May 24, 2012

The RAT Board Begets the GAT Board - Who Could Ask for Anything More?

On June 13, 2011, the President issued Executive Order No. 13576, entitled “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government.” Citing

  • The need to “advance efforts to detect and remediate fraud, waste and abuse in Federal programs,” Section 3(a)
     
  • The desire to “eliminate wasteful, duplicative, or otherwise inefficient programs,” Section 1 and
     
  • The “innovative technologies and approaches for preventing and identifying fraud and abuse” that purportedly have been developed by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board under the Recovery Act (Id.), this most recent Executive Order creates – yes – a new board.
     

To complement the RAT Board that was spawned by the Recovery Act, we now have the Government Accountability and Transparency Board, the “GAT Board.” The function of the GAT Board will be to build “on the lessons learned from the successful implementation of the Recovery Act,” and in so doing the GAT Board will work with the RAT Board to apply the approaches developed by the RAT Board “across Government spending.

OK. Let’s review the bidding. We already have at least 109 Offices of Inspector General across the Government – 109!  We have OIG’s not only for the major departments and agencies, but such traditionally fraud-ridden instrumentalities as the National Science Foundation, the Denali Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the National Endowment for the Arts. That’s right – the National Endowment for the Arts. On top of these 109 institutionalized “junkyard dogs,” whose very raison d’être is to detect and remediate fraud, our Government has given us the following army of watchdogs, guardians, enforcers and informers: 

  • The Defense Contract Audit Agency
     
  • The Government Accountability Office
     
  • The above-mentioned RAT Board
     
  • The Cost Accounting Standards Board
     
  • The thousands of ACOs, PCOs, TCOs, contracting specialists, Program Directors, and SPOs who populate the contracting functions of our many procuring agencies
     
  • The finance and controller functions within each agency
     
  • Sarbanes-Oxley
     
  • The Department of Justice
     
  •  A nameless and faceless legion of would-be private attorneys general eager to retire on the bounty available under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act
     
  • A mandatory disclosure program that threatens contractors with suspension or debarment should they fail to haul themselves before Torquemada and the Inquisition at the first “credible” sign of impropriety

What does the creation of a new board to fulfill the same functions as those already assigned to those referenced mean? Does it signal an executive determination that these established institutions, offices, programs and personnel are “wasteful”? or “duplicative”? or “inefficient”? Will all or any part of this inefficient infrastructure be eliminated? Will it be downsized? Will the many OIG’s be eliminated, consolidated, or rationalized? Will one Government-wide audit function be created to provide for uniform rules, uniform interpretation of the rules, uniform educational standards and training requirements for auditors, and greater industry-wide predictability of result for everyone? Unless the answers to these and similar questions are uniformly and resoundingly in the affirmative, then the GAT Board is destined to be yet another duplicative oversight element in an inefficient and wasteful Governmental landscape. 

Do we really need another “board”? 
 

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Partner

John Chierichella is a partner in the Government Contracts and Regulated Industries Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

202-218-6878

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.