Posted on 11/14/2007 3:34:04 PM PST by JCEccles
Billions of dollars are pouring into Iraq to fight the war and rebuild the country, and companies are vying for a piece of the action.
In some cases, contractors paid kickbacks to military contracting officers to gain the upper hand.
For Eric W. Barton of Tennessee, he may have had an
Barton is accused of having an affair with Air Force Capt. Sherrie L. Remington, a former contracting officer in charge of awarding some of the lucrative work.
The Army claims Barton used a six-month relationship with Remington to his advantage to win at least $2.5 million in contracts for his former employer, an American security and ordnance disposal company.
As a result, the Army has proposed that Barton and the company he worked for, EOD Technology Inc. of Lenoir City, Tenn., be blacklisted from getting any more government business, according to the Army's report, which was obtained by the San Antonio Express-News.
The proposal is based on allegations that federal procurement and ethics rules were blatantly violated.
"We've always heard that the contractors were in bed with the government," said Scott Amey, general counsel for the Washington-based watchdog the Project on Government Oversight. "This may literally prove that."
The case is one of more than 70 U.S. criminal investigations being conducted as part of an extensive review of the Pentagon's spending in Iraq.
The Army's report suggests Barton, EODT's former deputy country manager, be debarred — an administrative process that alerts other federal agencies to inappropriate or illegal acts in contracting — but it also seeks the debarment of EODT because the Army claims it benefited from Barton's alleged improper behavior.
"As the result of (the) allegations ... the effectiveness of EODT's internal standards of conduct and control systems have come into question," the 300-page report said. "Furthermore, these allegations have cast doubt on EODT's present responsibility as a government contractor and could provide a basis for its debarment from contracting with the government."
EODT denies any wrongdoing and said it is cooperating.
"EODT is not accused of any wrongdoing and none of EODT's contracts have been affected," Erik S. Quist, director of business and legal affairs for the company, said in an e-mail. "The government has requested EODT to supply some information in conjunction with the matter concerning Mr. Barton. EODT has already informed the government of its intention to assist in whatever manner possible and intends to provide the information requested by the government."
During the past two years, EODT was a growing player in the lucrative, but dangerous, business of escorting military supply convoys through Iraq.
According to FedSpending.org, a project of Washington-based government watchdog OMB Watch, EODT's federal contracts jumped dramatically during the period of Barton's alleged fling with Remington, from December 2005 through spring 2006.
In 2005, the company had $3.8 million in contracts. In 2006, it had $106 million. Its total sales that year reached $186.4 million, according to the debarment report.
Through part of the third quarter of 2007, its contracts had dropped to roughly $15 million, FedSpending.org shows. But on its Web site, EODT issued a release in June that said it had obtained an $18.3 million portion of a $122.5 million overall contract for security services in Baghdad.
E-mail: 'loveshackiraq'
The Army and Air Force opened a criminal probe after getting a tip from one of Barton's co-workers in March 2006. After more than a year, the investigation culminated this summer with no charges.
The Air Force offered Barton immunity to testify against Remington, but the Justice Department declined prosecution because it determined she did not get any monetary kickbacks, the report shows. In August, the Air Force informed Barton that his testimony would not be needed in a court martial either.
"I informed him that Capt. Remington's case was being settled by means other than court martial," Air Force Capt. May C. Gordon wrote in a memorandum included in the report. "Capt. Remington was offered nonjudicial punishment. That action is currently being processed."
The Air Force, through Capt. Ashley Norris of Hill AFB in Utah, said that because of privacy rules, it couldn't say when a service member had received a nonjudicial punishment, which can include a reprimand, house arrest, confinement to a military base, or a dock in pay.
The Justice Department said it would not discuss why it did not prosecute Remington.
Remington, who now is back at Hill AFB, could not be reached for comment.
In a handwritten statement to investigators, she claimed the romance and affair did not start until after she had returned to the United States in May 2006. Though she admitted giving Barton some documents, she claimed they were not bids.
"Eric has never asked for any bid information and I have never given him any bid information," Remington's statement said. "I never released any bid information to any contractor prior to award."
But over and over, witnesses claimed otherwise.
One witness told investigators that Barton bragged that he had the "hook-up and insider information" and that EODT would get "all the contracts it wants," the report quotes the witness as saying.
Other witnesses told investigators they overheard Remington telling Barton: "Give me the money from that contract or don't touch me."
One witness, an employee of the company, obtained confidential documents that Barton had received from Remington after Barton had left the papers in his office. The witness made copies that he later provided to authorities.
"We determined over several weeks, from about 15 Jan to 15 Mar 06, EODT was awarded about $2,500,000 in BPA contracts," the witness said, according to exhibits in the report.
When confronted by investigators, Barton admitted to his relationship with Remington, but said he did not receive any favoritism. He also said he did not know she was the awarding contracting officer until after the contracts were awarded.
"Mr. E. Barton reiterated that he did not feel there was any problem with him and CPT Remington having a personal intimate relationship ongoing while CPT Remington was the (contracting officer) awarding contracts to Mr. E. Barton's company," Army Special Agent Russell A. Davidson wrote, summarizing his interview of Barton. "Further, Mr. E. Barton maintained CPT Remington received no monetary or other compensation from himself or EODT for awarding contracts to EODT."
Reached by phone at his home in Tennessee, Barton said he was confident the allegations would be proved false. He said his lawyer would file a response Friday.
Barton would not name his lawyer.
When a reporter read from the report, including a summary of his statement to investigators, Barton minimized what it said or disputed details.
"I didn't sign any statement," Barton said. "That's an interpretation from a two-minute conversation with an investigator. I did nothing wrong."
Asked if he denied having an extramarital affair with Remington, he said, "I'm not denying anything. We have a response that's due on (Friday). I'm very confident that all the allegations will be proven false."
The e-mail trail, however, may prove otherwise, the report shows.
In one e-mail sent Jan. 26, 2006, Remington allegedly disclosed EODT's competing companies — at Barton's request — to Barton, and referred to him as "sweetheart."
Remington signed off that e-mail with, "I will expect payment in full tonight!!! Sherrie."
In another e-mail sent at 2:47 a.m. May 6, 2006, Remington told Barton that she had created "a special e-mail account for you ... another little secret" because Remington's then-husband had been reading her mail from another e-mail account. The Yahoo account she created had the user ID "loveshackiraq."
"He says he has no plans to screw me over, but all I can do is hold my breath now and hope he is telling me the truth," Remington wrote about her husband. "I will go into more details when we talk on the phone. I love you and miss you. Sherrie."
A month later, she filed for divorce from her husband, and it became final on July 5, 2006, Utah court records show.
These are our taxes folks! Our government apparently doesn't give a tinker's da*n whether they get flushed down the toilet of fraud.
It's almost enough to make me listen to Ron Paul. Wait a minute . . . alright, the temptation has passed.
But my anger remains.
Looks to me there is no evidence of quid-pro-quo — i.e., just because they were sleeping together, doesn’t mean they would not have otherwise gotten to contract.
I stand to be corrected, however.
You don’t need a quid pro quo. You must thinking of bribery. This case stinks of conspiracy to commit major fraud (in excess of $1 million). It is no defense to say “Yeah, we jury-rigged the system to benefit a particular company but—hey—you got your money’s worth.”
No, there's no way to sugercoat this. It was a major scam.
EOD? Talk about getting a bang out of your work!
Awwwwwww, man! It’s gotten to where you can’t have any fun anymore without some goody-two-shoes getting involved /sarc
And it must have been just that - no prosecutions?????
Curious?
The Air Force contracting officer is still on active duty, pulling down a taxpayer-funded paycheck.
The fact that she’s still on active duty leads me to believe the whole thing stank (which it does!) -— but there was no hard evidence to prove the allegations you repeat above.
Don’t get me wrong — I believe you and believe she did what you say -— I just think they were good enough to cover their tracks.
If the company gets blacklisted, it is toast. That is punishment enough.
There is PLENTY to go after this “Officer”...
She was conducting a adulterous affair within her military assignment.
- The military frowns on that.
She was OBVIOUSLY fraternizing with those whom she was required to maintain a purely BUSINESS relationship.
- The military frowns on that.
She was clearly too damned stupid and emotionally unstable to retain rank or responsibility.
- The military frowns on that.
That’s just for starters...
I can’t believe she escaped a Courts Martial....
Oh, this is the AIR FARCE -— that explains everything....
There you go...women in the military......
I could say a lot more, but will wait until I'm back home for good.
At least in this case it wasn’t the taxpayer getting scr-w-d! Not directly, anyhow!
Anybody got any pics of the female Captain?
No. But I’m told she looks quite schoolmarmish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.