Northrop Grumman seeks to soften criticisms in report
File / Northrop Grumman
A view inside the Northrop Grumman Corp. information center in southeastern Chesterfield County.
Published: October 17, 2009
|
MORE • VITA - Catch up on the controversy surrounding the Virginia Information Technology Agency and its computer contract with Northrop Grumman. |
Lobbyists and executives for Northrop Grumman are quietly pressing General Assembly investigators to soften a report that was sharply critical of the company for failing to deliver computer services to the state on time.
Northrop Grumman representatives met privately yesterday for more than two hours with staff members of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission to discuss possible revisions in JLARC's findings.
Multiple sources said Northrop Grumman, which publicly has declared the JLARC report largely one-sided, is arguing for revisions to the document, some of them technical.
Northrop Grumman was told, these sources said, that it would have to submit documentation to JLARC and its claims would be have to be confirmed by the entity for which the company works, the Virginia Information Technologies Agency.
It is not unprecedented for JLARC to modify its findings, though changes typically are limited to data and do not augur a shift in the conclusions of the General Assembly watchdog panel.
Northrop Grumman initiated yesterday's session in response to criticism by JLARC that it had resisted requests for information and not cooperated fully with investigators.
JLARC's director, Philip A. Leone, this week asked Northrop Grumman for its assistance in the next phase of the commission's inquiry -- due in December -- into the company's 10-year, $2.3 billion contract with the state for information-technology services.
Leone said of yesterday's session, "It was a constructive meeting, and they promised that they would abide by the commission's request that they cooperate throughout the study."
Northrop Grumman spokeswoman Christy Whitman said the company was accommodating JLARC. "This morning was the first of those meetings for an ongoing study," Whitman said in an e-mail.
While the JLARC study was sharply critical of Northrop Grumman and VITA, it said the largest single reason for the delay in completing the transition to a privately run IT network was poor planning by the company.
JLARC privately briefed company executives and lobbyists on its conclusions in advance of the report's release. Such sessions are customary -- another opportunity for the commission to verify its findings.
Before the report was made public officially, Northrop Grumman sent an e-mail to legislators saying JLARC had rehashed previously disclosed problems and failed to acknowledge improvements.
Among those attending yesterday's meeting was Ashley Colvin, JLARC's lead investigator on the VITA-Northrop Grumman contract; Carol Schmitt, a contracts specialist for the company; Michael King, an overseer of Northrop Grumman's IT business; and Robert Baratta, a Republican lobbyist hired by Northrop Grumman.
Contact Jeff E. Schapiro at (804) 649-6814 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
If the Commonwealth initiates “disentanglement”—it is possible NG will discontinue the use of THEIR hardware and software-NG owns the Commonwealth IT infrastructure—I doubt the Commonwealth IT leaders have even thought about how to begin to rebuild. NG owns US!
if the state is fighting NG to end this contract I will know how my raise is being used. Otherwise my raise will go to NG’s profits.
This effort by NG is just a classic red-herring business tactic. The correct strategy for dealing with this kind of stonewalling is to simply focus on the basics of the case. Did NG meet their contractual obligation? NO! Therefore, do not pass go, do not collect $400 MILLION dollars. The state needs to hire a team of lawyers and duke it out with NG over that money. Wars have been fought over smaller amounts of money and we should be prepared for a fight, but we should fight like tigers to void our contract with NG and recoup the taxpayers’ money.
Wow - so NG is attempting to manipulate an audit report (from an audit that they refused to cooperate with).
This is corruption pure and simple. This kind of activity should cause the contract to be terminated immediately and trigger sanctions for NG.
Hiring a marketing firm and billing the state for it and for it’s own lawyer fees is bad enough. These guys are raiding the treasury.
JLARC is good at smacking the agencies around but where was JLARC when this mess was getting started? Bring back the JLARC
from the 70’s & 80’s that JLARC kick every in the butt.
Looks like Mr Schapiro isn’t given the public a straight scoop.
Ashley thanks for being so honest and pointing out just how slanted this perspective is.
If this isn’t bad enough, keep in mind, folks, that McDonnell says he will press for MORE of these “public / private” disasters. A clear case of government for sale to the highest bidder.
Sure change the report, then go back and say look we did nothing wrong, we need this and this to help Virginia get the best possible network, we know we under bid the whole thing but hey Virginia has lots of money and you know (we do to) VA does not have the $400 million to get out of the contract, so just pony up the money. There is a reason they call it State Govt., it is run by the State Govt and not by private sector. If the State Govt attempted this with the private sector they would go to court. Why are the citizens of VA not voicing a louder objection to all this?
....agree with all these comments. The article makes it clear, as subtext, why Virginia is so “business friendly.“ Just have your lobbyist at a business meeting between a vendor and government officials, like NG had at this meeting. And please, someone follow the money…..Virginia has, as recently documented, one of the worst disclosure set of laws in the country when it comes to what our elected officials receive, and what business they themselves do with the state on behalf of companies….we have basically legalized corruption in this state…...
Ashley Colvin wrote “Third, you are right that we briefed NG before the report was released but (in keeping with what I said above) we also briefed VITA. This is our validation process, and it’s been routine for 30 years.“
seems a Lot of meetings in the last 30 years have been “private” and a lot of what passes for Business within this taxpayer funded entity has been “private” and a good many things have been “routine” for the last 30 years.
Maybe its time to break from the “routine” and start making the business of public funded entities PUBLIC again.
Seems a whole lot of stuff happens behind the doors of “private” meetings, discussing public business that the public, who is footing the bills doesn’t find out about until it’s too late to do anything about it.
Sounds like many of these companies and public officials are using these public agencies as private piggy-banks via one-sided contracts, very business friendly favorable oversight, and a lack of interest in defending the public’s interests.
Too bad the Times Dispatch didn’t publish a listing of politicians involved in this contract who receive contributions of any kind from Northrup Grumman and it’s subsidies - Heck they should publish a listing of all politicians who receive contributions from ANY contractor doing business with the state -especially VDOT.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement