This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/world/asia/afghan-companies-with-insurgent-ties-still-receive-us-contracts.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Afghan Companies With Insurgent Ties Still Receive U.S. Contracts | Afghan Companies With Insurgent Ties Still Receive U.S. Contracts |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| WASHINGTON — Facing a well-financed insurgency in Afghanistan, the United States has for years struggled to cut off the main contribution American taxpayers make to Taliban coffers: the hiring of Afghan contractors with ties to the insurgents. | WASHINGTON — Facing a well-financed insurgency in Afghanistan, the United States has for years struggled to cut off the main contribution American taxpayers make to Taliban coffers: the hiring of Afghan contractors with ties to the insurgents. |
| But despite the development of contractor blacklists and other requirements earlier in the war, American investigators have uncovered a new case casting doubt on the military’s ability to weed out suspicious contractors from the ranks of thousands who work with the United States to build bases, ship supplies and carry out myriad other jobs. | But despite the development of contractor blacklists and other requirements earlier in the war, American investigators have uncovered a new case casting doubt on the military’s ability to weed out suspicious contractors from the ranks of thousands who work with the United States to build bases, ship supplies and carry out myriad other jobs. |
| The case centers on the Zurmat Material Testing Laboratory, part of the Zurmat Group, an Afghan company that American investigators say was being paid to do work at an American-controlled facility in November 2012 — despite having been blacklisted two months before by one part of the military for providing bomb-making materials to insurgents. | The case centers on the Zurmat Material Testing Laboratory, part of the Zurmat Group, an Afghan company that American investigators say was being paid to do work at an American-controlled facility in November 2012 — despite having been blacklisted two months before by one part of the military for providing bomb-making materials to insurgents. |
| The Zurmat case was outlined in a letter sent last week to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, an internal government watchdog. A copy of the letter was provided to The New York Times. | The Zurmat case was outlined in a letter sent last week to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, an internal government watchdog. A copy of the letter was provided to The New York Times. |
| According to other documents and a review of internal Pentagon communications obtained by The Times, the United States Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan, requested in 2012 that Zurmat and its subsidiaries, along with more than 40 other companies and individuals believed to have ties to insurgents, be “debarred” by the Army, a move that would have formally banned them from doing work for any part of the United States government. | According to other documents and a review of internal Pentagon communications obtained by The Times, the United States Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan, requested in 2012 that Zurmat and its subsidiaries, along with more than 40 other companies and individuals believed to have ties to insurgents, be “debarred” by the Army, a move that would have formally banned them from doing work for any part of the United States government. |
| At the time, officials estimated that altogether, those contractors had been awarded more than $150 million in work for the American-led coalition over a 10-year period. | At the time, officials estimated that altogether, those contractors had been awarded more than $150 million in work for the American-led coalition over a 10-year period. |
| But the Pentagon officials who rule on suspension and debarment cases have so far refused to do so. In the documents, the officials argue that because the evidence against Zurmat and the other companies and individuals consists largely of classified intelligence, which cannot be shown to the accused contractors, imposing any bans would violate the right to due process. | But the Pentagon officials who rule on suspension and debarment cases have so far refused to do so. In the documents, the officials argue that because the evidence against Zurmat and the other companies and individuals consists largely of classified intelligence, which cannot be shown to the accused contractors, imposing any bans would violate the right to due process. |
| The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the Zurmat case or about the broader dispute over using classified intelligence to ban contractors suspected of supporting insurgents from doing work for the military. | The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the Zurmat case or about the broader dispute over using classified intelligence to ban contractors suspected of supporting insurgents from doing work for the military. |
| Coming after years of mounting concerns about waste and possible misdirection of the billions of dollars in aid and military contracts given throughout the war, the Zurmat case, which has been festering for nearly a year, is adding insult to injury in the eyes of some members of Congress. Lawmakers have expressed anger at the Pentagon’s refusal to ban contractors suspected of having ties to militants, and are pressing again to force it to cut off the money. | Coming after years of mounting concerns about waste and possible misdirection of the billions of dollars in aid and military contracts given throughout the war, the Zurmat case, which has been festering for nearly a year, is adding insult to injury in the eyes of some members of Congress. Lawmakers have expressed anger at the Pentagon’s refusal to ban contractors suspected of having ties to militants, and are pressing again to force it to cut off the money. |
| “It’s like we’re subsidizing the people who are shooting at our soldiers,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire. | “It’s like we’re subsidizing the people who are shooting at our soldiers,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire. |
| Zurmat was first blacklisted in April 2012 by the Commerce Department over accusations that it had helped the feared Haqqani insurgent faction in Afghanistan get bomb-making materials. Then, in September of that year, the military’s Central Command banned Zurmat from working on contracts within its area of operations, which stretches from the Middle East to Pakistan. But that order did not automatically result in warnings to other contracting companies who might have been subcontracting work to Zurmat or one of its subsidiaries. Such warnings would only happen if the company were formally debarred by the Defense Department, according to the special inspector general’s letter to Mr. Hagel. | Zurmat was first blacklisted in April 2012 by the Commerce Department over accusations that it had helped the feared Haqqani insurgent faction in Afghanistan get bomb-making materials. Then, in September of that year, the military’s Central Command banned Zurmat from working on contracts within its area of operations, which stretches from the Middle East to Pakistan. But that order did not automatically result in warnings to other contracting companies who might have been subcontracting work to Zurmat or one of its subsidiaries. Such warnings would only happen if the company were formally debarred by the Defense Department, according to the special inspector general’s letter to Mr. Hagel. |
| As a result, employees from the Zurmat testing laboratory gained access in November 2012 to what was at the time the main American-run prison in Afghanistan, the inspector general’s letter said. Zurmat had been hired to perform safety tests on the construction work done by another contractor, CLC Construction, which was building a courthouse at the prison and had not been informed of the Central Command decision to bar the Afghan firm. | As a result, employees from the Zurmat testing laboratory gained access in November 2012 to what was at the time the main American-run prison in Afghanistan, the inspector general’s letter said. Zurmat had been hired to perform safety tests on the construction work done by another contractor, CLC Construction, which was building a courthouse at the prison and had not been informed of the Central Command decision to bar the Afghan firm. |
| The inspector general said it had uncovered the work done by Zurmat as part of a separate investigation into shoddy construction work at the detention facility, which is adjacent to Bagram Air Base, one of the largest coalition bases in Afghanistan. | |
| “This lapse in security highlights the immediate need for a simple process to ensure that individuals and companies identified as supporters of the insurgency are prevented from accessing U.S.- and coalition-controlled facilities,” the inspector general wrote to Mr. Hagel. | “This lapse in security highlights the immediate need for a simple process to ensure that individuals and companies identified as supporters of the insurgency are prevented from accessing U.S.- and coalition-controlled facilities,” the inspector general wrote to Mr. Hagel. |
| It is unclear how much money Zurmat was paid for its work at the prison, or whether its employees had access to particularly sensitive areas. | It is unclear how much money Zurmat was paid for its work at the prison, or whether its employees had access to particularly sensitive areas. |
| It is also unclear whether Zurmat or any of the other companies proposed for debarment are still doing work for the coalition. It is nearly impossible to track subcontracts, officials say, and that has made it very difficult to enforce bans, especially those issued only by one command. |