In the Small Business forum, there was a question about what happens to COs when they break the law. I have a similar question, but am starting a new discussion in this forum.
A few years ago, there was a case involving egregious interference with the contractor's performance by almost every government employee involved. The contractor had just taken over services that had previously been performed by government employees. The remaining employees, with the active help of contracting officials (who openly posted their support for the government employees on bulletin boards!), conspired to run the contractor off. They threw away manuals, locked buildings and threw away keys, took GFP phones and radios out of vehicles, removed computer equipment, trashed buildings, stashed equipment in locked buildings, issued CDRs for every conceivable problem, etc. I don't recall the names, but I believe the agency was the Navy.
The board held for the contractor on almost every claim. What I would like to know is: what, if anything, happened to the government officials and employees? I get outraged every time I think of that case, and I would like to think that the government treated its own just as it does a contractor that violates the law.

By Vern Edwards on Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 06:36 pm:

Ron:

What you describe is terrible and I think that everyone will agree. I don't know what case you're talking about -- you don't identify the Navy office or installation or give us the name of the contractor or board decision -- so I can't look into what if prosecutions were conducted.

But what kind of conversation do you want to have? What can anyone say but -- Terrible. Someone ought to do something.

Vern

P.S.

I do know of at a couple of cases in which COs went to prison for taking bribes, but they date back to the 1980s. I know of another in which the CO had money deducted from his retirement account for failing to check prices before exercising an option.

By Ron Vogt on Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 07:37 pm:

I don't know the case name or the office either, although if I had to I could dig deep in my files, because I'm pretty sure I kept a copy somewhere. What I'm looking for is whether any action was taken. It's not from any desire for a pop-pyschology closure, because I wasn't personally affected. I guess I will just have to call it curiosity, and getting my sense of justice satisfied.

By Harley Hartley on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 01:29 pm:

This case sounds like the situation that occurred several years ago at NAS Jacksonville. I don't remember the contractor's name. hh

By Fred Weatherill on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 05:48 pm:

Vern,

The CO that had the money ($88,040) deducted from his retirement was John Martino. See CG B-262168 of May 24, 1996. However, the CG decision in B-280764 of May 4, 2000 seems to have taken a different tack. Now the CG holds"...we believe that an agency may impose pecuniary liability only with statutory basis. Accordingly, we will no longer accept our earlier caselaw in this regard as precedent and any decision inconsistant herewith is overruled". Does any one know were Mr. Martino is now? I would bet that he would find this new decision very interesting.

By John Ford on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:09 am:

The NASJAX case that everyone is talking about was Apex Engineering by Trustee in Bankruptcy. It was a breach of contract case before the ASBCA. In the words of the Board, the Navy "declared war" on the contractor. The "warchief" in this action was an active duty Navy Lieutenant. Like everyone else, I have seen no follow-up on whether any action was taken against any of the military or civilian personnel involved in this egregious misconduct.
This touches on a topic that has been alluded to before in these discussions and that is what, if any, action a contractor can take against government personnel who injure the contractor. Most of the government personnel in the Apex case were not contracting officers. Also, the fact that some were military and some were civilian could have an impact on what actions are available to a contractor. Generally, government personnel are not personally liable for acts committed while acting within the scope of their employment. In the Apex case, I cannot imagine that any of the acts listed in the Board's decision were done while acting within the scope of anyone's employment.

By bob antonio on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:24 am:

John:

Do you have a citation or a year for the Apex decision?

By Linda Koone on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 11:09 am:

Bob:

I believe it's "Apex International Management Services" ASBCA Nos. 38087 38241 38242 41365 42747 43222 43971 44647, ; 94-2 BCA 26,842, recon. denied, 94-2 BCA 26,852

By bob antonio on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 03:37 pm:

Linda:

Thanks. I took a quick look at it and it appears to implicate a Naval Captain and Admiral in the actions against the contractor. The whole decision is about 40 pages without the reconsideration which is one half page.

By bob antonio on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 09:20 pm:

Ron:

As John points out and Linda has provided a citation, the case you are referring to sounds like Apex International. The commander of the base--a Navy Captain--told the base employees that the contractor would not be around for long. Keys were withheld, manuals were not provided, etc. I did not go over it very well, but the government personnel appear to have cost the government in excess of $1 million.

The name of the Captain and the name of the Admiral that the Captain spoke with are named in the case. So is just about everyone else.

By bob antonio on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 07:39 am:

Here are a few notes from the Apex case.

"Shortly after contract award, but before appellant [Apex} commenced work thereunder, Captain *****, the base commander, informed about 200 NAS Jax public works employees in a 'pep talk' that all of those who were going to be RIFfed would be called back soon because appelant's contract 'is not going to last very long."

"Appellant's [Apex] director of contracting, **** *****, vividly recalled seeing a telegraphic message from the NAS Jax commander to Vice Admiral ********, sent during the same time period in which the former, who signed off as 'Captain Wild Bill Shoot from the Hip *****,' said words to the effect that 'we're going to get the contractor.'"

"At approximately the same time, similar remarks were made to NAS Jax shop workers by ***** *****, the base maintenance superintendent who was subsequently, . . ., appointed as Facilities Support Contract Manager (FSCM) for the contract and thereby placed in charge of monotoring apellant's performance and determining deficiencies therein." "Mr. ***** told the workers that he would see that appelant "was gotten rid of" and that maintenance of the base would be restored to teh NAS Jax public works personnel."

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 12:06 pm:

Thanks, Fred.

Vern