all of our recommendations and has said to us that they have implemented all the corrective actions that are necessary. And by redoing their regulations that they issued in 2007, they believe that they have addressed the specific recommendations we made. Now, one of the purposes of our new audit is to actually go out and see whether their actions have been effective in dealing with the problems that we had seen earlier in the decade. Senator McCaskill. They certainly clarified it in 2007. Ms. Fong. Yes. Senator McCaskill. I mean, no one can say that is ambiguous at this point. Ms. Fong. That is right. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Carroll, for the investigations that you have done on the rebate withholding, can you give some estimate on the amount of dollars we are talking about in terms of what percentage of the overall contract price could you attribute to these withheld rebates? Mr. Carroll. Generally, the rebate amounts that the food service companies receive on particular products--so it could be anything from a jar of a particular spice or it could be, as I said, a case of chicken--run between 5 and 50 percent of the price that is charged to the customer. So, generally, they fall on average--in the National School Lunch Program, for example, it could be around 10 to 15 percent of the price. But there is a lot of variability because, obviously, you are buying very different foods to serve in a school program as opposed to a corporate dining room. Senator McCaskill. When they are asked for the excuse for keeping the rebates when they are aware that it is in violation of the contracts, do any of you have any--can you articulate what their excuse is, even though it appears fairly clear the contracts are obviously trying to make sure those rebates are passed on to the taxpayers, what is the excuse? Is the excuse the accounting issue? Mr. Carroll. One issue certainly is the accounting, especially for a large multinational corporation. But, the response there is the system is kind of designed to be complicated. So, in other words, they enter into agreements---- Senator McCaskill. Right. Mr. Carroll [continuing]. To buy things nationwide and that involves millions of dollars of payments, and then in order to get down to how many cases of Cheerios went to this school and how much rebates is that school entitled to, it is a complicated exercise, but that is the way the system, in the view of the investigation, is intentionally designed. In fact, one target I reviewed some accounting records for entered into an agreement with its offshore parent in order to further obscure rebate flow of where the revenues were going. Senator McCaskill. And that could be this no value added addition of some company that is there just to be an excuse for a place to park the rebate? Mr. Carroll. That is right, and actually, the case that we settled yesterday involved a relatively smaller regional player and about $800,000 in rebates, but we settled the claim for $1.6 million based on the False Claims Act damages. They entered into what they called marketing agreements, as you mentioned, Senator, and we reviewed the marketing agreements and the so-called work product that they supposedly delivered in exchange for marketing services, and in the view of the investigation, at least, the so-called marketing services were illusory. Senator McCaskill. So they called it marketing services, created a company and ran it through there in order to add some legitimacy to parking it. Mr. Carroll. They created a special department and-- exactly, Senator, to disguise the--because if it was called ``rebates,'' obviously, it would have had to have been returned. But if it is called something else---- Senator McCaskill. Professor Tiefer, did the Public Warehousing Company case--are there rebates involved in all of the charges involving them? Is this all similar to what you indicated about S.L. and PWC, renaming the rebate an early payment bonus? Mr. Tiefer. It comes down to a rebate. There were a variety of ways that they sort of squeezed a rebate out of the stream as it went past them. Another way which is more complicated is that out of their fee, the fee they get from the government, which is supposed to be all the things they do, including some processing and packaging and consolidating, they can do it themselves or they can pay a consolidator. That is supposed to come out of their fee. But instead, they found ways to throw-- have the suppliers pay for that, add it to what the supplier was charging, and so the government--which is not supposed to pay for that, it is supposed to be a reduction in what they are making--ends up not being a reduction in what they are making. So it is a roundabout rebate. Senator McCaskill. Right. Was the contract flawed in the PWC case? Was there a flaw in the way the contract was drafted? I mean, if you could go back and look at the way--I mean, in so many of the wartime contracts, I do not need to tell you, we said to people, tell us what we need, write the contract, and tell us what we need to pay. It was all on the side of the contractor to do way too much of the scoping and the actual purview of the contract. Were the underlying contracts in the PWC case actually flawed? Mr. Tiefer. They certainly need improvement. I will say this, because when I and a staff team, we talked to DLA, went to their center in Philadelphia and delved into it, they said, we are not set up to deal with a fraudulent prime vendor. Our assumption is we are dealing with people who are honest. And so there is a limit to how well you can--they were saying, you can deal with outright fraud, people who make false statements, who lie about what they are doing. With that aside, yes, the contract is designed as a fixed- price contract which has the least visibility for the Federal Government. But because of the way that the charges get added together from two different streams, it is not as a practical matter fixed price. Senator McCaskill. Right. Mr. Tiefer. The supplier price can go up and down. Things can be hidden in it. Things can be subtracted from it. You can move the back door from it. So it is drafted without protecting the government. Senator McCaskill. So it is called a fixed-price contract, but really, it is anything but. Mr. Tiefer. I agree. Yes. That is the problem. Senator McCaskill. I mean, and so the irony is that they are going to tout this fixed-price contract, oh, it is not cost plus, it is not cost plus, it is fixed price, but in reality, it is fixed price just masquerading when it is really cost plus. Mr. Tiefer. Yes, and therein lies a big problem in changing things. As Mr. Carroll said, the industry out there will say that the industry practice is to do things by fixed price and we should not impose on them any contract but a fixed price. They will fight against visibility of their suppliers on behalf of the U.S. Government. Senator McCaskill. Yes. Well, we are a big customer. We ought to have more leverage. You would think that we could bring these guys to their knees if we were tough negotiators, but I do not think we have been very tough negotiators, obviously, in light of the problems that we are hearing about on all of these contracts. What kind of contract should we look to? If we were going to redo--let us just assume we could wipe the slate clean and we were actually going to exert the power that the Federal Government has, and we were going to say, this is the way we are going to contract to buy food. What input can the three of you give me as to how we would design that model? Ms. Fong. In the School Lunch Program, as you mentioned, the complexity of the relationships between the parties is what really comes into play here. One of the issues that the Department faces is how can it regulate those kinds of contracts between a third party and a local school district, and I think where FNS has ended up, after consultations with OMB, is that the only way to really reach that is to mandate contract clauses that USDA can enforce against the local school districts, not necessarily against the food management company. And so this is going to be a really interesting review that we do to see if those contract provisions are going to do the trick. Basically, those provisions would require the food service management companies to pass on all rebates and to specifically and transparently identify the rebates. A very interesting provision, and I think if it works, it will be a good model. Senator McCaskill. Well, and we will be anxious to see, because, obviously, they are trying. Ms. Fong. Right. Senator McCaskill. So if it has worked, then that is the time that we need to migrate it over to Department of Defense and to other places in the Federal Government, because everybody is buying food. Is this issue that they cannot account for the rebates-- obviously, they are keeping track of this stuff internally, right? They are making up companies to park it. This sounds like an unladylike term that Harry Truman would use that has to do with farm animals and bulls. I have a hard time imagining, with the complexity of the accounting that has to be embraced by this kind of contract model, if this is the norm in the food service industry, that they could not easily pull the thread and tell us how much the rebates are that they are getting for these individual contracts within the Federal Government. Mr. Carroll. I can tell you, Senator, that is absolutely correct. In fact, a lot of decisions are made--for example, employees, food service company employees are evaluated on the basis of manager of school or manager of Marine base, how much of your purchases are compliant, and compliant means on a list of products that generate rebates. So the companies have very sophisticated systems to keep track of and collect rebates from vendors. Senator McCaskill. So they are actually encouraging their folks to utilize those contracts that are most rebate-heavy internally and they are keeping track of it for purposes of judging how well their employees are doing at maximizing their profit? Mr. Carroll. Absolutely, Senator, and---- Senator McCaskill. Are they giving bonuses based on this? Do you know? Mr. Carroll. Well, the personnel evaluations that the Attorney General's Office reviewed showed that was a component in the form evaluating---- Senator McCaskill. That makes sense. Mr. Carroll [continuing]. So among other factors, I think, that it is fair to say that played a role in whether employees received bonuses or not. And we also did see e-mail traffic, for example, where one locale manager--because the way the business works is you take an employee of the food service company and they are installed in the school or on the base and--or in the hospital and they often wear the school's uniform, the facility's uniform, and there is e-mail traffic where, for example, one food service company employee was writing to headquarters saying, ``I found a great source for locally grown tomatoes,'' and the response came back, ``Don't do that. That is not where the best rebates are.'' So to pick up on another issue that Professor Tiefer brought out, which is the game that seems to be being played is it is changing the name of the revenue flow. So, for example, in our most recent subpoena, the length of the definition of the word ``rebate'' is, I think, 250 words, because the name will change and then, for example, in the National School Lunch Program, it calls for rebates to be returned, but it does not necessarily say that contingent compensation has to be returned. Senator McCaskill. Or marketing incentives. Mr. Carroll. Or marketing incentives or whatever the specific word is, so---- Senator McCaskill. Or you get a bigger bonus at Christmas if you buy more of this stuff. Mr. Carroll. Exactly, Senator. So the focus kind of as we have evolved and started asking smarter questions is, tell us about the revenue flow that is going in what seems to be the wrong direction. In other words, if I am buying cases of chicken, why is the chicken distributor sending me a check? So whatever you call it, you have to tell me what is that flow, how much cash is that. Senator McCaskill. So on accounting, they can keep track of it if it is going to be their money. They just cannot keep track of it if it is going to be our money. Mr. Carroll. That is correct, Senator. Senator McCaskill. And you brought up a point about the local tomatoes. One of the things we are struggling with in this country is how we hold on to independent producers of food in this country. We obviously have--my State, for example, we used to have 27,000 feeder pig operations in Missouri. It was the largest feeder pig operations in the country in my State. Now, I think we are down to about 7,000 or fewer, and that is all because they have been bought by or are doing contracts solely with the big guys. So as I have gotten to know and understand the issue of independent producers versus the mega large multinational food corporations, it is with a sense of urgency that I realize we have to hold on to the ability of independent food producers to get a product to market. Clearly, this system is not working in their favor, because they cannot afford--an independent producer cannot afford to pay a quarter on every box of tomatoes, whereas the big guys that are dealing with huge, huge volume can. So, I mean, the example you gave in that e-mail is a perfect example of how local independent farmers are being denied a market in their local schools because they cannot compete with the Ciscos of the world in terms of the rebate culture. Is that in any way an inaccurate summary of the problem? Mr. Carroll. I think that is absolutely right, Senator. You could have a situation where a grower has--or there could be a farm two blocks away from the school that is growing potatoes, but the food service company is not going to enter into rebate agreements with every little farmer and every little farmer does not have the wherewithal to engage in that kind of transaction. So, for example, we saw one e-mail string where the local school manager was saying, we want to buy local apples. It is good for the business, it is the right thing to do, et cetera, but we do not have a mechanism to collect rebates. Can we forego the rebate issue? And then, interestingly, what happens is the cost of the apples to buy them locally goes up so that the producers can pay the rebate. Senator McCaskill. So what they do is they force a price increase on the local market so that they can take a piece of it? Mr. Carroll. I have seen an example, at least one specific example, of that. Senator McCaskill. If Kirkwood High School said, there is a great nursery that has been in Missouri for years and years and has amazing peaches and amazing apples. If they said, we want to go out and buy from Eckert's or from these other nurseries, we want to go buy these, can they not do that? Can they just go directly and buy local products, or is it because they are tied to the contracts with these big mega in between companies? Do you guys know? Mr. Carroll. They are allowed to purchase locally and there are rules that permit--this is more a USDA issue than my area of expertise. They are certainly allowed to buy locally, but as I said, it is a choice for the food service company whether they buy locally. And just to give the full story, in fairness, what the food service companies will say is, well, it is much easier for us to police food safety issues, uniformity, make sure we are getting what we think we are paying for if it is all coming from one giant facility as opposed to if we buy locally from a thousand local farms, so that---- Senator McCaskill. Well, that may be true, but it seems to me that would have a lot more credibility if we took the rebate issue off the table. Mr. Carroll. I would agree, Senator. Senator McCaskill. I mean, if, in fact, they were not getting the extra plus-up by going to the big guys, then we really would, pardon the expression, have an apples-to-apples comparison. Mr. Carroll. Very fair. Senator McCaskill. Yes. OK. Yes. Mr. Tiefer. If I can come in on that---- Senator McCaskill. Yes. Mr. Tiefer. Although theoretically it is possible in the prime vendor program for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to buy from a particularly good supplier for whatever reason they think that is a good supplier, the actual situation is that there are contractors at both ends of the transaction. The dining facilities in Afghanistan are run by--it used to be KBR. Senator McCaskill. Right. Mr. Tiefer. Now it is DynCorps and Fluor. Senator McCaskill. Right. Mr. Tiefer. They may very well have a subcontractor who does the actual running of the dining facility and they just sort of coordinate at a higher level. So their subcontractor talks to PWC or the other food service, U.S. Food Service, Supreme Food Service, or wherever it is. At no point does the desire of U.S. Government people to do the right thing even come into the conversation. Senator McCaskill. Right, because by the time it gets to where the rubber meets the road, it is two or three degrees removed. Mr. Tiefer. Exactly, and it is quite probable that each of the two corporations at both ends of the transaction are pursuing their interests rather than anything else. Senator McCaskill. Right. When you were referring to the indictment in your testimony and you talked about S.L., and whether it is Sara Lee or whether it is not. If you think about the environment in this country as it related to contracting in Iraq compared to the attitude in this country around contracting in World War II, I think my predecessor, Senator Truman, would have an awfully hard time getting his arms around how big this problem has become. I think in another year, another time, that company would have said, we refuse to change the name on this because it appears that maybe you are changing the name on it in order to profit more at the expense of men and women who are fighting for our country in a foreign land. I just do not think that would have been put up with then. But now, because everyone is so removed from it and it has gotten so complex, they folded under the pressure from PWC and did that. I think all of the companies that are allowing themselves to be manipulated in order to plus-up these contractors should be ashamed of themselves, particularly in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it is really inexcusable. Why do you think, Professor Tiefer, that we see so often that the government keeps doing business with these contractors? I mean, it is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, that the government continued to do business with PWC as they had a lot of evidence in front of them about this fraud. Is that correct, or am I incorrect in those facts? Mr. Tiefer. You are, unfortunately, quite correct. PWC not only had the giant Iraq food service product, it also was one of KBR's major subcontractors on some stuff for the logistics contract. So, yes, we had multiple flows of renewing contracts going out to them. Senator McCaskill. And are we still doing business with them? Mr. Tiefer. That is a good question. Senator McCaskill. We will find out. Mr. Tiefer. Let me say, when the indictment came down, this was one of the ones where at least--this has not happened in all cases--they were suspended and debarred from obtaining new contracts. So there certainly was a period of time they could not obtain new contracts, and I cannot tell you whether that period came to an end of not. Senator McCaskill. OK. And that is extraordinary, because I cannot tell you how many times in this Subcommittee we have talked about the failure to suspend and debar. We have talked about the fact that we believe the guidance is pretty clear now, Ms. Fong, about FNS. I am aware there is at least one legal case that is casting doubt on FNS's ability to regulate contracts through the School Lunch Program. Should we be concerned now that the regulations that are currently written are not enough to hold these contractors in check as this case is working its way through the court? Ms. Fong. Right. If you are referring to the decision from Pennsylvania in 2009, we took a look at that and the rebates that were the subject of that case were rebates that had been paid between 1992 and 2002, which was under the prior regulatory framework---- Senator McCaskill. I see. Ms. Fong [continuing]. Before FNS had the authority in place. Our sense is that with the current regulatory framework, there should be a way to go after these kinds of situations. But we are very happy to work with your staff to flesh out that issue a little more. Senator McCaskill. OK. Professor Tiefer, in your view, do the requirements outlined in Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) apply to contracts executed under Part 12? Mr. Tiefer. They do. I looked into this especially for this hearing. These are commercial contracts. That is why we asked whether Part 31 about payments applies to the Part, I think it is 12 that is for commercial, and there was a holding by the GAO. Extraordinarily, it was by PWC itself that protested to the GAO that said, we are a commercial company. This is a commercial contract. Requirements should not apply to us. That is getting in the way of the commercial way that rebates freely flow around. And the GAO stomped on that. It is part of a continuing stream of rulings that GAO gives about when--what concessions you have to make to commercial contracts and when you keep government safeguards, and this is one of the government safeguards that GAO wanted to keep. Someone mentioned to me, though, that the GAO ruling is not the end, you can go to the Court of Federal Claims, and that issue is pending in the Court of Federal Claims, so there is still some ambiguity. Senator McCaskill. Since there have been protests with GAO and we think those have been resolved appropriately, what, if anything, are things specifically that you all can bring to our attention today that you think we need to further investigate in this very murky area of rebates or marketing incentives, or extra juice for the or middleman, whatever you want to call it? What other investigations do you think we can be doing from this Subcommittee, or what legislative fixes could we do that would clarify contracting law as it relates to the ability of the Federal Government to enjoy the discounts they get because of the amount of volume they are purchasing? Mr. Tiefer. If I can put one answer to that, I completely agree with Inspector General Fong earlier who said that identifying rebates, clearer clauses in the contracts to identify all manner of rebates, is necessary, and I thought that was a very healthy suggestion. I would add that there need to be audit clauses, that we need to get the auditors in on this situation. Let me say, if someone says to me, why, that is ridiculous, of course, the auditor is already in on this, it is a fixed-price contract. Senator McCaskill. Right. Mr. Tiefer. There are very limited capacities for auditors to go in. If you try to put auditors in now, it is quite possible that the industry will challenge this and will say, look, the audit clause speaks of cost reimbursement contracts, time and materials contracts, but it does not say fixed-price contracts, so the audit clause does not apply. And that applies in spades to the problem of looking at the suppliers, which is often necessary. Unless you have a flow-down clause in the main contract that says that the auditors can look at the suppliers, a Federal auditor shows up, says, who are you, which government are you with---- Senator McCaskill. Right. Mr. Tiefer [continuing]. We never heard of you. The United States? Are you somewhere around here? Senator McCaskill. Right. So that would be something that we could actually require. And, by the way, I know this is possible to do because in Medicare Part D, they actually specified that the government was not allowed to negotiate for volume discounts. If I can remember back to legislative construction in law school, which I am trying to live every day--I think that would mean that there is an assumption that the government can always negotiate for volume discounts unless they are prohibited from doing so by law, like they are in Medicare D. So it seems to me that this is something that we need to underline and put an exclamation point on. Anything else from anyone about what we can be doing? Auditing clauses and identifying the rebates in the contracts. Are there other things that you think we need to be doing? Mr. Carroll. Well, if there was a mechanism, and I have no expertise whatsoever in legislative drafting, but if there was a mechanism to move the rebates up so that they appear on invoices. Senator McCaskill. Transparency. Mr. Carroll. Transparency---- Senator McCaskill. On the invoice. Mr. Carroll. Right. And then it is hard to see how anybody could have any objection to regulating this, if the question is, we just want to know what is going on and then we are negotiating on fair territory. And one other thing I wanted to pick up on what Professor Tiefer raised, and I think you also raised, Senator, is this issue of why are companies paying this. In some conversations with vendors, the sense is if we do not pay them, we do not get access to the markets, and food service companies like the large ones have enormous markets. So we may not like paying them, but we are going to get shut out if we do not. So I would think that you would have some constituency there. It would not be a completely one-sided battle. I think that there are a lot of entities who would like to eliminate this practice. Senator McCaskill. So the vendors would probably be on our side? Mr. Carroll. I suspect. Senator McCaskill. Yes. I bet you that is correct. And I know the local independent producers would be. Mr. Carroll. Absolutely, Senator. Senator McCaskill. Right. Ms. Fong. One issue that we would like to put on the table, as you mentioned, is suspension and debarment as a remedy. We have been trying to give some thought to that, as to whether suspension or debarment would be appropriate or available with respect to food service management companies. And the sense that we have is that the Federal Acquisition Regulation, would not allow a procurement debarment for an FSMC because the FSMC is not a contractor with the Federal Government and so that is a big issue. Then the other question is, is there any way--because the food---- Senator McCaskill. But we could fix that legislatively. We could say, if the flow of dollars are Federal dollars, then any agents that are hired to run programs that are funded through Federal dollars must be subject to Federal laws of suspension and debarment for failure to perform under the contract. I would think we could do that. Ms. Fong. I think that would be worth exploring. Senator McCaskill. We do an awful lot with putting handcuffs on everyone about what they can do and not do if it is Federal money. I cannot imagine that we could not do that. It seems like, to me, that is much more logical than a lot of the handcuffs we have out there right now. So, OK, that is a good suggestion. Anything else? Inspector General Fong. Mr. Carroll. Professor Tiefer. Mr. Tiefer. You talked about what investigations could be done. Now, you have a lot on your plate, Senator. You look at a whole wide array, and I do not know if I want to bog you down on this one, but I would think a survey of some of the contractors here, whether it is the suppliers or the main vendors--Mr. Carroll noted the wide range of discounts involved, the percentages involved, and it would be interesting to get some sense. They have to answer under oath if they are surveyed. Senator McCaskill. That is exactly right. Mr. Tiefer. Yes. Senator McCaskill. I will tell you that the Subcommittee intends to submit document requests at the close of this hearing to agencies, to Federal agencies and companies with food service management contracts. We are going to try to get an accounting of the retention of rebates by the contractors and an understanding of the policies that are in place at the agencies that contract for food service management. We want to address through these document requests the potential issues in domestic contracting, such as that seen in the New York Schools contracts and the problems discussed by DLA. The investigation should also hopefully shed some light on service contracts in contingency operations, as demonstrated by the Agility case and the support for further oversight and transparency. I cannot go into details, but I got second-and third-hand that there was actually a conversation that was had in Afghanistan not too long ago about a potential contract and someone mentioned that might not be a good idea because of the quote-unquote team, and my name was used. But my name should not be used because I think they were referring to the team of people who work on this Subcommittee who feel very strongly about really shedding the light on contracting abuses in the Federal Government and the amount of money that is being wasted as a result of those abuses. And I want to take this hearing to congratulate the field of government auditors on the arrests that were made yesterday, the Inspector Generals that worked on that case involving the Army Corps of Engineers, an Alaska Native Corporation, and the blatant and brazen fraud that was going on between government contracting officials and this company involving massive kickbacks and massive over-billings to the Army Corps of Engineers. That case came about because of people like you, and I know what you would do if you had the opportunity right now. You would point to your staff and the great work they do, because there are thousands of government auditors out there that deserve the respect and, frankly, the funding of this government because they are really doing the heavy lifting in this regard. So congratulations to all the government auditors involved in that case and the many others that do not get the attention they deserve. We will continue down this road. If I could ask that you all continue to be cooperative with the staff on this investigation, we are going to keep going down this road because I think there is real money here. I think there are significant dollars that we can save in the purchase of food by the Federal Government if we pull this thread all the way to its logical conclusion and clean this area up once and for all and provide that transparency. It will allow everyone to figure out what they are paying for and whether they are getting the best deal. And please convey to your boss, Mr. Carroll, that we appreciated his cooperation with allowing you to come here today. I have taken that train back and forth and it is easier sometimes than the shuttle. I do not know which you took, but I am glad you came here today to help us with this, and we will continue to call on you for the expertise you have developed in the cases you have worked on. I thank all of you for what you have provided here today and we will continue to be in contact with you as we continue down this path to try to clean this up once and for all. Thank you all very much for today. [Whereupon, at 3:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ----------
![]()