MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Little Big Companies

News: How did corporations like Halliburton get millions in government contracts designated for small minority businesses?

January/February 2005 Issue


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


RELATED ARTICLES

In Wainwright, Alaska, a village of about 500 Inupiat Eskimo north of the Arctic Circle, most people live off the land, hunting whale and caribou when the weather allows, drilling holes in the ice for smelt in the spring. About half the residents seek out jobs in the mainstream economy, and among that group, one in five is out of work. One of the few employers in town is the Olgoonik Corporation, a company owned by the tribe, whose business until recently consisted mostly of running Wainwright’s hotel, general store, and gas station.

But lately, Olgoonik has emerged as a rising giant in the world of federal contracting. Since 2002, the company has won more than $225 million in contracts for construction work on U.S. military bases and embassies from Alaska to Kosovo. Because Olgoonik is tribally owned, it was able to get the contracts without any competition. But that doesn’t mean the people of Wainwright have been doing the actual construction; instead, much of the work is being performed by Halliburton, Olgoonik’s non-native partner in the contracts.

Partnerships between multinational companies and tribal businesses, most of them Alaska native corporations, have skyrocketed in recent years—in large part because of a provision in federal law that exempts tribal companies from rules that apply to other minority-owned businesses. The system was established in the mid-1990s to help native communities, where unemployment rates often exceed 40 percent. But it has also become a way for large corporations with no Native American ownership to receive no-bid contracts, an avenue for federal officials to steer work to favored companies, and a device for speeding privatization. “It’s a loophole gone wild,” Charles Tiefer, an expert in federal contract law, recently told the trade journal Washington Technology. “I have seen little evidence that this produces jobs in Alaska as opposed to profits for those entrepreneurs skillful enough to exploit it.”

Chart: Government Contracts to Tribal Companies

Click to see a larger version

A Mother Jones analysis of federal contracting records shows that no-bid, or “sole-source,” awards to native companies have risen dramatically since the late 1990s (see chart). Back in 1999, the largest tribal firms received just $195.5 million worth of no-bid work, or roughly 3 percent of the awards under the federal government’s program to assist small and minority-owned companies. By 2003, however, large tribal companies were getting $1.3 billion worth of contracts without any competition, accounting for nearly 15 percent of the minority program. Bruce Pozzi, a spokesman for Olgoonik, says the company decided to “jump on this bandwagon” after it realized how much money other native companies were making. Olgoonik has 175 employees, but only 7 of them are tribal members and thus shareholders of the corporation.

Tribal companies enjoy several benefits that other minority firms don’t. They can be considered small businesses even after winning billions of dollars in contracts, and there is no limit to the size of the no-bid awards they can win (other minority companies can bypass competition only if the value of the contract is less than $3 million). “It’s going to be a huge problem,” says one veteran Pentagon official, noting that when the system was set up, officials assumed that it would be used for occasional small contracts, not as a way to bypass federal competitive-bidding rules for $100 million projects. “Nobody thought they would be doing everything under the sun.”

Not true, says Michael Brown, a soft-spoken former Navy officer who is known as the “godfather” of tribal contracting: The recent explosion in federal work is exactly what he hoped for when he began working in 1982 as the chief executive for a subsidiary of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, one of the Alaskan tribal companies established by Congress in 1971. Founded with nearly $1 billion in assets and 44 million acres of land between them, these Alaska native corporations depended on fishing, logging, and mining, all industries in decline; so Brown began lobbying officials in Washington, D.C., for the contracting exemptions. He encouraged federal officials to visit villages that lacked not only jobs, but plumbing or sewer systems, arguing that the scale of poverty demanded significant federal help. “There are really two Alaskas,” he says. “There is Anchorage, and there are the villages.”

Brown found an ally in Alaska’s senior senator, Ted Stevens, the powerful Republican head of the Appropriations Committee. As the tribal loopholes began to grow, Stevens also formed personal ties to the native companies. His brother-in-law, William H. Bittner, is a prominent lobbyist for many of the largest tribal firms, and the senator himself is an investor in an Anchorage office complex leased to Arctic Slope, the state’s largest tribal corporation and the largest company in Alaska.

In many ways, Brown’s goals have been met. Though unemployment has continued to rise among Alaska natives, federal contracts have brought tribes millions of dollars that pay for social programs, scholarships, and, in some cases, annual dividends to tribal members. Some tribes have used the exemptions to seek out contracts that can create jobs on their reservations: A consortium of the Shoshone, Chickasaw, and Navajo tribes, along with tribes in North Dakota and Hawaii, recently won a $50 million project to digitize military technical manuals, employing about 500 Native Americans in 10 tribes.

But in many cases, the biggest winners from the contracting exemptions are non-native companies. Under the federal rules, between 15 and 50 percent of the work must be done by employees of the tribal company. But tribes can also form joint ventures with other firms, allowing them to classify many of the non-native companies’ employees as their own. In some of the largest contracts, native corporations have simply taken over services the federal government wanted to privatize. In one $2.2 billion project to run part of the military’s mapmaking division, two Alaska tribes brought in their own managers to rehire and oversee hundreds of federal employees, a process in which many workers lost their civil service benefits. “Very little changes,” says Peter Fagan, a contracting consultant who has worked with tribal companies. “You just get new hats and business cards.”

One of the tribal companies’ key selling points is their ability to bypass the bidding process—a fact that worries experts, who note that without competition it’s hard to ensure that taxpayers are getting their money’s worth. “There are so many ways of screwing the system,” says one former marketing executive for a tribal company. “There is a real possibility of hiding a lot of money in these subcontracts.”

In one project that has drawn criticism, two large security companies—Wackenhut Services and Vance International—partnered with Alaska native firms on no-bid contracts worth more than $180 million to provide private security guards for Army bases. Most of that work was awarded after Wackenhut and Vance had tried to get similar contracts through competitive bidding—and lost. At the time it got the deal, Wackenhut had just been reprimanded for underperforming on some of its existing federal contracts.

Wackenhut’s native partner, Alutiiq Security and Technology, keeps its offices in Chesapeake, Virginia, and Charleston, South Carolina, thousands of miles from its more than 600 tribal shareholders on Alaska’s southern coast. The tribe has expanded its federal contracting business from a staff of 12 in 2001 to more than 3,000, most of them in the lower 48; it distributed $3.1 million in dividends to tribal members in 2003. Dusty Kaser, chief executive of Alutiiq Security’s parent corporation, says Alutiiq has been getting the contracts on its own merits, not because of its partners. “It is offensive that individuals would suggest Alaska native corporations are being used,” said Kaser, a civil engineer who is not a member of the Alutiiq tribe. “Alaskan natives can and do run efficient operations.”

Perhaps the biggest recent boost for some tribal companies has come from an unlikely source—the Pentagon’s desire to speed up contracting in Iraq, where officials have turned to native corporations to award military and reconstruction contracts without competition. S&K Technologies, a tribal information technology company from Montana, and Chugach McKinley, a subsidiary of an Alaska native company, have won no-bid contracts to employ and oversee civilians assisting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And last year, attempts by a Pentagon official to use the Inupiat firm Nana Pacific to channel a wireless telephone contract to a company represented by his friends led to inquiries by the Defense Department’s inspector general. That deal never went through, but Nana was awarded a $70 million contract last March for work on the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr. Company president Janet Reiser says the majority of the port work is being done by Nana’s own employees, about 10 percent of whom are Native Alaskans. “We are a company of the highest integrity,” she says. “We are not a shell or a sham for anybody.”

Back in Alaska, Olgoonik Corp. president John Hopson Jr. is hoping that the tribal company’s partnership with Halliburton will eventually generate jobs, or at least dividend checks, for tribal members. So far, he says, the only impact on Wainwright has been some funds to remodel the town’s hotel and store. “These contracts are done internationally and nationally, and not in the community,” says Hopson. “The impact jobwise is not as significant as we thought it would be.”

Michael Scherer is the Washington correspondent for Mother Jones.



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

CHOICE PHONE INTERNATIONAL WEST ASIA PLC. REGISTERED NO.37690185. contact number 234-7030520565 email address. choice_choicephone@yahoo.com marian_1bb@yahoo.com DISTRIBUTOR,WHOLESALER,RETAILER,REPRESENTATIVES OF HIGH QUALITY PHONES AND ACCESORIESS WE GUARANTEE YOU QUALITY. We are the ELECTRONICLTDS Company IN uk, we are using this medium to advertise our products and services thruogh this link.We specialise in distribution of cellphones,computers electronics,games and many more accessories.We are distributors of wholesale and retail prodcts.Our products in the field of Cell Phones in stock varies from the likes OUTLINE of: NOKIA,MOTOROLA,SAMSUNG,SONY ERICSSON,SIDEKICK and many more SMARTPHONES AND PDA PHONES.They are all brand new,unlocked mobile phones with 2 years international warranty.The Cell Phones all have english language as default,all material (software, manual HEAD OFFICE SPAIN CITY VALENCIA BRANCH OFFICE IKEJA LAGOS NIGER BELTA P.O.BOX VICTORI . Nokia 7710 $150 Nokia 8310 $150 Nokia 8800 $150 Nokia 8910 $150 Nokia 8910 $160 Nokia 9210 $170 Nokia 9210i $170 Nokia 9300 $170 Nokia 9300i $170 Nokia 9500 $170 Nokia E50 $180 Nokia E60 $180 Nokia E61 $180 Nokia E70 $180 Nokia N70 $180 Nokia N71 $180 Nokia N72 $180 Nokia N73 $180 Nokia N80 $190 Nokia N90 $200 Nokia N91 $210 Nokia N92 $220 Nokia N93 $230 Nokia N95 $250 Nokia N97 $450 Nokia N-Gage $175 Nokia N-Gage QD $180 Motorola Mobile Phones Motorola A1000 $200 Motorola A780 $160 Motorola A835 $180 Motorola A920 $180 Motorola A925 $180 Motorola C350 $130 Motorola C385 $130 Motorola C550 $125 Motorola C650 $130 Motorola C975 $140 Motorola E1000 $175 Motorola E1070 $175 Motorola E365 $180 Motorola E398 $180 Motorola E550 $180 Motorola E770v $180 Motorola L2 $175 Motorola L6 $170 Motorola L7 $175 Motorola MPx200 $150 Motorola MPx220 $140 Motorola ROKR E1 $130 Motorola T720i $150 Motorola V1050 $140 Motorola V180 $130 Sony Ericsson Mobile Phones Sony Ericsson D750i $130 Sony Ericsson F500i $130 Sony Ericsson J100i $130 Sony Ericsson J210i $130 Sony Ericsson J220i $130 Sony Ericsson J230i $130 Sony Ericsson J300i $130 Sony Ericsson K300i $130 Sony Ericsson K310i Blackberry PDA...US $440 Nokia n95...US $250 Nokia 6111…US $150 Nokia 8855– US$100 Nokia 9210 Communicator– US$195 Nokia 9210i Communicator– US$195 Nokia N-Gage– US$110 Nokia 9500 (communicator)– US$180 Sony Ericsson Z200– US$100 Sony Ericsson Z600– US$170 Sony Ericsson R520m– US$100 Sony Ericsson R380 World– US$90 Sony Ericsson R380s– US$100 Sony Ericsson R600– US$35 Sony Ericsson S700– US$150 Sony Ericsson K500i– US$130 Sony Ericsson K700i– US$140 Sony Ericsson K750i– US$150 Sony Ericsson w800i– US$180 Sony Ericsson w900– US$200 Samsung SGH E600– US$129 Samsung SGH E700– US$130 Samsung SGH E715– US$155 Samsung SGH-E810– US$140 Samsung SGH-E820– US$150 Samsung SGH-E800– US$155 Samsung SGH-E850– US$140 Samsung SGH D410– US$150 Samsung SGH D500– US$155 Samsung SGH VM680– US$100 Samsung SGH X400– US$105 Samsung SGH X410– US$130 Samsung SGH X426– US$129 Samsung SGH-C200– US$125 Samsung SGH-X460– US$140 Samsung SGH-X450– US$130 Samsung SGH-X120– US$99 Samsung SGH X600– US$145 Samsung SGH-X610– US$140 Samsung SGH-Z105– US$120 Motorola V3Razor– US$145 Motorola V66– US$60 Motorola V60– US$70 Motorola V60i– US$75 Motorola V70– US$105 Motorola V80– US$115 Motorola V290– US$80 Motorola V750– US$125 Motorola V3688 — US$20 Motorola V8088– US$30 Motorola V525– US$139 Motorola V300– US$130 Motorola V400– US$125 Motorola V500– US$130 Motorola V600– US$140 Nextel 6510TM– US$110 Nextel i730– US$85 Nextel i733– US$95 Nextel i736– US$100 Nextel i830– US$110 Nextel i860– US$120 N
Posted by:choice_choicephoneFebruary 10, 2008 6:58:36 AMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















Debate Liveblogging - 10.07.2008

The British Bailout

Debate Preview

Debate Bingo....This Time For Real!


More MoJo voices...



bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN

Advertise Liberally

This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2005 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS