Questions arise when former officials start working for contractors that did business with the MacDill-based operation.
By PAUL DE LA GARZA and CATHY WOS
Published November 17, 2005
TAMPA - Air Force Gen. Charles R. Holland was running Special Operations Command in December 2001 when it ordered several spycraft from a California company.
The hand-launched drones, equipped with cameras, proved a hit with U.S. forces in Afghanistan. SOCom soon ordered a second batch of the unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs.
Six months after his retirement in November 2003, Holland went to work for AeroVironment Inc., the same company that sold the UAVs.
Holland's case highlights the often cozy relationship between the military and the defense industry.
Questions about Holland's multimillion-dollar dealings with AeroVironment surfaced last month in an anonymous letter sent to the Pentagon.
The letter also alleged corruption in defense contracts at SOCom, which is based at MacDill Air Force Base. The letter has led to inquiries by the FBI and the Pentagon's inspector general.
SOCom and AeroVironment defend Holland's hiring, pointing to an impeccable military career.
Government watchdogs aren't so sure.
"That sounds like an egregious abuse, certainly of the spirit of the revolving-door policy," said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a public-interest watchdog in Washington.
The anonymous letter made other allegations.
It claimed current SOCom commander Army Gen. Bryan "Doug" Brown ordered that SOCom form a special UAV office "to make it easier for his buddy, Gen. Holland, to do business at USSOCOM."
Holland, 59, did not respond to several requests for comment, and Brown has dismissed the allegations as baseless.
In an e-mail to the St. Petersburg Times, AeroVironment said it did nothing wrong.
The company continues to do business with SOCom.
In fact, on Feb. 6, 2004, while Holland was between jobs, SOCom awarded AeroVironment a third contract. Two more followed in 2005.
The company now has more than $25-million in UAV contracts with SOCom.
* * *
Over the summer, defense contractor Aerospace Integration Corp. announced that its board of advisers had added Holland and another former SOCom official.
"The Board," the Florida-based company said in a news release, "will be responsible for expanding and facilitating AIC's long-range strategic development and strengthening the company's existing relationships within the U.S. Special Operations Command."
Working for a defense contractor after a military career is neither new nor illegal.
Another former SOCom commander, retired Gen. Wayne Downing, is on the board of Metal Storm Limited, an Australia-based defense contractor.
And before Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brought him out of retirement to become Army chief of staff, former SoCom chief Gen. Peter Schoomaker also worked as a defense consultant.
The practice is governed by federal law, with government workers banned from lobbying their former employer for a year after they leave public service.
In the case of Holland, AeroVironment said it got clearance from the federal government before hiring him.
But critics say it is difficult to keep track of employment practices within the defense industry.
The anonymous letter, for example, claimed that a SOCom employee who awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to Boeing Co. later went to work for the company.
Boeing declined comment.
Congress wants to rectify the problem by requiring defense companies that get contracts of $10-million or more to disclose the names of former Pentagon officials on their payrolls.
The Pentagon has balked, saying it would be a burden on defense contractors and discourage them from hiring qualified military personnel.
Holman, of Public Citizen, said the Pentagon position is distressing in light of recent contract scandals involving defense contractors.
"It tells me that there is a self-serving relationship going on between the Pentagon and the defense industry," Holman said.
* * *
As the military command that oversees the nation's elite commandos, SOCom is shrouded in secrecy.
Identifying companies that have been awarded contracts is not easy.
"We don't even know most of the contractors," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington, a government watchdog group.
A separate bribery investigation under way at SOCom illustrates his point.
A private contractor at SOCom pleaded guilty last month to taking bribes. In exchange, a federal indictment says, the contractor gave favorable assessments of companies competing for SOCom contracts.
Federal investigators have identified the companies but have not made the list public.
In the lucrative world of defense contracts, SOCom is unique.
Unlike other military commands, it is charged by law to develop and buy the equipment used to arm its forces.
Its procurement budget in fiscal year 2005 was $1.8-billion.
Ashdown says the reason SOCom is running into legal problems with contracts is because its budget has nearly doubled since 9/11. As it has taken the lead in the war on terror, Ashdown said, SOCom is flush with money and doesn't have the resources to manage it.
"They're like the big man on campus," he said.
SOCom spokesman Col. Samuel Taylor disagreed. He said SOCom has a procurement process with strict checks and balances.
He also sought to distance the SOCom commander from the contract process.
While the commander is responsible for all SOCom business, he said, only authorized officers can sign contracts.
Taylor said the commander spells out which weapons special operations forces need, but other staff members ultimately decide which companies get the job.
In a statement to the Times, SOCom said:
"The Commander does not approve, coordinate on, nor influence in any way, the selection of a company to which a contract is awarded.
"This decision is made by a warranted contracting officer specifically trained and certified under the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act. It is (Pentagon) policy to protect contracting officers from undue influence when carrying out their responsibilities."
In the case of Gen. Holland, the public record suggests he would have known about the business ties between SOCom and AeroVironment.
A week after Holland joined AeroVironment, a press release from the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center, outlined the development of the company's new UAV, known as Raven.
According to the Army, Raven was developed through a partnership that included the Soldier Systems Center, AeroVironment and SOCom.
