Spokane7
50°
March 16, 2010 in Opinion
Editorial: NOAA contract shows need for scrutiny
Federal contracts, by nature, are hotly contested in communities where jobs and other substantial economic impact are at stake. It’s therefore imperative that agencies follow the procurement rules meticulously, and that decisions be based on the taxpayers’ best interests.
That point may not be fully understood by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, whose selection of Newport, Ore., for its Pacific Marine Operations Center has been spanked by the Government Accountability Office and drawn added fire from a Senate subcommittee.
Sixteen months ago, NOAA issued a solicitation for offers to provide the offices, warehousing and pier capacity needed for the center that had been at Seattle for more than 60 years before being severely damaged by fire. Four communities responded, among them Newport and Bellingham.
After evaluating a wide range of considerations – such as cost, environmental concerns and proximity to NOAA facilities in Seattle – NOAA picked Newport, even though its location within a flood plain required the agency to determine if there was a “practicable alternative.” When that didn’t happen, runner-up Bellingham protested, and the GAO rejected NOAA’s efforts to rationalize the omission away.
NOAA officials say they now are doing what the GAO has recommended, re-evaluating the situation with an eye to alternatives, but some senators allege the flood plain issue is just part of a broader pattern of NOAA’s sidestepping criteria that get in the way of a predetermined outcome.
One of those senators is Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell, whose constituent-interest perspective might make her own impartiality suspect. However, she is chairwoman of the subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, and she pointedly grilled Commerce Undersecretary Jane Lubchenco, who recently testified before it.
Cantwell is not the lone skeptic, however. She and the subcommittee’s ranking Republican, Maine’s Olympia Snowe, have asked the Commerce Department’s inspector general to take a deeper look at not just the Marine Operations Center lease but NOAA’s facilities acquisition management systems in general.
For Washington state, landing the lease and the investment and jobs that go with it would be a plus. But for this state, as for the rest of the nation, sloppy spending evaluations are unacceptable.
Correcting the system’s deficiencies is an urgent need.
To respond online, click on Opinion under the Topics menu at www.spokesman.com.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
Diaz on March 16 at 7:20 a.m.
How do you jump from an issue about a flood plain to sloppy spending decisions ? The flood plain issue is a remnant of the Carter Administration that makes no practical sense in this case. However, legally NOAA was required to consider it and whether there was a practical alternative so it must go back and do that. This evaluation requires that NOAA consider the effects of the flood plain issue in relation to other considerations to determine if there is a practical alternative. As a practical matter, NOAA already did that but disregarded the flood plain as a non-issue, now because of this stupid protest they must go back an include an analysis to show that in relation to other factors, there is no practical alternative. Talk about wasting money !! This protest process was nothing but window dressing for Washington politicians to satisfy constituents at everyone’s expense. You opinion provides no support for a conclusion that Washington offers a more cost effective alternative to Newport. In fact, Ms. Lubchenco made it clear at the hearing that, in terms of overall cost, Newport was a superior alternative. Cantwell had no factual support for her baldfaced assertion that NOAA did not evaluate all the costs, Your article lacks that support as well. Don’t you do your homework or are you simply a parrot for Cantwell ?
lavrakas on March 16 at 9:42 a.m.
The comment about Sen Cantwell’s “constituent-interest perspective might make her own impartiality suspect” hints at a larger issue. In our democracy, a senator may advocate for her constituency, but Sen Cantwell crosses the line when she uses her office as chair of the subcommittee overseeing ocean research to question NOAA regarding the move. Sen Cantwell has a clear conflict of interest in this matter, and she should recuse herself, and let another member ask these questions of NOAA. I am a government contractor and am not permitted by the government to be involved in a conflict of interest on my contracts. The wisdom of this rule is clear to me. Sen Cantwell should likewise steer clear of exercising her office when there is a conflict of interest.
twobit on March 16 at 10:26 a.m.
Oregon ponied up money to help this go forward for Newport Oregon Seattle didn’t and also the other locations in Washington a polluted areas and are under super fund clean up the contract is signed and done with so cantwell can look like she is doing something why didn’t she do something before this happens glad Newport got it dumb azz politics in Washington
JBlim on March 17 at 7:08 a.m.
Bribing the Feds and corporations with tax giveaways should be illegal.
dougf on March 17 at 6:02 p.m.
Sen. Cantwell’s obvious constituent interest was acknowledged in the editorial precisely to note that her role is less than impartial, but that’s the nature of the congressional structure. Can’t imagine many senators turning their backs on an issue because they might be in a position to advocate for their home states. (Also, Snowe’s sign-on was significant in this case.)
Cantwell did note specific requirements related to the distance of the port from the Seattle office as a consideration that NOAA appears to have ignored. Lubchenko’s responses might have been offered on behalf of removing the consideration, but not to show it was addressed.
The main point is that the respected and impartial GAO offered details as to why the NOAA decision was deficient, including the fact that NOAA’s argument about the pier deck being above the 9-foot flood plain elevation had been disallowed in earlier rulings.
Diaz on March 17 at 8:25 p.m.
The GAO opinion is based upon Carter’s executive order which when applied to these facts makes little sense. However, the GAO had no choice but to follow the language of the executive order regardless of how little sense it made in this case. Consequently, The GAO had to follow the letter of the law and require NOAA to least consider whether there was practical alternative before locating in the flood plain. This means NOAA can look at the risk of locating in a flood plain(which by the way is no risk in this case) versus the PRACTICAL alternatives which don’t exist since Bellingham is also in a floodplain and Seattle did not propose anything that met the requirements of the request for proposal. So yes, this is a waste of taxpayer money because in the end there will be no practical alternative. Finally, I find no significance to Snowe’s signing of the letter. We all know what kind of bull goes on in D.C. when one Senator wants a favor from another and Snowe burned no political capital by signing the letter. Who knows what she got in return. No one really believes that Snowe looked in to this and was that concerned about this particular decision. Cantwell just needed cover.