OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

AATTTTEESSTTAATTIIOONN EENNGGAAGGEEMMEENNTT

CCOONNCCEERRNNIINNGG TTHHEE AAWWAARRDD OOFF

NNOONN--CCOOMMPPEETTIITTIIVVEE CCOONNTTRRAACCTT

DDAACCAA6633--0033--DD--00000055 TTOO

KKEELLLLOOGGGG,, BBRROOWWNN,, AANNDD RROOOOTT

SSEERRVVIICCEESS,, IINNCC..

RREEVVIISSEEDD

RREEEPPPOOORRRTTTNNUUUMMMBBBEEERRR SSIIGGIIRR--0055--001199 SSSEEEPPPTTTEEEMMMBBBEEERRR333000,,,222000000555 

 
SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION 

400 Army Navy Drive • Arlington, Virginia 22202

September 30, 2005 

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, DEFENSE RECONSTRUCTION SUPPORT 

OFFICE 

CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDER, U.S.ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 

 SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION 

SUBJECT: Attestation Engagement Report Concerning the Award of 

Non-Competitive Contract DACA63-03-D-0005 to Kellogg, Brown, 

and Root Services, Inc. (Report No. SIGIR 05-019) 

We are providing this report for your information and use. We performed the procedures 

enumerated in Appendix C, which were requested by the Defense Reconstruction Support 

Office, because a potential conflict of interest existed with respect to the subject contract 

for the public accounting firm that the Defense Reconstruction Support Office had 

engaged to perform the attestation engagement of all non-competitively awarded 

contracts issued for the Coalition Provisional Authority using funds from the 

Development Fund for Iraq. That particular attestation engagement was initiated at the 

behest of the United Nations’ International Advisory and Monitoring Board. 

This report does not contain recommendations; therefore, no written response to this 

report is required. We appreciate the courtesies extended to our staff by the 

representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division and the 

Defense Contract Audit Agency. For additional information on this report, please contact 

Mr. Joseph T. McDermott at joseph.mcdermott@sigir.mil or at (703) 428-1100 or 

Mr Brian M. Flynn at brian.flynn@sigir.mil or at (703) 428-1404. For the report 

distribution, see Appendix H. 

Stuart W. Bowen, Jr. 

Inspector General 
i 

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction 

Report Number SIGIR 05-019 September 30, 2005 

 (Project No. SIGIR-2005-13) 

Attestation Engagement Concerning the Award of Non-Competitive Contract DACA63-03-D-0005 to Kellogg, Brown, and Root Services, Inc. 

Executive Summary 

Introduction. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) was asked 

by the DoD’s Defense Reconstruction Support Office to provide an attestation on a noncompetitively awarded contract that Kellogg, Brown & Root obtained prior to the advent 

of the 2003 Iraq war. We performed agreed-upon procedures to determine whether the 

non-competitive award of the contract was appropriately justified and whether the goods 

and services delivered and billed for were those required under the contract. As the 

following report substantiates, we conclude that the use of the non-competitive contract 

was appropriately justified and that the goods and services delivered and billed for were 

those required under the contract. 

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 (UNSCR 1483), dated May 22, 2003, 

noted the establishment of the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI). UNSCR 1483 

authorized the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), in consultation with the Iraqi 

interim administration, to direct disbursements from the DFI. Paragraph 14 of UNSCR 

1483 directs that the DFI shall be used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian 

needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq’s 

infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, for the costs of Iraqi civilian 

administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq. The CPA ceased to 

exist on June 28, 2004, and the CPA Administrator passed governing authority to the 

Interim Iraqi Government. 

Pursuant to paragraph 12 of UNSCR 1483, the International Advisory and Monitoring 

Board (IAMB) requested that the Department of Defense (DoD) enter into a contract with 

an internationally-recognized accounting firm for the audit of non-competitive contracts 

awarded by the CPA (and funded from the DFI). The purpose of the audit was to 

determine whether disbursements of DFI funds under non-competitive contracts were 

consistent with the transparency provision in paragraph 14 of UNSCR 1483 and whether 

there was sufficient documentation to justify the non-competitive awards. 

Objective. We performed the agreed-upon procedures enumerated in Appendix C, 

which were requested by the Defense Reconstruction Support Office, because a potential 

conflict of interest existed (with respect to the subject contract) for the internationallyrecognized accounting firm that the Defense Reconstruction Support Office engaged to 

perform an attestation engagement of all non-competitively awarded contracts issued for 

the CPA using DFI funds. 

The procedures we performed were agreed to by the Defense Reconstruction Support 

Office and the IAMB. We performed those procedures solely to assist in assessing 

whether disbursements of DFI funds for non-competitive contract DACA63-03-D-0005 

awarded to Brown and Root Services, a division of Kellogg, Brown, and Root, were 

consistent with the transparency provision in paragraph 14 of UNSCR 1483 and whether 

there was sufficient documentation to justify the non-competitive award. 
ii 

The overall objectives of this attestation engagement were to determine whether adequate 

documentation existed that: (1) a non-competitive contract was justified; (2) a fair and 

reasonable price was obtained; (3) the contracting official had the authority to enter into a 

non-competitive contract; (4) goods and services received and paid for under the contract 

were the goods and services provided for in the contract; and (5) the total amount of 

disbursements under the contract did not exceed the total contract amount. 

Results The agreed-upon procedures that we performed disclosed that: 

1. The non-competitive award of contract number DACA63-03-D-0005 to Brown, 

and Root Services, a division of Kellogg, Brown and Root, was properly justified. 

2. The contract is a cost-plus award-fee (CPAF) indefinite delivery, indefinite 

quantity (IDIQ) contract. Final determination of fair and reasonable price is not 

made until the final incurred cost audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. 

3. The only individual authorized by United States Code, Title 41, Section 253 to 

approve non-competitive contracting actions in excess of $50 million is the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology). The 

Justification and Approval for the contract was signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology). 

4. The goods and services received and paid for with DFI funds under the contract 

were the goods and services provided for in the contract. 

5. The total amount of DFI fund disbursements under the contract did not exceed the 

total amount obligated for the contract. 

Recommendations. Because we did not identify any adverse findings, this report does 

not contain any recommendations. 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary i 

Introduction 

Background 1 

Objective 1 

Finding 

Agreed-Upon Procedures and Results 3 

Appendixes 

A. Scope and Methodology 7 

B. Prior Audit Coverage 9 

C. Agreed-Upon Procedures To Be Performed 14 

D. Summary of Agreed-Upon Procedure Results 17 

E. Schedule of Non-Competitive Contract Justification 20 

F. Schedule of Disbursements 22 

G. Acronyms 26 

H. Report Distribution 27 

I. Attestation Engagement Team Members 29 
1 

Background 

Introduction 

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) was asked by the DoD’s 

Defense Reconstruction Support Office to provide an attestation on a non-competitively 

awarded contract that Kellogg, Brown & Root obtained prior to the advent of the 2003 

Iraq war. We performed agreed-upon procedures to determine whether the noncompetitive award of the contract was appropriately justified and whether the goods and 

services delivered and billed for were those required under the contract. As the following 

report substantiates, we conclude that the use of the non-competitive contract was 

appropriately justified and that the goods and services delivered and billed for were those 

required under the contract. 

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 (UNSCR 1483), dated May 22, 2003, 

noted the establishment of the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI). UNSCR 1483 

authorized the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), in consultation with the Iraqi 

interim administration, to direct disbursements from the DFI. Paragraph 14 of UNSCR 

1483 directs that the DFI shall be used in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian 

needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq’s 

infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, for the costs of Iraqi civilian 

administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq. 

The DFI was the primary financial vehicle to channel revenue from ongoing Iraqi oil 

sales, unencumbered Oil for Food deposits, and repatriated Iraqi assets into the relief and 

reconstruction of Iraq. During the CPA’s administration of Iraq, the CPA Comptroller 

managed the DFI and the Program Review Board (PRB), which included voting 

representatives from the CPA, Iraqi interim administration, United Kingdom, Australia 

and the Council for International Coordination, was responsible for recommending 

expenditures of resources from the DFI. The CPA ceased to exist on June 28, 2004, and 

the CPA Administrator passed governing authority to the Interim Iraqi Government. 

As provided in paragraph 12 of UNSCR 1483, the International Advisory and Monitoring 

Board (IAMB) requested that the Department of Defense (DoD) enter into a contract with 

an internationally-recognized accounting firm for the audit of non-competitive contracts 

awarded by the CPA and funded by the DFI. The purpose of the audit was to determine 

whether disbursements of DFI funds under such contracts were consistent with the 

transparency provision in paragraph 14 of UNSCR 1483 and whether there was sufficient 

documentation to justify the non-competitive awards. 

Objective 

We performed the agreed-upon procedures enumerated in Appendix C, which were 

requested by the Defense Reconstruction Support Office because a potential conflict of 

interest existed (with respect to the subject contract) for the internationally-recognized 

accounting firm that the Defense Reconstruction Support Office engaged to perform an 

attestation engagement of all non-competitively awarded contracts issued for the CPA 

using DFI funds. 
2 

The procedures we performed were agreed to by the Defense Reconstruction Support 

Office and the IAMB. We performed those procedures solely to assist in assessing 

whether disbursements of DFI funds for non-competitive contract DACA63-03-D-0005 

(awarded to Brown and Root Services, a division of Kellogg, Brown and Root [KBR]) 

were consistent with the transparency provision in paragraph 14 of UNSCR 1483 and 

whether there was sufficient documentation to justify the non-competitive award. 

The overall objectives of this attestation engagement were to determine whether adequate 

documentation existed that: (1) a non-competitive contract was justified; (2) a fair and 

reasonable price was obtained; (3) the contracting official had the authority to enter into a 

non-competitive contract; (4) goods and services received and paid for under the contract 

were the goods and services provided for in the contract; and (5) the total amount of 

disbursements under the contract did not exceed the total contract amount. 
3 

Agreed-Upon Procedures and Results 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) properly justified and obtained 

approval from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and 

Technology) for the non-competitive award of contract DACA63-03-D-0005. In 

addition, the goods and services received under the contract, and paid for with DFI funds, 

were the goods and services required under the contract. And the total amount of DFI 

fund disbursements did not exceed the total amount obligated for the contract. 

Non-Competitive Award Documentation and Price 

Reasonableness 

On March 8, 2003, the USACE Fort Worth District Contracting Division awarded a noncompetitive contract to KBR. This cost-plus award-fee (CPAF) indefinite-delivery 

indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, numbered DACA63-03-D-0005, was awarded by 

USACE, pursuant to United States Code, Title 10, Section 2304(c)(1), which allows noncompetitive contracting when only one responsible source is available and no other 

supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. 

Justification and Approval. Our review determined that prior to awarding the contract, 

USACE properly prepared and submitted its justification for the non-competitive 

contracting action. The accuracy and completeness of the justification was certified by 

the contracting officer. The justification specifically stated that the requirement was 

restricted to a sole source due to the necessity that a contract be immediately available to 

implement the Contingency Support Plan (CSP), in case armed conflict with Iraq 

occurred before a competition could be conducted. The execution of the CSP would see 

to the repair and continuity of operations of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. USACE 

emphasized that complete familiarity with the CSP and access to proprietary essential 

elements was necessary to maintain and implement the CSP. In addition, because the 

CSP was and remains classified, any other contractor would require substantial time to 

assure appropriate facilities and personnel clearances to enable their review of the CSP. 

KBR already had a cadre of individuals cleared for the plan’s classified aspects. As such, 

KBR, which developed the CSP under a previously competitively awarded contract, was 

the only contractor able to satisfy the requirements for immediate execution of the CSP. 

As required by United States Code, Title 41, Section 253, for contracting actions in 

excess of $50 million, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and 

Technology) approved the award of the sole source contract on February 28, 2003. 

Price Reasonableness. The Justification and Approval document for contract DACA63-

03-D-0005 contained a signed statement from the Contracting Officer that the contract 

was a CPAF/IDIQ contract and that costs would be continuously monitored to ensure that 

they were fair and reasonable and properly allocated. The process begins with the price 

proposal submitted by the contractor and continues through DCAA price proposal audit, 

task order definitization, and DCAA internal control audits. Final determination of fair 

and reasonable price is not made until the final incurred cost audit by DCAA. 
4 

DFI Funded Task Orders 

Ten task orders were issued under the CPAF/IDIQ contract DACA63-03-D-0005. 

Initially, the task orders were funded with U. S. Army Operations and Maintenance 

funds. However, beginning in September 2003, the PRB voted to fund some of the task 

orders with DFI funds. Task Orders 0001 through 0004 and part of task order 0005 were 

funded using U. S. Army Operations and Maintenance funds. Task Order 0005 was also 

funded with Iraqi seized and vested funds, as well as DFI funds. Task Orders 0006 

through 0010 were funded with DFI funds. From September 2003 to March 2004, the 

PRB voted to provide, on a reimbursable basis, nearly $1.4 billion in DFI funds for the 

procurement and distribution of fuel products and Iraqi oil infrastructure restoration. 

Task Order Supplies and Services. The statements of work for Task Orders 0005, and 

0007 through 0010 provide support for Iraq oil restoration and for fuel distribution. 

Specifically, these task orders required the repair of fuel products distribution systems, 

and the procurement, importation and distribution of refined products (liquid products) 

and gas products (mixtures of propane and butanes referred to as LPG) to meet the 

domestic demand for commercial and private use of fuel within Iraq. In addition, the 

contractor was to monitor fuel demand and availability as necessary to prevent localized 

or large-scale fuel shortfalls. 

The statement of work for Task Order 0006 provides for restoration of essential oil 

infrastructure. Specifically, the effort required was intended to support actions required 

to restore the pipeline crossing the Tigris River; install 50 kilometers of pipeline from 

Kirkuk to the Tigris River; and install emergency back-up generation capability at 

various locations. 

Transparency of Contracting Action and Related 

Disbursements 

The procedures for assessing transparency, which were previously agreed to by the 

Defense Reconstruction Support Office and the IAMB required that we obtain and 

examine authoritative receipt, invoicing, and disbursement documents related to DFIfunded contracting actions executed pursuant to this contract. See Appendix C for details 

on the agreed upon procedures. 

Receiving Reports. USACE did not use a Material Inspection and Receiving Report, 

form DD 250, when recording the receipt of goods and services on contract DACA63-03-

D-0005. Instead, an electronic receiving report was generated in the Corps of Engineers 

Financial Management System (CEFMS). 

According to the stateside Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), the assisting field 

ACO in Iraq did not have access to CEFMS. As such, when an invoice was received 

from the contractor, the stateside ACO would place a phone call to the field ACO, 

identify the invoice, and determine whether the goods or services were delivered. The 

field ACO, upon receiving a copy of the invoice, would confirm the receipt of goods or 

services. The ACO or other authorized USACE personnel would then sign-off on the 

receiving report in CEFMS. The field ACO maintained a daily log of work performed, 

and, in the case of the fuel procurement and distribution, he maintained an accounting of 

the amount of fuel received. 
5 

Our review of the receiving reports generated in CEFMS revealed that the amount of 

goods and services signed-off for in CEFMS matched the goods and services identified in 

the contract file. The goods and services received included the repair of fuel product 

distribution systems, the procurement and transportation of refined fuel products, the 

construction of a pipeline, and the installation of emergency back-up generation 

capability. 

Contractor Invoices. Invoices submitted by KBR did not contain descriptive 

information identifying the supplies and services rendered. Instead, the bulk of the line 

items contained in the invoices were subcontractor names and amounts owed. Attached 

to each invoice or group of invoices was a voucher signed and dated by a Defense 

Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) auditor approving “provisional payment subject to later 

audit.” The DoD Financial Management Regulation requires approval of invoices and 

vouchers for cost-plus fixed-fee or other reimbursement contracts by the ACO or his 

authorized representative, in this case, the DCAA auditor. We relied on the work of 

DCAA auditors in identifying supplies and services. 

The DCAA auditors used a six-step process to review and approve contractor invoices for 

provisional payment, one of which was the testing of subcontractor invoices to determine 

whether they support the contractor’s billed costs. In addition to the provisional approval 

of invoices, DCAA auditors reviewed contractor proposals, comparing costs to the scope 

of work. A DCAA supervisory auditor audited invoices for Task Orders 0005 and 0007 

through 0010 and verified that the invoices were for the procurement and distribution of 

fuel products. The DCAA supervisory auditor also reviewed the back-up data for the 

proposal for work under Task Order 0006, which involved reconstruction drilling for oil 

pipelines. 

Based on our review of the invoicing documents and our discussions with DCAA 

auditors concerning their provisional approval of contractor invoices, as well as our 

review of receiving reports, we determined that KBR submitted 91 invoices dated on or 

before April 30, 2005. We also determined that the goods and services identified in the 

invoices conformed to the goods and services identified in the receiving reports. 

Disbursements. Disbursements were made in accordance with contract terms except for 

two instances where late payments resulted in interest penalties. 

Our review determined that USACE made a total of 46 disbursements totaling nearly 

$1.2 billion on or before April 30, 2005. The disbursements included nearly $6 thousand 

in interest penalties. See Appendix F for disbursement details. 

The contract required payment on invoices by USACE to the contractor within 30 days of 

the invoice’s receipt. Task Order 0005 cited the 30-day payment requirement. However, 

payment terms were not defined for Task Orders 0006 through 0010. According to the 

ACO, USACE made a request to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and 

Procurement) for the endorsement of accelerated payment methods on contract DACA63-

03-D-0005, due to the shortened terms under KBR subcontracts for fuel delivery. On 

December 22, 2003, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and 

Procurement) issued a memorandum in response to USACE’s request for acceleration 

granting the Contracting Officer authority to make interim invoice payments within 

14 days of invoice receipt. In all but the two instances in which late payments resulted in 

interest penalty, USACE made disbursements in accordance with the required payment 

terms. 
6 

Our review and comparison of disbursement documents in CEFMS for task orders 0005 

through 0010 determined that the total amount of PRB-approved disbursements were 

made on or before April 30, 2005 for each task order and each disbursement was equal to 

or less than the authorized amounts identified in the funding documents. The following 

table shows the total disbursements made on or before April 30, 2005, as well as the 

funding by task order assigned by USACE. 

Task Order Disbursed on or Before 

April 30, 2005 

Total Funding 

0005 $478,918,294.32 $545,000,000.00 

0006 $187,005,803.90 $220,000,000.00 

0007 $277,500,711.89 $325,000,000.00 

0008 $153,000,000.00

0009 $55,080,000.01

0010 $17,337,655.37 $277,235,126.64 

Totals $1,168,842,465.49 $1,367,235,126.64

As seen in the table above, the PRB voted to provide, on a reimbursable basis, nearly 

$1.4 billion in DFI funds for the procurement and distribution of fuel products and the 

restoration of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. To support these efforts, USACE disbursed 

nearly $1.2 billion on or before April 30, 2005, pursuant to the task orders we reviewed. 

Recommendations

Because we did not identify any adverse findings, this report does not contain any 

recommendations. 
7 

Appendix A. Scope and Methodology 

We performed the agreed-upon procedures enumerated in Appendix C, which were 

requested by the Defense Reconstruction Support Office because a potential conflict of 

interest existed for the internationally-recognized accounting firm that the Defense 

Reconstruction Support Office engaged to perform an attestation engagement of all noncompetitively awarded contracts issued for the Coalition Provisional Authority using DFI 

funds with respect to contract DACA63-03-D-0005 awarded to Brown and Root 

Services, a division of KBR. 

The procedures we performed were agreed to by the Defense Reconstruction Support 

Office and the IAMB. We performed those procedures solely to assist in assessing 

whether disbursements of DFI funds for non-competitive contract DACA63-03-D-0005 

awarded to KBR, and funded by the DFI, was consistent with the transparency provision 

in paragraph 14 of UNSCR 1483 and whether there was sufficient documentation to 

justify the non-competitive award. 

The sufficiency of the agreed-upon procedures is solely the responsibility of the Defense 

Reconstruction Support Office and IAMB. Consequently, we make no representation 

regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described in Appendix C either for the 

purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. 

We performed attestation work at the USACE, Southwestern Division offices in Dallas, 

Texas to review applicable documentation and contract management procedures. We 

interviewed representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contracting Office and 

its Resource Management Office. We also conducted telephone interviews with 

representatives of the Defense Contract Audit Agency regarding contract auditing actions 

and procedures. 

We obtained read only access to the USACE’s CEFMS system to review receiving 

reports and disbursements made on Task Orders 0005 through 0010 of contract 

DACA63-06-D-0005. In addition, we obtained and reviewed Coalition Provisional 

Authority PRB service request and funding documents, identifying the type of service 

requested and the amount of Iraqi vested and DFI funds obligated, as well as a Funding 

Authorization Document identifying the amount of seized funds obligated. We also 

obtained and reviewed contractor submitted invoices dated between October 2003 and 

April 2005. 

We obtained and reviewed the following laws and regulations as they pertain to noncompetitive contracting and the use of DFI funds: 

• Title 41, United States Code, Section 253 

• UNSCR 1483 

• Coalition Provisional Authority Memorandum Number 4 

• Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 6 

• Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Part 206 

• Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, Volume 10 
8 

We conducted this agreed-upon procedures engagement from August through 

September 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards established by the United States Government Accountability Office for 

attestation engagements. 

Use of Computer-Processed Data. We relied on computer-processed data contained in 

the CEFMS. We tested the accuracy of the data we used from CEFMS by obtaining 

supporting documentation for a judgmental sample of the items. Our limited testing 

indicated that CEFMS data was accurate for our purposes. 
9 

Appendix B. Prior Audit Coverage 

Reports Involving DFI Funds Under Contract DACA63-03-D-0005. 

Our review of prior audit reports related to this attestation engagement of the use of DFI 

funds under Contract Number DACA63-03-D-0005 awarded by USACE to KBR 

identified reports issued by the: (1) Government Accountability Office (GAO); and 

(2) Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). The scope, procedures, and key findings of 

those reports are summarized below. 

Government Accountability Office. Reports can be accessed on its website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

GAO-04-605, “Rebuilding Iraq Fiscal Year 2003 Contract Award Procedures and 

Management Challenges,” June 1, 2004 

Scope: Review of reconstruction contracts funded, in whole or in part, with 

U.S. appropriated funds. 

Procedures: Focused review on high-dollar value contracts and task orders and on 

contracts using other than full and open competition. 

Key Findings: Agencies generally complied with applicable laws and regulations. 

The Army Corps of Engineers properly awarded a sole-source 

contract for rebuilding Iraq’s oil infrastructure to the only contractor 

DoD had determined was in a position to provide the services within 

the required time frame. The Army Corps of Engineers documented 

the rationale in a written justification and had the justification 

approved by the appropriate official. 

GAO-04-869T, “Contract Management Contracting for Iraq Reconstruction and 

Global Logistics Support,” June 15, 2004 

Scope: Testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House 

of Representatives by the Comptroller General of the United States. 

Procedures: Discussion of the above report (GAO-04-869T) and preliminary 

findings on the military’s use of global logistics support contracts. 

Key Findings: The contracting officer’s written justification for the sole-source 

contract to restore Iraq’s oil infrastructure outlined the rationale for 

the decision. The justification was approved by the Army’s senior 

procurement executive, as required. GAO reviewed the justification 

and approval documentation and determined that it generally 

complied with applicable legal standards. 

Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). DCAA offers a wide variety of 

products and services to contracting officers. The products and services include, but are 

not limited to: (1) audits of proposal costs to assist contracting officers in negotiating fair 
10 

and reasonable prices for contracts under consideration; (2) reviews of invoices for 

interim payments from contractors to assist the contracting officer in determining if they 

warrant provisional payment subject to subsequent audit; (3) audits of contractors 

internal control systems; and (4) upon completion of contracts, audits of the incurred 

costs reported by contractors. 

With respect to Task Orders 0005 through 0010, under contract DACA63-03-D-0005, 

Task Order 0005 was definitized on July 29, 2005. The other task orders have not yet 

been definitized. As a result DCAA has not yet issued reports on the costs incurred. 

However, DCAA has issued price proposal audits and financial analyses to assist the 

contracting officer in negotiating fair and reasonable prices for the task orders. DCAA 

has also reviewed vouchers submitted by KBR for work performed under Task Orders 

0005 through 0010. 

Price Proposal Audits and Financial Analyses. DCAA provided the USACE 

Contracting Officer 23 price proposal audits, revised or supplemental price proposal 

audits, and financial analyses. Revised price proposal reports were issued at the 

request of the Contracting Officer as he agreed to or directed task order revisions. 

Task Report 

Order DCAA Report Number Date Description 

5 3311-2004 K17 9000 55 10/8/04 Report on Audit of Proposal 

5 3311-2005 K21 0000 16 1/11/05 Report on Audit of Revised Proposal 

5 3311-2005 K21 0000 24 2/25/05 Report on Audit of Revised Proposal 

5 3311-2005 K21 0000 24-S1 4/16/05 Supplemental Report on Audit of Revised 

Proposal 

5 - - - - 5/26/05 Memo - Financial Analyses in Support of 

Delivery Order 05 

6 3311-2004 K21 0000 28 9/16/04 Report on Audit of Proposal 

6 2131-2004 R27 0000 02-S1 8/5/04 Supplement to Report on Assist Audit of 

Definitization Costs 

6 2131-2004 R27 0000 05 8/17/04 Report on Assist Audit of Sampled Items for 

Material Costs 

6 3311-2005 K21 0000 33 7/29/05 Report on Audit of Proposal 

7 3311-2004 K21 0000 07 9/17//04 Report on Audit of Proposal 

7 3311-2005 K21 0000 17 1/12/05 Report on Audit of Revised Proposal 

7 3311-2005 K21 0000 25 2/25/05 Report on Audit of Revised Proposal 

7 - - - - 6/29/05 Memo - Financial Analyses in Support of 

Delivery Order 07 

8 3311-2004 K21 0000 08 8/31/04 Report on Audit of Proposal 

8 3311-2005 K21 0000 18 1/19/05 Report on Audit of Revised Proposal 

8 3311-2005 K21 0000 26 2/25/05 Report on Audit of Revised Proposal 

8 - - - - 6/29/05 Memo - Financial Analyses in Support of 

Delivery Order 08 

9 3311-2004 K21 0000 11 8/30/04 Report on Audit of Proposal 

9 3311-2005 K21 0000 19 2/3/05 Report on Audit of Revised Proposal 

9 - - - - 6/29/05 Memo - Financial Analyses in Support of 

Delivery Order 09 
11 

Task Report 

Order DCAA Report Number Date Description 

10 3311-2004 K21 0000 12 8/31/04 Report on Audit of Proposal 

10 3311-2005 K21 0000 20 2/3/05 Report on Audit of Revised Proposal 

10 - - - - 6/29/05 Memo - Financial Analyses in Support of 

Delivery Order 10 

Scope: An examination of the KBR proposals and revised proposals to 

determine if the proposed costs were acceptable as a basis for the 

Contracting Officer to negotiate a fair and reasonable price. 

Procedures: Evaluation of the contractor’s internal controls; examination, on a test 

basis, of evidence supporting amounts in the contractor’s proposal; 

assessment of accounting principles used and significant estimates 

made by the contractor; evaluation of the overall proposal 

presentation; and use of technical specialist when needed. 

Key Findings: The price proposal audit reports included numerous comments on the 

details of price proposals submitted by KBR. As indicated in Table 1 

below, the latest versions of the price proposal audit reports at the 

time of our attestation engagement for Task Orders 0005 through 

0010 question in total $208,491,382 in costs proposed by KBR. The 

audit reports also include findings that: (1) the contractor’s proposals 

as submitted were not acceptable for negotiation of a fair and 

reasonable price; (2) supporting data for subcontract costs were not 

always adequate; and (3) proposals were not prepared in all respects 

in accordance with applicable Cost Accounting Standards and 

appropriate provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. 

Note: The DCAA Contract Audit Manual defines questioned costs as those 

amounts on which audit action has been completed and which DCAA auditors did 

not consider acceptable as contract costs. Because task order costs have not yet 

been definitized, questioned costs do not represent unallowable costs which 

USACE has accepted for payment. They are costs which KBR submitted with its 

proposal which DCAA is advising the contracting officer to consider as not 

acceptable. The contracting officer uses the DCAA audit conclusions in 

definitizing the contractor’s proposal. 

Table 1. Summary of Cost Questioned by DCAA 

Task 

Order DCAA Audit Report Number Report Date

DCAA 

Questioned 

Costs

 

5 3311-2005-K21-0000 24-S1 4/16/2005 $84,446,016

6 3311-2005-K21-0000 33 7/29/2005 $32,077,520

7 3311-2005-K21-0000 25 2/25/2005 $35,681,321

8 3311-2005-K21-0000 26 2/25/2005 $22,780,683

9 3311-2005-K21-0000 19 2/3/2005 $19,902,697

10 3311-2005-K21-0000 20 2/3/2005 $13,603,145

 

 Total $208,491,382
12 

Invoice Reviews. Though no audit reports were issued, DCAA also made limited 

reviews of invoices submitted by KBR and approved them for provisional payment 

subject to subsequent audit. Our review and discussions with DCAA auditors 

identified 91 invoices dated on or before April 30, 2005 that had been submitted by 

KBR for Task Orders 0005 through 0010. DCAA uses a six step process in 

reviewing contractor invoices for provisional payment: 

1. The math used on the invoice is checked. 

2. The indirect rates used are verified. 

3. Cumulative costs are compared to amounts in DCAA records. 

4. Cumulative invoice costs are verified to be within overall funding limits. 

5. The contractor’s job ledgers are tested to insure that invoiced costs do not 

exceed the job ledger amounts. 

6. A sample of transactions from larger invoices is tested to determine if 

subcontractor invoices support billed costs. 

Related Prior Reports Our review of prior audit reports also identified related 

reports addressing other than full and open competition for Iraq relief and 

reconstruction contracts that did not involve either the use of DFI funds, the 

USACE or KBR. Such reports were issued by: (1) SIGIR; (2) Department of 

Defense, Inspector General; (3) U.S. Agency for International Development, 

Inspector General; (4) Army Audit Agency; and (5) Klynveld Peat Marwick 

Goerdeler, Limited Liability Partnership (KPMG). We reviewed, but have not 

summarized those reports below. The government reports are available at the 

indicated website addresses. 

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Reports (formerly the Coalition 

Provisional Authority, Inspector General). Reports can be accessed on its website at 

http://www.sigir.mil. 

Report No. 04-005, “Award of Sector Design-Build Construction Contracts,” 

July 23, 2004 

Report No. 04-013, “Coalition Provisional Authority’s Contracting Processes 

Leading Up To and Including Contract Award,” July 27, 2004 

Department of Defense, Inspector General. Reports can be accessed on its website at 

http://www.dodig.mil. 

Report No. D-2004-057, “Acquisition Contracts Awarded for the Coalition 

Provisional Authority by the Defense Contracting Command-Washington,” March 

18, 2004 

U.S. Agency for International Development, Inspector General. Reports can be 

accessed on its website at http://www.usaid.gov/oig/public/public1.htm. 
13 

Report No. A-267-05-005P, “Audit of USAID’s Compliance with Federal 

Regulations in Awarding the Contract for Security Services in Iraq to Kroll 

Government Services International Inc.,” January 6, 2005 

Report No. A-000-04-004-P, “Audit of USAID’s Compliance with Federal 

Regulations in Awarding the Iraq Basic Education Phase II Contract,” 

September 23, 2004 

Report No. E-266-04-003-P, “Audit of USAID’s Compliance with Federal 

Regulations in Awarding the Iraq Phase II Reconstruction and Rehabilitation, 

Program Advisors and Oversight Contract,” August 6, 2004 

Report No. A-000-04-003-P, “Capping Report on the Audit of USAID’s Compliance 

with Federal Regulations in Awarding the Iraq Phase I Contracts,” May 19, 2004 

Army Audit Agency. Reports can be accessed on its website at 

https://www.aaa.army.mil/reports.htm. 

Audit Report A-2005-0194-ALA, “Program Management in Support of Iraq 

Reconstruction Project and Contracting Office, Washington, DC,” May 26, 2005 

Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler Limited Liability Partnership 

(KPMG). 

KPMG Report, “Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon 

Procedures to Documentation Justifying Non-Competitively Awarded Contracting 

Actions For the Period June 29, 2003 through June 28, 2004 

KPMG Report, “Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon 

Procedures to Documentation Related to Non-Competitively Awarded Contracting 

Actions For the Period June 29, 2003 through April 30, 2005 
14 

Appendix C. Agreed-Upon Procedures To Be 

Performed 

Procedures – Documentation of Non-Competitive Awards 

Documentation of Non-Competitive Award (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 

6 Criteria): 

Note: Applicable to contracts, non-competitively awarded by United States (U.S.) 

agencies other than the CPA. 

1. From applicable government entity, obtain contract files that were non-competitively 

awarded by U.S. agencies other than the CPA. Examine written evidence obtained 

from contract files and identify existence of the following items: 

a. U.S. government agency and/or contracting activity issuing the contract. 

Summarize the agency and/or contracting activity issuing the contract for each 

contract file in a supplemental reporting schedule. 

b. Description of supplies or services identified in the contract. Summarize 

description of supplies or services for each contract file in a supplemental reporting 

schedule. 

c. Citation to statutory authority permitting the non-competitive contracting action as 

referenced in FAR Part 6 Criteria. Summarize statutory citation and description for 

each contract file in a supplemental reporting schedule. 

d. Description of contractors’ unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition 

supporting the statutory authority cited in support of the non-competitive 

contracting action. Summarize description of qualifications for each contract file in 

a supplemental reporting schedule. 

e. Description of U.S. government agency efforts made to obtain multiple offers 

including listing of offerors that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition. 

f. Contracting officer explicit determination that the anticipated cost is fair and 

reasonable. 

g. Description of the market research conducted and the results or a statement of the 

reasons why market research was not conducted. 

h. Contracting officer certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the 

best of the contracting officer’s knowledge and belief. 

2. Obtain from the government entity awarding the contract (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers) a list of names of personnel authorized to approve non-competitive 

contracting actions in excess of $5 million. For each contract file obtained in 

Procedure 1, identify the name of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel 
15 

approving the non-competitive contracting action and agree the name to list of 

personnel authorized to approve noncompetitive contract actions in excess of 

$5 million provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Procedures – Transparency of Contracting Action and Related Disbursements 

1. Obtain related contract files and results of procedures performed regarding the 

documentation of non-competitive contract number DACA63-03-D-0005 awarded by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Kellogg, Brown, and Root Services, Inc and 

attach the supplemental reporting schedules included in that report to this agreed-upon 

procedures report. 

2. Obtain a list of Iraqi ministries from the Project and Contracting Office (PCO). For 

each contract file obtained in Procedure 1, identify the specific ministry for which 

goods or services were contracted and agree the identified ministry to the list provided 

by the PCO. Summarize the Iraqi ministry for each contract file in a supplemental 

reporting schedule. 

3. Obtain all authoritative receipt documents evidencing the receipt of goods or services 

(e.g. Form DD 250) for each contract file obtained in Procedure 1. For each receipt 

document, identify and examine evidence that each was dated on or before April 30, 

2005, and identify description of goods or services and delivery requirements and 

agree to the description of goods or services and delivery requirements included in the 

contract file (e.g., task order, contract, etc.). Summarize the description and delivery 

requirements for each contract file in a supplemental reporting schedule. 

4. Obtain all invoicing documents or other requests for payment for each contract file 

obtained in Procedure 1. For each invoicing document or other request for payment, 

identify and examine evidence that each was dated on or before April 30, 2005, and 

identify description of goods or services and agree to the description of goods or 

services identified on the authoritative receipt documents obtained in Procedure 3. 

5. Obtain all disbursement documents for each contract file obtained in Procedure 1. For 

each disbursement document, identify and examine evidence of payment terms and 

conditions and agree the payment terms and conditions included in the contract file 

(e.g., task order, contract, etc.) and assess whether disbursements were made in 

accordance with the payment terms and conditions identified in the contract files. 

6. Obtain list of personnel authorized to approve an invoicing document or other requests 

for payment from the government entity that awarded the contract. For each invoicing 

document or other requests for payment obtained in Procedure 4, examine evidence of 

an approving signature by a U.S. government official and agree the name of that 

official to the list of authorized personnel. 

7. For each disbursement document obtained in Procedure 5, identify and examine 

evidence that the disbursement was made on or before April 30, 2005. Agree amounts 

to be disbursed as evidenced on each disbursement document to the invoicing 

document or other request for payment obtained in Procedure 4. 
16 

8. For each contract file obtained in Procedure 1, compute the total amount of the 

disbursements evidenced on each disbursement document that was disbursed from the 

Development Fund for Iraq Disbursing Office on or before April 30, 2005, obtained in 

Procedure 5 and determine that the total amount of these disbursements for each 

contract file is equal to or less than authorized amounts identified in the contractual 

requirements contained in the contract file. 
17 

Appendix D. Summary of Agreed-Upon Procedure Results 

Summary of Contracting Actions and Findings 

Contracting 

Activity 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Fort 

Worth District, 

Fort Worth, Texas 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Fort 

Worth District, 

Fort Worth, Texas 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Fort 

Worth District, 

Fort Worth, Texas 

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Fort 

Worth District, 

Fort Worth, Texas 

U.S. Arm

of Engin

Worth D

Fort Wor

Task Order 0005 0006 0007 0008 00

Value $872,887,112 $213,238,847 $325,000,000 $180,000,000 $64,80

Scope of Work 

Assess and repair 

fuel product 

distribution systems 

and procure and 

transport refined 

products and gas 

products for 

commercial and 

private use within 

Iraq. 

Construct 50 

Kilometers of 

pipeline. Install 

emergency back-up 

generation 

capability. 

Assess and repair 

fuel product 

distribution systems 

and procure and 

transport refined 

products and gas 

products for 

commercial and 

private use within 

Iraq. 

Assess and repair 

fuel product 

distribution systems 

and procure and 

transport refined 

products and gas 

products for 

commercial and 

private use within 

Iraq. 

Assess a

fuel p

distributio

and proc

transpor

products 

produ

commer

private u

Ira

Iraqi Ministry for 

which Services 

were Contracted 

Agrees to Ministry 

Listed in 

Documentation 

No Exceptions 

Oil 

No Exceptions 

Oil 

No Exceptions 

Oil 

No Exceptions 

Oil 

No Exc

O
18 

Summary of Contracting Actions and Findings Continued 

Task Order 0005 0006 0007 0008 00

Dated on or before 

April 30, 2005 and 

Delivery 

Requirements on 

Receipt Documents 

and Contract File 

Agree No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exc

Dated on or before 

April 30, 2005 and 

Invoicing and 

Receipt Documents 

Agree No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exc

Payment Terms & 

Conditions on 

Disbursement 

Documents and 

Contract File 

Agree No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exc

Disbursements 

Made in 

Accordance with 

Terms and 

Conditions in 

Contract File No Exceptions 

Exception Noted: 

Interest Penalty 

for Late Payment No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exc
19 

Summary of Contracting Actions and Findings Continued 

Task Order 0005 0006 0007 0008 00

Approving 

Signature on 

Invoicing 

Document Agrees 

to Name of 

Individual on List 

of Authorized 

Personnel No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exc

Amounts to be 

Disbursed on 

Disbursement 

Document Agree to 

Amounts on 

Invoicing 

Documents No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exc

Total 

Disbursements 

Made Equal to or 

Less Than Amount 

Authorized in 

Contract No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exceptions No Exc
20 

Appendix E. Schedule of Non-Competitive Contract Justificati

Schedule of Non-Competitive Contract DACA63-03-D-0005 and Task Orders 0005 Through 0010 

Contract/Task Order 0005 0006 0007 0008 Contract Value $872,887,112 $213,238,847 $325,000,000 $180,000,000 $64Scope of Work 

Assess and repair 

fuel product 

distribution systems 

and procure and 

transport refined 

products and gas 

products for 

commercial and 

private use within 

Iraq. 

Construct 50 

Kilometers of 

pipeline. Install 

emergency back-up 

generation 

capability. 

Assess and repair 

fuel product 

distribution systems 

and procure and 

transport refined 

products and gas 

products for 

commercial and 

private use within 

Iraq. 

Assess and repair 

fuel product 

distribution systems 

and procure and 

transport refined 

products and gas 

products for 

commercial and 

private use within 

Iraq. 

Asses

fue

distribu

and p

transp

produ

pro

comm

private 

Existence of 

Documentation 

Justifying Reason for 

Non-competitive 

Contracting Action 

Yes - Included in 

Justification and 

Approval of Other 

Than Full or Open 

Competition 

Yes - Included in 

Justification and 

Approval of Other 

Than Full or Open 

Competition 

Yes - Included in 

Justification and 

Approval of Other 

Than Full or Open 

Competition 

Yes - Included in 

Justification and 

Approval of Other 

Than Full or Open 

Competition 

Yes - 

Justif

Appro

Than F

Com

Reason Justifying 

Non-competitive 

Contracting Action is 

in Agreement with the 

Former Coalition 

Provisional Authority 

Memorandum 4 

Criteria 

Only one 

responsible source 

and no other 

supplies or services 

will satisfy agency 

requirements. 

Only one 

responsible source 

and no other 

supplies or services 

will satisfy agency 

requirements. 

Only one 

responsible source 

and no other 

supplies or services 

will satisfy agency 

requirements. 

Only one 

responsible source 

and no other 

supplies or services 

will satisfy agency 

requirements. 

O

respon

and 

supplie

will sa

requ
21 

Contract/Task Order 0005 0006 0007 0008 

Existence of Evidence 

that Describes 

Circumstance(s) for 

Foregoing 

Competition 

Contractor 

previously 

developed a 

Contingency 

Support Plan (CSP) 

under a 

competitively 

awarded contract. 

This sole source 

contract would 

involve the 

implementation of 

the CSP, a classified 

plan. 

Contractor 

previously 

developed a 

Contingency 

Support Plan (CSP) 

under a 

competitively 

awarded contract. 

This sole source 

contract would 

involve the 

implementation of 

the CSP, a classified 

plan. 

Contractor 

previously 

developed a 

Contingency 

Support Plan (CSP) 

under a 

competitively 

awarded contract. 

This sole source 

contract would 

involve the 

implementation of 

the CSP, a classified 

plan. 

Contractor 

previously 

developed a 

Contingency 

Support Plan (CSP) 

under a 

competitively 

awarded contract. 

This sole source 

contract would 

involve the 

implementation of 

the CSP, a classified 

plan. 

Co

pre

dev

Con

Suppor

u

com

award

This s

contr

inv

implem

the CSP

Existence of a 

Description of Effort 

to Obtain Competition 

Yes - USACE 

conducted limited 

consultations with 

industry. 

Yes - USACE 

conducted limited 

consultations with 

industry. 

Yes - USACE 

conducted limited 

consultations with 

industry. 

Yes - USACE 

conducted limited 

consultations with 

industry. 

Yes 

condu

consul

in

Existence of 

Contracting Officer's 

Signature Evidencing 

Fair and Reasonable 

Price Determination Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Authorized Approval 

of Non-competitive 

Contracting Action Yes - Approved Yes - Approved Yes - Approved Yes - Approved Yes - 
22 

Appendix F. Schedule of Disbursements 

DFI Disbursements for Non-Competitive Contract DACA63-03-D-0005 Task Order 0005 

Task 

Order DFI Obligations 

Date of 

Payment 

DFI 

Disbursement 

Amount 

Support for Goods 

Received Invoice Number Inv

0005 25-Nov-03 $22,174,640.48 ACO Signature CEFMS 031034ut163 $3

 19-Dec-03 $66,568,971.44 

Contracting Officer 

Signature CEFMS 0311304ut166 $

 23-Dec-03 $53,508,452.23 ACO Signature CEFMS 0311304ut802 $ 05-Jan-04 $66,070,459.12 ACO Signature CEFMS 

0312304ut162 & 0312304ut802 $

 15-Jan-04 $53,392,471.58 ACO Signature CEFMS 0312304ut805 $ 28-Feb-04 $90,000,000.00 ACO Signature CEFMS 0401304ut162 $1 28-Feb-04 $16,584,629.54 ACO Signature CEFMS 0401304ut162-Split S 17-Feb-04 $33,026,815.66 ACO Signature CEFMS 0401304ut800 $ 02-Mar-04 $36,728,691.31 

Contracting Officer 

Signature CEFMS 0402304ut163016 $

 16-Mar-04 $25,431,285.74 ACO Signature CEFMS 0402304ut168-017 $ 19-Apr-04 $15,431,877.22 ACO Signature CEFMS 0403304ut801 $

Total Task Order 0005 $545,000,000.00 $478,918,294.32 $4

*DFI funds were used to pay only part of the total invoice costs. 
23 

DFI Disbursements for Non-Competitive Contract DACA63-03-D-0005 Task Order 0006 

Task 

Order DFI Obligations 

Date of 

Payment 

DFI 

Disbursement 

Amount 

Support for Goods 

Received Invoice Number Invoic

0006 01-Mar-04 $36,817,287.66 ACO Signature CEFMS 0402304ut162 $36

 16-Mar-04 $2,141,215.51 ACO Signature CEFMS 0402304ut171-002 $2 23-Mar-04 $18,069,444.37 ACO Signature CEFMS 0403304ut163-003 $18 19-Apr-04 $10,545,865.39 ACO Signature CEFMS 0403304ut804 $10 11-May-04 $1,243,699.42 ACO Signature CEFMS 0404304ut165 $1 26-May-04 $16,314,509.42 

Contracting Officer 

Signature CEFMS 

0405304ut164 & 0405304ut807 $16

 08-Jul-04 $18,748,390.21 ACO Signature CEFMS 0406304ut164-007 $18 28-Jul-04 $17,570,587.33 

Contracting Officer 

Signature CEFMS 0406304ut804-008 $17

 17-Aug-04 $2,816,926.82 ACO Signature CEFMS 

0407304ut803 & 804-009 $2

 08-Sep-04 $15,228,867.04 ACO Signature CEFMS 0408304ut173-010 $15 15-Oct-04 $5,809,706.06 ACO Signature CEFMS 

0409304ut184 & 802-011 $5

 03-Nov-04 $3,274,004.67 ACO Signature CEFMS 0410304ut161-012 $3 08-Dec-04 $2,918,533.90 

Authorizing Signature 

CEFMS 0411304ut161-013 $2

 06-Jan-05 $697,010.63 

Contracting Officer 

Signature CEFMS 

0412304ut161 & 0411304ut181 $

 10-Feb-05 $19,703,868.44 ACO Signature CEFMS 0501304ut161 & 176 $19 14-Mar-05 $15,105,887.03 ACO Signature CEFMS 0502304ut185,186,187 $15

Total Task Order 0006 $220,000,000.00 $187,005,803.90 $187
24 

DFI Disbursements for Non-Competitive Contract DACA63-03-D-0005 Task Orders 0007 and 0008

Task 

Order DFI Obligations 

Date of 

Payment 

DFI 

Disbursement 

Amount 

Support for Goods 

Received Invoice Number Invoi

0007 28-Jan-04 $80,757.97 ACO Signature CEFMS 0401304ut163 

 17-Feb-04 $22,235,468.10 ACO Signature CEFMS 0401304ut1801 $2 02-Mar-04 $38,037,829.85 

Contracting Officer 

Signature CEFMS 0402304ut164003 $3

 16-Mar-04 $99,434,278.18 ACO Signature CEFMS 0402304ut170-004 $9 23-Mar-04 $35,067,973.25 ACO Signature CEFMS 0403304ut162-005 $3 19-Apr-04 $82,644,404.54 ACO Signature CEFMS 0403304ut803 $8

Total Task Order 0007 $325,000,000.00 $277,500,711.89 $270008 12-Mar-04 $2,348,269.32 ACO Signature CEFMS 0402304ut169-001 $

 23-Mar-04 $51,951,071.04 ACO Signature CEFMS 0403304ut161-002 $5 19-Apr-04 $66,815,727.93 ACO Signature CEFMS 0403304ut802 $6 11-May-04 $7,316,667.97 ACO Signature CEFMS 0404304ut163 $ 26-May-04 $24,568,263.74 

Contracting Officer 

Signature CEFMS 

0405304ut162 & 0405304ut804 $2

Total Task Order 0008

See Combined 

Total at Task 

Order 0010 $153,000,000.00 $15
25 

DFI Disbursements for Non-Competitive Contract DACA63-03-D-0005 Task Orders 0009 and 0010

Task 

Order DFI Obligations 

Date of 

Payment 

DFI 

Disbursement 

Amount 

Support for Goods 

Received Invoice Number Invo

0009 18-Apr-04 $17,386,363.48 ACO Signature CEFMS 0403304ut807 $

 11-May-04 $28,320,315.03 ACO Signature CEFMS 0404304ut166 $ 26-May-04 $9,373,321.50 

Contracting Officer 

Signature CEFMS 

0405304ut165 & 0405304ut808 

Total Task Order 0009

See Combined 

Total at Task 

Order 0010 $55,080,000.01 $

0010 11-May-04 $7,304,275.77 ACO Signature CEFMS 0404304ut167 

 26-May-04 $6,084,552.50 

Contracting Officer 

Signature CEFMS 

0405304ut166 & 0405304ut809 

 20-Jul-04 $2,746,639.35 ACO Signature CEFMS 040604ut163-003  17-Aug-04 $1,183,233.21 

Contracting Officer 

Signature CEFMS 

0407307ut805 & 806-004 

 15-Oct-04 $18,954.54 ACO Signature CEFMS 

0409307ut182 & 800-005 

Total Task Order 0010 $17,337,655.37 $Total Task Orders 0008 to 0010 $277,235,126.64 $225,417,655.38 $2
26 

Appendix G. Acronyms 

ACO Administrative Contracting Officer 

CEFMS Corps of Engineers Financial Management System 

CPA Coalition Provisional Authority 

CPAF Cost Plus Award Fee 

CSP Contingency Support Plan 

DFI Development Fund for Iraq 

DCAA Defense Contract Audit Agency 

DoD Department of Defense 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

IAMB International Advisory and Monitoring Board 

IDIQ Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity 

KBR Kellogg, Brown, and Root Services, Inc. 

KPMG Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler Limited Liability Partnership 

PRB Program Review Board 

UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolution 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
27 

Appendix H. Report Distribution 

Department of State 

Secretary of State 

Senior Advisor to the Secretary and Coordinator for Iraq 

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq 

Director, Iraq Reconstruction Management Office 

Inspector General, Department of State 

Department of Defense 

Secretary of Defense 

Deputy Secretary of Defense 

Director, Defense Reconstruction Support Office 

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer 

 Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

 Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget) 

Inspector General, Department of Defense 

Department of the Army 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology 

Principal Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, 

Logistics, and Technology 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and Procurement) 

Director, Project and Contracting Office 

Commanding General, Joint Contracting Command – Iraq/Afghanistan 

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller 

Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

 Commander, Gulf Region Division 

Commander, Southwestern Division 

Auditor General of the Army 

U.S. Central Command

Commanding General, Multi-National Force – Iraq 

 Commanding General, Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq 

 Commander, Joint Area Support Group – Central 

Other Defense Organizations

Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency 
28 

Other Federal Government Organizations 

Director, Office of Management and Budget 

Comptroller General of the United States 

Inspector General, Department of the Treasury 

Inspector General, Department of Commerce 

Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services 

Inspector General, U.S. Agency for International Development 

Mission Director – Iraq, U.S. Agency for International Development 

Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and 

Ranking Minority Member 

U.S. Senate 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 

Senate Committee on Armed Services 

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism 

Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and 

International Security 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

U.S. House of Representatives 

House Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs 

Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies 

House Committee on Armed Services 

House Committee on Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Management, Finance and Accountability 

Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International 

Relations 

House Committee on International Relations 

Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia 
29 

Appendix I. Attestation Engagement Team 

Members 

The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, prepared this 

attestation engagement report. The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq 

Reconstruction staff members who contributed to the report include: 

Brian Flynn 

Lynne Champion