Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20240622

Notified the congress that they needed additional funds because the threat required over head cover for their temporary facilities. In 200 they contracted for temporary buildings that did not specify the need for overhead cover. Let me give an opportunity for miss muniz from your perspective on that question of not accepting all the standards and where youre at now. Sir the recommendation to have different standards for temporary structures has struck us as strange. We try there are different facilities . Well, the problem is that invariably when i have seen standards for temporary structures or interim facilities, its a lowering of the standard. What im afraid of is that we will by virtue of the fact that you a trailer is a trailer we will have lower levels of Security Standards for them, rather than striving to meet the real standard. An example is that for many years, all we had was construction trailers. Over the last several years we developed a heavily armored trailer that we can now ship into places and were using them in adana and it allows us to closely meet the real permanent standard. Its our goal to meet the permanent standards to the extent we can, and not water down the standards and have lower level Security Standards. Miss muniz, i dont want to cut you off. I would assume that in 2009 state acknowledges personnel should be housed in permanent facilities were dealing with reality, i understand. Our concerns are the basis of the questioning of how this has been a cost overrun we have a large number of american personnel using temporary facilities in kabul i just i appreciate the answers that you want to go and strive toward a more permanent level, these are not permanent, though they seem to be existing an awful long time i guess ive heard your answer that you dont plan to develop standards for temporary house ing housing my time has expired, the biggest question is, how do we finish this project complete it it, complete it on time and make sure it meets the standards necessary. I yield back. Do either of you want to respond to that . The overuse of temporary facilities is the deep concern. Mr. Chairman, at the time the department and the administration we had no choice but to use temporary facilities. At the particular start of that period in 2009 and 2010. Some of the threats we were facing are not the same types of threats we were facing today. We had other buildings built around us in the meantime that grew in height that presented a different type of threat. Once we saw that. We started surrounding our buildings with cement walls and sandbags. We had not been subject to incoming fire. Either mortars or rockets and even today, its a very, very infrequent type of attack, infrequent or not, we have taken the Counter Measures now by putting overhead cover on our temporary facilities, building walls around them. Putting bunkers in making sure we have a radar system thats a duck and cover warning system. I think it goes to the point that we have to serve in certain places and we have to take certain risks. I understand that we had a surge, we had to go in with trailer type of housing units, and in some cases offices. We modified those the best we can to actually try to mimic our permanent standards, give them set back, give them bullet resistance. We make sure that we do everything we can. At a certain point we have no choice but to use temporary structures, while were awaiting the permanent structures to be completed. Thats not true. That was born out in these reports, i go to great specificity, probably not in this classified setting, but for you to suggest that youve done all those things in afghanistan that aint true, that is not true. We try to do that as best we possibly can. But you didnt. I beg to differ, if we can get these two, the gao, the Inspector General, myself and you, whoever wants to be in that, that is not true, ill show it to you they have pictures and i, thats the concern. May i just follow up and say, this goes to a bigger policy, and thats the whole afghan policy, that were leaving state department in a situation like this, without a significant policy on how to win and secure afghanistan. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentle woman from new jersey for five minutes opinion. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you for your indulgence in the time allotted to get through some of these interesting questions. And thank you to the panel. What is the condition of the wall, the wall that was the subject of the report that i read last night . Is it complete . What is the portion thats left . Ill take the first part of that question, and then turn to my colleague. That wall is currently in design and will be executed in the context of the larger construction contract. I appreciate the question because the issue of the request for modifications to the wall came up in the i. G. Report, and the question about why this couldnt be done meetly. I think the committee, and folks need to understand that we have an active construction project that included construction of a wall. I understand. In the context of the larger project. Those modifications will be made in that context. The wall was very significant in keeping those within the walls safe and secure . So absent having that wall. Im new, i have not been there. What is keeping that facility and that compound safe. There is a wall, there are barriers that are 11 12, 13 feet high, there is no area around our facility that does not have a wall. They were interim types of security measures that were put in place. Does that mean theyre easily compromised . Not easily compromised at all, congresswoman, but we believe there are newer technologies and better types of technologies available today than those walls. Thank you. I appreciate the two of you speaking to me first. I have a question for both of you. What is the role of the overseas building operations with an emphasis on Construction Projects . Obo is the Real Property manager for the u. S. Department of state for all of our facilities overseas. So we design, we build, we buy, we lease we sell. And obviously construction is in our realm of responsibility. We execute that construction based on two important factors. One is the number of desks or beds. The people that are going to be in that facility. Thats a departmental decision thats made outside of obo. The second piece of it, we worked closely with our colleagues in Diplomatic Security to understand the security situation and make sure that any building we develop meets all the Security Standards they require. Thank you. What is your overall responsibility responsibility . I am the assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security. I advise others on the levels of security we must have and maintain, under me i have an organization that is a Security Organization and Law Enforcement organization responsible for password visa fraud violations other types of violations and security personnel domestically and abroad. With regard to Security Issues that who has the final say in doing this, this is going to secure these facilities that are being built . Is it obo or is it you . Who breaks that tie if there is a disagreement . If theres a disagreement, i would say, i win. You win . Okay. So my understanding is from the i. G. s report, theres been this sort of tension between obo and your entity. Where are we on this. I understand theres been a senior Level Study Group or senior Level Task Force to put in place. What does that mean, how does it work . And how is it working . Well divide that question up. The tension you describe is a natural tension. The obo project managers on the ground are trying to execute a project which has been agreed to with all of the party sies to the tion of a billion dollar project changes are recommended throughout. The teams have to work very closely together to understand the impacts of those changes. The impacts of those changes will have on the execution, the cost and the schedule of the long term project. I would say the working level theres tension because on the other side theyre thinking this is what we need, just do it now on the obo side were thinking we have a big project to execute, lets figure out how we make this work in the larger project, and make sure we have the prioritization agreed to the working groups that you refer to and the higher level perk lace is that those things are really worked out and decided at the higher level, if we see things not moving forward or obviously urgent security requirements that need resolution, there isnt perfect clarity about which we should do, which we shouldnt do and when, thats when i sit down with assistant secretary starr where one of my principle deputies sits with his colleague and we work these things out. May i ask the time of the gentle lady has expired. May i the time of the gentle lady has expired. Well go now to mr. Disantis. While i have you here im concerned about the state Department Proposal to build their own Training Facility in fort picket in blackstone, virginia. I want to know, they serve 91 different agencies. Why is that not sufficient for the state Department Security service. Weve studied over 90 places to do the training we want. Its an excellent facility. We train our agents there in criminal investigations. But it is a Law Enforcement Training Facility, it does not use the type of weapons that we use, it does not have the capacity for the number of people, the Foreign Service officers we want to train. They expressed their willingness to make those accommodations, correct . They said they would build driving courses. Mock embassies, state department have primary control over that theres an acknowledgement that that would need to be done, that could be done at half the cost of what youre proposing to spend to have a facility in blacks burg, virginia. Season the that the case . No, sir, we dont we dont believe that the costs to build are significantly different than our costs. What you believe is what we produced are two different things. Me and people on the committee who are concerned about the state department being good stewards of the state department dollars, i think we see a cost discrepancy. We disagree with that, but we see its there. So you were going to continue . We theres a gao report coming out that will talk to the numbers that we have put down and how theyve been carefully verified, and the fact that the numbers have not been so quite as carefully verified. More importantly sir, its also a question that we need something in this area were going to be moving thousands of people a year to training. We believe that the ft. Picket site, which is a military base, which can take the type of weaponry we are required to use as was seen in our consulate in harat, is not the types of training we do. Our training has come to the point that the we are much more closely aligned with the military with what we need to do than Law Enforcement. We believe that ft. Picket is certainly the better answer. Why being close to washington the other agencies would like to have people close, they go to georgia. Why couldnt people train in georgia if you had what you needed. That wouldnt be a big deal to put people on a plane, do the Training Course and come back. Theyre not commuting from the state department to ft. Bickett on a daily basis theyre going to be there, do the training and be back, right . Sir, the training is for Foreign Service officers. Foreign security entities that were training many studies have shown we need a coordinated consolidated training site. Most importantly, it allows us to train with our partners, such as the u. S. Marine core in quantico, and do the types of training we need jointly together, theyre going to have a difficult time getting down to georgia, to do the types of training exercises, and fletsy does not currently on their space, theyve acknowledged this, they cannot handle the type of weapons that we use theyre looking at getting another military facility that we would also have to go to in order to use the weapon ss. We can that wouldnt be worth doing if it would save a couple hundred Million Dollars for the taxpayer . I would suggest looking at the gao study. We dont believe that what is the cost the cost that the state department provided about how much this will cost has fluctuated a great deal. So what would be the cost of the taxpayer for ft. Picket . 413 million. Thats its gone from 460, 907, 950, now were back down to there. And how long has that been the estimate . Independent estimates conducted by gsa have brought it in at 413 million. Well, were going to be conducting oversight over this because i think theres been examples. There were several billion dollars of state department not accounted for during secretary clintons tenure, we want to make sure were getting bang for the buck. Im out of time and i yield back. Well now recognize the gentle woman from the virgin islands. Thanks. I had a question about the surge and the military civilian personnel, and the need that that created for Immediate Office space in the time that we were having the surge. I know this presented a challenge for the state department requiring the necessary amount of space to be built quickly, safely, not doing the overruns, and the mistake that was made in iraq. Where we had this huge compound that was built and we immediately downsized the number of personnel that were there and in that instance we would be having a hearing about cost overruns. In this instance, were having a hearing about Something Else potentially. Do you agree the state department needed to be careful in not overplanning for the Kabul Embassy . I would agree with that, but i would argue that we have been careful not to overbuild and in the end we will not have overbuilt overbuilt. And why is that . Because we will have built to the number of desks and bets, the requirements that we need. So unlike most embassies around the world in afghanistan, most u. S. Embassy employees not only work the compound but they live there, right . So all the support services that we take for granted on a daily basis here in the United States must be provided on the Embassy Compound as well in order to support the employees that have to remain in that compound correct . Thats absolutely right whether its dining cleaning facilities, everything that you would do in a small city is done essentially on the same compound. Okay, and to meet the increase requirement, you have the temporary facilities, correct . Correct. And what burn fits do those temporary facilities provide . My sense is, does it i would think it would help you to plan for the permanent you have something in which people are living in, functioning in on a temporary basis so you can accurately plan for the permanent structure. I think thats right but i think fundamentally, it provides facilities in which all of the staff can live and work until the permanent facilities are done. And id like to hear from some of the other witnesses if they think that thats correct or not correct. Mr. Galino. Yes i do believe thats correct. Mr. Starr. Yes, i think it gives us an idea of whether or not we can support the platform. I would say that we dont get the efficiencies out of the temporary structures that we can get out of our permanently built structures, thats one of the things i think obo factors into what theyre planning. And in building the permanent structures, to house all of the additional personnel and planning that properly, was using the temporary facilities a mistake . I would argue it wasnt an option not to use those temporary facilities. Based on National Security priorities, the u. S. Government needed to be in afghanistan at the levels in which the administration had agreed on the date they agreed to have them if . The use of temporary facilities was an inescapable fact. The second priority was continue to build the permanent facilities as quickly as possible. Those were the two things we were doing. And so the express concern by gao and ig regarding the use of the temporary facilities, you would say what to that . I think we all have concerns about using temporary facilities as director muniz has said when faced with the situation we need to surge people, it was our choice i think we all have concerns about the length of time we use temporary facilities. This particular project, because we were building on the same site was very complex. The challenge is to build a temporary facility, but to move quickly into the permanent ones at the right period of time . In the challenged environment in which you are in afghanistan . Exactly. Okay, thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. We will recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. Carter for five minutes. Ill start with you in the planning projects such as this on this scale, are value engineering studies important . Yes, they are. Thats a established plan the government use ss. Its required by omb. It is required by omb . It is yeah. Okay. Let me ask you. Value engineering studies are sometimes referred to as Cost Containment studies. Thats what theyre intended to do contain costs and make as sure as we can that we dont have cost overruns correct . Thats correct. Its my understanding that the department didnt follow Cost Containment policies in this project, is that correct . Mr. Star . I think director muniz would have a better understanding of that. Certain ones were done, certain ones may not have been. Im the director of obo. I understand and congratulations. Were responsible for conducting the value engineering studies. As i mentioned in my testimony, we conduct those that are valuable, we did not conduct it in the 2009 project. You agree they are valuable . Yes, okay. Thank you, thank you. Mr. Starr, can i get back to you. My colleague from florida earlier talked about the the proposed facility being built in virginia. Instead of being built instead of utilizing the facilities that already exist in georgia, is that correct . Yes, sir, congressman. I want to ask xray, yes, sir. I do feel duty bound to say we were brought up to discuss afghanistan. I understand that, but what were brought up to discuss is the cost overruns. More importantly, thats what were interested in. When youre in the hole, you stop digging, were in a hole here and we need to stop digging. We dont need to let happen what has already happened before. We want to learn from our experiences. Now, you said earlier that the cost of this facility would be 413 million if it were built in 2014 . Thats correct. Originally it was set at 950 million. How did it get down to 413 million. The department of state started this project looking at a hard skills training site only. At some point the Department Also asked a question, should we, instead of just using it for hard skills, combine all Security Training soft and hard skills . Gsa was asked to look at that and gsa told us that in order to do both it would cost about 90 million or more. We went back after that and said, thats not supportable, we dont require the co location of hard and soft skills, and when we went back to gsa and said concentrate solely on the hard skills Security Training thats when the costs were revised and shows its now 413 million. Its been said that the greatest threat to our National Security is our National Debt and i believe that to be true and im very concerned about that to say youre not here to discuss this but kabul. Well were here to discuss cost overruns and the waste of taxpayers money. Theres no better example of this. You have a facility that trains over 91 agencies. But yet youre saying that you have to have one of your own that you cant utilize this. Im having trouble understanding this when fletsy says they can do if at half the cost. We dont believe they can do it at half the cost. Most of every one of those facilities has additional hard skills, higher skills training facilities. The secret service has its own Training Facility. The air marshalls have higher skills, Training Centers, the u. S. Marshalls have higher skilled Training Centers than whats offered at fletsy. You believe that you can spend 416 million and build another facility yet we already have one thats available. Is there a report by omb . Theres not a report that i am aware. Can you provide me with a report . The gao report is coming out very soon. Will there be a report for omb . Im not omb, sir, i cant tell you that . Would you work with me to request a report from omb . Sir i think the department the administration has made its decision. We have made a decision that it is in the best interest of all of us to move ahead with fort bickett. Omb has responded to Congress Several times that im aware of. Request for omb would have to come mr. Starr, im not going to accept that, im going to tell you im going to continue to fight this, i think youre wasting taxpayers money you have a fine facility that can be utilized without building another, and without wasting taxpayers money like the state department has done time and time again. I do not want to ever waste taxpayer money sir. I think the upcoming report will show this is not a waste of funding. We have to build 90 of the facilities we would have to build in georgia, as well as ft. Picket. Georgia does not have the facilities that we need. But they have proven. And they have said and they have shown that they can do that at a lower cost. No, sir, they have not. And i think that outcoming gao report will show that. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield the remainedder of my time. Interesting topic and well follow up on that we now recognize Miss Lawrence for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Ambassador hayes according to the 2014 report, he just billed the government without required documentation and adequate invoices. What steps has the state department taken to ensure that the administration and logistic issues are addressed before the issuance of new contracting program. And how long does it take to identify and erectify these discrepancies. That was an audit report that was not on the team. I cant speak to the findsings of the team. I certainly can get back to you through our legislative assistant. And give you the information you require. You have read the audit . I have not read that audit, no. Who reads the audit once its issued . The senior staff of the oig. Individual teams dont necessarily read each others audits unless theyre conducting an inspection of that specific area. Ambassador let me go to a statement that you said and hopefully youll be aware of this this. You highlight in your statement the Diplomatic Security and overseas building operations, this this conclusion, what are the best practice ss you can share with me to best manage these multiple projects and the lack of Space Available to complete them . Well there were two recommendations that we made in our inspection report one was in the classified and the other was in the unclassified. We needed a dynamic master plan, and we raised that in our report and we raised it with director muniz. The second was that they put together a management Oversight Team between the senior staff of obo and ds. To the best of my knowledge, they have done the latter and director muniz has said what shes done on the first issue. If i could add on the master planning, i would like to clarify a point that was brought up earlier the fact that the recommendation remained open we have a master plan for kabul. The recommendation is still open because we are waiting for funding approval from congress. We notified the oig of that fact in april of this year, the plan is complete, but the execution of the plan will not be approved until we receive that approval from congress. I wanted to clarify on that issue. Thank you for that. I want to go back to you, director lindis, right . I want a sense of assurance of there has been, and you must admit, some concern about the operations of the past. Moving forward are you positioned in power about these documentations, master planning. Thats a concern we can talk about what happened in the past. What im packate about right now, is in your role and youve identified a couple times you are the director and you have this responsibility. Where do you see us correcting these things of the past . And you cant just keep doing the same things and expect different results. I want you on the record saying as the director, how are you going to correct these concerns that we have . Thank you for the question. I think that we have very strong master planning programs, i argued that we have planned designed and built on those master plans in kabul. In these environments that are ever changing, we have to have a different approach, and we do have a different approach. We cant develop a master plan at the beginning of a project that was awarded in 2009 and expect that master plan remains static. What we are building in kabul is what we need and we have requirements that reflect later phases of a master plan. I think we have in place the planning mechanisms and the budgeting mechanisms to let Congress Know the direction that were going in. In such a kinetic environment, which is unusual. Thank you, and i yield back. Before she yields back. Earlier, the director had agreed to give us the original plan, and then the most updated plan. Whats a reasonable time you can provide those to us. Lets get back to you after this. Those plans exist, we could get it to our folks in the department, to get those to the committee, i know theres a long cue of documents making their way to you. But we will try to get those to as quickly as possible. We can walk you through the entire master plan. That would be great. At what im trying to look for a specific date. At what point do we say, hey youre not fulfilling what you said you would do. Weve had these challenges in the past. Im trying to get you to agree to some sort of a date. You pick it, but i want it to be somewhat reasonable and timely. Why dont we get those documents to you within a month. By the end of july. Within a month its the ninth of july, it would mean the ninth of august. We will invite you as well by the 9th of august. Appreciate that. I now recognize the gentleman from oklahoma for five minutes. Thank you. Youre a smart man with a lot of security knowledge. Is a footprint more secure if its smaller or larger. A footprint sir . A larger one is going to require a lot more resources to secure. Not necessarily more secure, less secure. Our consulate in herot, we successfully defended that against a complex attack and weve defended the embassy against attacks. I would agree with that, in fact the embassy in kabul even after it was vacated for a decade it was a secure building. It had to be breached by the roof. When we went in there in the early days i recall seeing george bushs picture on the wall with mr. Shultz, 1989 calendars on the wall. I guess this notion that we have to have 5500 people on a compound is just a mystery to me. How do you justify that . Sir, allow me to turn the mic. Im the one thats given the task to secure them. But we appreciate miss muniz, shes been gracious to allow us to beat up on her in previous testimony. In a dispute which the gao and the ig have laid out which theyre in agreement by the way on Security Issues. And miss muniz in her testimony said that in a dispute on Security Matters you win. Its a deferment. And so now what i see is this no desire to streamline infrastructure we see a support of the support, and then the more support that comes in, it has to be supported. And then it has to be secured, and now the logistics of that. We have 5500 people and regarding them with gerkis. Tough, sharp knives, a lot of respect for them. We have created a situation where this thing is massive. And you by your own admission in talking about herot and how it was defensible how can we justify this enormous footprint . I think that the point is that we obviously have a different set of requirements for professional staff in kabul than we did in iraq. I think professional staff, we had a dozen. In kabul, where were going to be running all of our applications, we of course have a much larger direct higher population of people doing the work of diplomacy and development. That number is drawing down in terms of the current agencies, but its going to go up because youre going to have the Security Cooperation office you have other agencies that are going to stop being selfsupporting, in the Current Situation in kabul, you hit the nail on the head you have several hundred people doing professional work, youre going to have thousands more who are providing Life Support Services in the small city, who are securing that, providing movement in the early days all the way up to 2009 we had an embassy there that was secured by Marine Security company. By the way, they do that, as part of their mission marines, they secure embassies this is no revelation to anyone on this panel. And yet were talking about this insatiable need for size and gerth gerth. I dont know how i guess my question. The department of state needs to be expedition airy in nature, i believe those are the words you used. How can a four times increase in the operations since 2009 be expedition expeditionairy. There are a few things. There are a number of security challenges in afghanistan that are obviously not normal to. Im aware i lived in a safe house in kabul. Im aware of the security structures in afghanistan. The security situation is evolving over time. The situation was very different, and the embassy at the time was secured. Now, the number of security requirements for movement, we talked about the airport. The situation is very different. And so apparently the support requirements have also changed. I wouldnt challenge, the idea that we have an insatiable need for gerth. The civilian staff surged, and is now drawing back. And to the extent that theres going to be growth its really going to be growth from other agencies coming in under the state department umbrella. I believe that the support services that we have, both life support and security support are necessary, i dont think they can be replaced in kabul at this time. Theyre selfperpetuating. If i may ask an indull gans, mr. Chairman, theyre selfperpetuating, the larger you increase the footprint, the more you need to increase the footprint. At some point, its easy to see how it happened. The gao and ig have agreed theres not been this strategic master plan, you said we cant develop such a plan. Thats nonsense. Developed a plan and then adjust it, we do that all the time at state. We do it in the military we do it in congress, even, i know thats shocking to some people. Thats precisely what we did i argue that is precisely what we did. I did not say that was not necessary or possible. Well, you had mentioned that the regular plans, that the standard plans were not applicable even in this testimony today. You said that the International Construction and Safety Standards needed to be taken into account. How can those possibly be any better or different or have we not seen these International Construction and Safety Standards i believe is what you called them today . How would that deviate from standard embassy designs with military security in the early phase. And you enhance it later. Im not sure which document youre referring to. Im not, im picking from your testimony poed. Thats not my International Construction and Safety Standards, im as baffled by it as you are, what would those be. The Security Standards are based on the overseas security board standards. I chai chair the board with the agencies that work overseas. I would say in our normal buildings we build around the world, we incorporate those standards in every building that obo builds meets those standards, were in a situation that presents challenges even on top of the overseas policy board standards. These are some of the things that weve had to adjust to as the security situation has declined. I appreciate that and i know the gentlemans its time if theres time later, i would like to follow up. I thank you. I recognize the gentle woman from new york. I just want to talk about the security concerns we have in high threat kabul. The embassy has consistently remained one of the most high threat environments for our overseas personnel. And in february in 2014 an explosive device killed two department of defense contractors. A suicide bomber targeted a nato convoy from 500 yards from the embassy. So i would just like to ask mr. Aveno, your company is a prime security contractor and your employees are on the front lines every day in this area. Can you give us an overview of the Security Services your personnel provide to the embassy in this high threat area. And can you explain how the age of personnel maintains a secure environment with changing often very challenging to say the least. The security strategies, the Strategic Plan for security is developed by the department of state, we hire the very best people and we deploy them, according to the plan which is ever evolving ever changing, based upon the conditions in kabul at any given time. Having said that the services that we provide are primarily in six areas, we provide static security, which is kind of like going through the gate when you come into the building here obviously. We provide mobil security which is assisting the movement of people. We provide convoy protection. We have explosive detection dogs. Eeds, that are handled by trainers that we provide, what we could eou. People like ourselves. And lastly and importantly, we have emergency responsible teams. Those teams are positioned at strategic locations and theyre typically in a vehicle and they have a combination of emts, as well as guards, security personnel. And importantly, we train our people so that theres someone on that team who is responsible for commanding control and makes the decisions as to what the appropriate response should be based upon a call for a situation. These are the six areas that we provide services. And i wanted to say that we do have a mixture of the three groups that i mentioned, including the soldiers. I wanted to for the record id like to be able to say that our employees are of the utmost importance. We take care of our nepalese. When the earthquake hit, the first thing we did was pull all of our employees, we found out gave them phones we gave them contact back to nepal, for the ones that are in training in jordan. We gave them phone cards so they can call. We determined there were a few people that needed to go out immediately. Fortunately, there were no lives of family members lost, nor of employees on leave. We have we raised over 30,000 to give to those employees to repair their homes. Id like to ask ambassador hayes and mr. Courts given what youve learned in your investigation and oversight. Id like to hear what you what security recommendations would you put forward . What ideas do you have that we could improve our security in this area. Ambassador . The dynamic in war zone is extremely difficult. The changing numbers of people going in and out, the policy dynamic affecting personnel in country. All of these play into the need for solid planning. Or worst Case Scenario planning for very close collaboration between the policy and the implementers of both construction and security. We believe that it is important to have long range dynamic planning. That means that not only are you do you have a plan out there, but you also are working with others that are involved in this, con stan thely to make sure that that plan meets all the requirements on the ground and that you put security first. Time has expired thank you. Thank you for your service. Thank you, ill now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. Meadows for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Madam director im going to start with you to say thank you. The last time you were here i think mr. Russell talked about the fact that it could be contentious, would be maybe an adjective or verb to describe what went on that particular day. I also want to acknowledge the fact that after that hearing you made a personal attempt to come and not only brief me and my personal staff, but to follow up, in a time when all the headlines were about a lack of cooperation. I just want to say thank you. Let me come to you, mr. Star is characterizing your new gao report as going to be giving him an a plus is kind of the direction that i a few minutes ago. Would you characterize the new report that youre going to be putting out as something that we want to publish, i guess . Lets put it that way. Congressman, we have not released that report yet to our original requesters, and i cant discuss it until that report is actually released. Mr. Starr knows whats going to be in that report . He has seen a draft report, yes. Would you characterize his testimony as it being aplus and as being accurate . Congressman, i cant comment on that as a result the report has been released yet. All right. When will that be released . Were still working that out with our client. Mr. Starr, let me come to you. Youve seen the report, or youve at least seen your draft. Is your characterization of it giving you a glowing report . Is that accurate . I think the report is fair and balanced report, sir. I dont think its an aplus for anybody. I think that its best that we wait until the report come out and judge where were going on the merits of the report. So your reference to it was only referencing a short portion of that as it relates to your ability to provide a secure location. Was that your testimony . I guess heres what im buying we have all kinds of testimony going back and forth, mr. Starr. My concern is here as mr. Russell was talking about weve got this big footprint. Were bringing people in in helicopters into the facility currently. Is that correct . Because it is too dangerous, other modes of transportation . Yes. If it is indeed that dangerous and the core mission of the state department is to diplomacy, how do you reconcile the two . I mean, because if it is so dangerous that we cant get out and do our diplomacy, are we not just building a military structure in afghanistan . Congressman, thats a very fair question. Jared, i think has some comments on this as well, but i will say one thing. The responsibility to protect our people at our embassy i dont deny that. The director knows im with her on that particular thats one portion of the mission. But thats not the core mission, though, mr. Starr. Exactly. The core mission is to conduct diplomacy. Beyond securing the embassy, we have to have programs that get people out. We have to get them to these meetings. Do you understand how the American People have a real hard time with this . Were spending a billion dollars to create a facility that weve got to helicopter people in and out of that they really cant do diplomacy and theyre saying why are we doing that . Why would we do that, mr. Starr . I would argue that we are conducting diplomacy. If i may, i think thats exactly the point. We are conducting diplomacy. There are some routes that get more and less dangerous and our colleagues take very good care to make sure we have the best of security in those instances, but i can assure you, and i spent quite a bit of time there myself, our people get out. Theyre hands on involved with the people of afghanistan. Give me the top three diplomatic Success Stories you can share then. Youre saying youre creating. What would be the headlines in the Washington Post tomorrow . What are the top three they have accomplished . First and foremost, i would say its the Successful Transition from president karzai to the new president. That was not diplomatic in its nature. Yes, sir, it was. That was deeply involved. So that had everything to do with the embassy . The United States embassy was deeply engaged in that successful mission. All right. What are the other two . The next thing i would propose is we have seen a substantial change in the nature of the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan since the president came into office. That has been largely due to the president s courageous actions and resip ruication from pakistan. I dont think either of those countries would deny that United States and our embassies in both of those countries have played critical facilitating roles. Finally, i would say we have had a substantial longterm success in terms of some of those things that i mentioned in my initial testimony of helping create a sustainable Afghan Government which is able to provide Core Services for its people which is standing up its military, which is a department of defense role and also an embassy role in the political aspects of it which is providing educational services, health services. I can keep going, sir. Well follow up. My time has expired, but i would welcome your follow up. I recognize the gentleman from virginia mr. Connelly, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome to our panel. Mr. Blanc, im going to ask you to pull the mike closer so we can hear you. Thank you. Obviously its a balancing act, security and diplomacy. We have to make our facility secure so people arent harmed, including people serving the country. And certainly not our diplomats. On the other hand, sometimes security can circumscribe our ability to carry out our mission in a country because security can become so tight. Would that be a fair characterization from your point of view . Sir, i think thats absolutely a fair characterization and were constantly looking for that right balance. When i was and thats going to vary from country to country, is it not . Yes, sir. So your challenge in costa rica is quite different than kabul, afghanistan . Not only that, but our challenge in kabul afghanistan, is different from month and month and has changed substantially in the course of our mission. Speaking of which, when mr. Lynch and i traveled together to kabul several years ago, we stayed on the compound, but i think there were like little wooden buildings that we stayed in, but they certainly werent reenforced. We were on the Embassy Compound. At least at that time we werent overly concerned about our personal security. There had been some lobbing of grenades or rocket shells into the compound as i recall, but not while we were there. We werent, as i said either that or maybe the embassy wasnt overly concerned about members of congress being overly secure. I dont know. Has the situation deteriorated such that we are now concerned about that in kabul . Ill start and ask mr. Starr to continue. The security situation in kabul has substantially changed over time. Starting in 2002, where it was relatively permissive to a number of years where it got worse over time, but it was generally permissive its a much more difficult stage right now. The government of afghanistan at the end of last year took full responsibility for the security of their country. They are exercising that responsibility quite well. They are standing in the face of a vicious onslaught, but there is still a real, you know, result in terms of everybodys personal security, americans, afghans, as that transition settles in. Yes, sir, the situation has changed. Actually the verb i used was deteriorated. Yes, sir. You would agree with that . I would accept that. All right, mr. Starr. Taliban networks have shown themselves to be dedicated to trying to attack western and afghan institutions in kabul starting a couple of years ago and it has reached quite a crescendo. The numbers of attacks and the different types of attacks have been very difficult to handle. In some cases they have been very successful. In many cases they have been unsuccessful either through efforts of the kabul government, Kabul Security forces. Sometimes it is western Security Forces like ours that have protected the people and made sure their people were safe, but it is undeniable that the number of attacks has grown tremendously in kabul. Thank you. I think thats something that these two underscored in terms of the environment were facing in kabul. Ms. Muniz, mr. Courts in his testimony today recounts the comments of a state Department Official explaining the challenge we faced with the surge in afghanistan. Quote, given concerns about security in kabul and pressure to get permanent facilities built as soon as possible, the state was not going to act on any recommendation thats would delay getting the contracts awarded and the facilityies built. Is that a fair statement from your point of view . Would you elaborate . I think thats a fair statement. I would qualify only that we wouldnt do i think you used the word any or the quote used the word any. Thats right. There are some recommendations that we might have considered worthwhile to delay the award of a project. I would put security among the highest requirements, but the goal has been to press forward with the construction of the permanent facility, so that statement is generally true. My time is running out too. The security situation has deteriorated in kabul not just for us, but for everybody. Thats tragic and needs its own examination. In your view, ms. Muniz, the decisions we made and executed, is the compound more secure today than it was, say, when i was back in 09, 10 . I believe it is significantly more secure. The ability to move 900 people into safe Office Buildings is a huge milestone. In november nearly 300 into another residential facility, so i would say yes. Thank you. My time is up, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Now i recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. Duncan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think all the questions that need to be asked have been asked, but i would like to place a few comments on the record. First of all, i want to say that i strongly agree with mr. Mica in talking about how ridiculous the waste of all this is the excessiveness of all this is. And that he mentioned the taj mahal, and the fiscal times reported a few weeks ago, this year, the state department allocated 1. 11 billion to cover the 2009 2010 contract costs. As well as other expenses for completing the facility. They will have 1400 desks and 819 beds. And this is this is in a country that according to another publication, says were reducing our afghan presence from 32,000 troops to 9,800 by years end with half that number remaining in 2015, only a small force to protect the Kabul Embassy after 2016. I mean, were practically all leaving, but were spending almost 2. 2 billion. This is in a country that has a total gdp of just slightly over 20 billion. 23. 3 billion. 30 million population. The people over there have to get by on an average of less than 2 a day. They must just be astounded. I think probably they must be laughing at us at how much money weve been spending over there. You know, ive seen for years the easiest thing in the world to do is to spend other peoples money. I remember edward rendell, who later became governor of pennsylvania and later became the National Democratic chairman, when he was mayor of philadelphia, in testimony before the house ways and Means Committee many years ago, he said government does not work because its not designed to. Theres no incentive to save money so much of it is is squandered. Theres no incentive for people to work hard so many do not. That was his quote, and certainly this seems to me that mega hundreds of millions have been squandered and are still be squandered over there. Last month david keen, who spent 27 years as head of the American Conservative Union and is now the opinion editor of the washington times, he wrote this about our unnecessary wars in the middle east and our failed attempts at nation building. He said, as a result of our wars and our attempts of nation building in the middle east, there is a generation of Young Americans who have never known peace, a decade in which thousands of our best have died or been maimed with little to show for their sacrifices. Our enemies have multiplied and our National Debt has skyrocketed. And i think that all of the people who have any responsibility or role at all in going along with the construction of this massive project in afghanistan should be ashamed. I think its very sad what weve heard here today. And i just wanted to place those comments on the record. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Well know recognize the gentlewoman from illinois, for five minutes. Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to ask about the Inspector Generals report from october. On the aegis contract to provide security. Mr. Chairman, id like to request that the report actually be entered into the record. Without objections, so ordered. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. In this report from october, the Inspector General raised a number of problems and id like to get your responses to some of these. The state departments contract requires aegis to maintain document of training and security clearance. But the i. G. Found 25 of 333 files or 8 were missing, 49 required personnel training or investigation documents. Can you explain why the documentation was missing . Early on when we took that contract over, there were took an existing work force over and it took a little bit of time to get all the documentation and the records right. The entire program up to wps standards, which we did. We worked in concert with the state department. All of our records are up to date. The state department comes in and audits our records. We coupe dual sets of records, the same exact record that exists in kabul exists in our washington office. They have audited twice this year, and of those two audits they found one discrepancy, a document that we typically flag if we dont have something that needed to be added in. And it was added in after that. So the documentation is complete now. Theres nobody that goes out to afghanistan that doesnt have a clearance and doesnt have the appropriate training whether theyre u. S. Or tcn thirdcountry nationals from nepal. Their report actually says seven citizen employees working in various positions in kabul had no documented security clearance investigations. So what youre saying is they had them the documentation needed to be cleared up and that problem has been solved . Yes, its either when we assume the work force from another contract, that documentation didnt exist or we put it together or the clearance wasnt appropriate. We trained everybody and we got all the documentation up to wps standards. Okay. We have no further problems in documentation or clearances. Good to hear. The i. G. Also reviewed invoices submitted by agents totaling about 217 million. They questioned about 8 million. Let me quote the amount. 8,642,00, about 4 of the contract. They said those invoices, 57 invoices, are possibly of those invoices 8 , or 57, were possibly unallowable or not supported in accordance with contract requirements. Do you know what those invoices were for . Typically they were either for labor or for reimbursable items. We have provided we work with state department. We provided all the documentation required to have the appropriate backup for those invoices. And weve worked with them since that audit was out. I also mentioned earlier that independent of the ig audit aegis conducted its own audit of the first year of the contract on its own with its own people and presented all of the discrepancies and clarified all of the discrepancies. We looked at over 71,000 line items and compared a document to an accounting program. To time sheets to biometrics and were now proceeding on auditing the second year of the contract on our own without any requests from the government or the ig. Do you know how much was allowed or disallowed . Im not aware of any disallowances at this point. We presented all the documentation to the state department, and they have not come back to us with any disallowances to the best of my knowledge. If there were, it has to be minor. The audit that we conducted verified that. So youre saying the gaps in the billable hours in some of the issues with those invoices were partially as a result of you taking over the contract and you fixed those problems . Right. Thats part of it. When you take a contract over in in any instance where you take an existing work force over on a new contract, especially when the procurement period is quite long from the time its issued until the time the contract is awarded, the scope of work changes. In a situation like afghanistan, we went into and state department understandably said we dont want those posts anymore. Take 880 people. We dont want those posts. We want these. So move the people around, change the classifications. It took some time to get all that properly documented and up to speed, and properly invoiced. The audit we conducted, we found that approximately 75 of any discrepancy occurred in the first four months of the contract. And we have a good process controlled documentation system now so that does not occur again. Thank you. Ambassador hays, id like to know the igs view of the status of the outstanding findings particularly with respect to those questions of costs. Would you help us schedule a followup to make sure those fixes have taken place . Certainly. Do you have any opinion on whether or not you think those problems have been fixed and that there are processes in place that are now adequate . I conducted inspections of those facilities in february of 2014. I did not participate in the audit or the compliance of that, but i can pass on concerns to the ig himself and he will get back to you. Thank you. Im out of time. I yield back. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. Grothman. Thank you. I guess this will be for mr. Starr. I want to follow up on what congressman russell said. First of all, how many buildings are in this compound total . About when were done in kabul . So there was an existing chancery built in 1971, which was the starting point. Another Annex Building was built and completed in 2005 with three residential facilities. The 2009 and 2010 projects will provide for another unclassified annex and another classified annex and three more residential buildings, in addition security, utility, and support buildings are also included in the scope of the project. So at least tenplus, whatever . Okay. How many people are in these are going to be based in these facilities when youre all done . The program that drove the facilities is 1,487 desks and 800 beds. So how many basically the delta is between the u. S. Direct higher staff that sleep on the compound and those who work in those buildings but dont necessarily sleep on the compound. So we say, how many total people, say, are based or work in the compound . Let me turn that over to jarrett and to greg. Obo builds to the sort of hard facility requirements, but there are many support workers and security who dont have desks in the facilities, but who work around the compound. For a comprehensive number, i would turn to them. In broad terms, there are going to be about 5,000 people in the compound between direct hires and contract support staff, including security staff. Theres some ambigutty because there are still plannings being made about other agencies that will come under the embassy umbrella. Just kind of hits me as high, thats all. Of those 5,000, how many are afghans themselves . I dont have locals guess wildly. I dont expect you to get about 850, 900. Okay. About 1 5. Could we get we dont have it right away today, but just because it hits me as a high number. What do these people do . Sir, we can provide that. What i can tell you is its the smaller portion that are direct hire u. S. Staff who are doing what we think of as the work of diplomacy. The larger portion are the people necessary to support the staff given the very unique circumstances in kabul whether thats the security staff or the life support staff especially as the military mission draws down and we lose some of the services that the department of defense has provided and need to provide for ourselves. Services, to be blunt, the embassy cant rely on the economy to provide it has to provide for itself. Of the 5,000, how many are military personnel . Right now of the 5,000, the number is pretty small. That number is likely to increase over the out years because as the military mission changes, there will be a Security Cooperation office that will eventually be part of the embassy that will oversee the assistance we provide the afghan National Security forces. Those decisions are being made right now. I cant really tell you how theyll come out. Just a guess. You told me there 5,000 total. Relatively small military personnel, 100, 200, 300 . Just guess wildly. Maybe 100. We have almost 5,000 civilian personnel that we anticipate having in afghanistan . Is that the deal . Youre combining whats the case right now and what will be the case over time. Over time, that percentage will be a larger number because of the Security Cooperation office. Okay. Okay. Then we have a question for, i guess im running out of time. Well, was a Risk Assessment done at the kabul site and if it wasnt, why not . Thats the final question. Risk assessments are always done before the award of a largescale project, so our team goes out and understands with the contractor what are the risks that we might encounter. A formal Risk Assessment, the way we lay it out as a separate assessment, was not done in the 2009 project, was done in 2010, but i would argue that in all cases we are assessing the situation and know what the major risks are and those here included the security situation growing staff, a changing environment. Those were known at the time of the awarding of the 2009 contract. Im being told the correct number for current military personnel is closer to 50 between the liaison for the embassy and the resident support mission and the marine force. You said the number was what . Its closer to 50 than 100. 50 . Five zero. Okay, thank you. To clarify, page 16 of the gao report says between the 2009 contract and the 2010 contract, states should have conducted four Cost Containment studies and six Risk Assessments. However for the 2009 contract, state confirmed it did not conduct either type of assessment. Because of the value of the 2009 contract, which was 209 million, two separate Cost Containment studies would have been required. Also no Risk Assessments were performed and no Risk Mitigation plan was developed, so your answer is a little shy of the reality, at least according to the gao, correct . I would argue that the policy that the gao is referring to and that narrow interpretation of a separate Risk Assessment being conducted during or before award of a project, that is true. But Risk Assessment, when you look at it on its face is going to the post, understanding what the risks are, how are you going to get materials in, are there changing situations on the ground that are going to impact your project, those are all things that are analyzed and are known and are included in the Cost Development for these projects. And that was done with the 2009 project. Understand that the budget for the 2009 project was developed in advance of knowing there was going to be a significant increase in staff, that the border with pakistan was going to be closed for seven months, and any number of other issues that i have outlined in my testimony. Mr. Courts, is that what happened . Well, i would again just point that the Risk Assessment and Cost Containment study that they did in 2010 did point out some of the risks that eventually materialized and by the way, one of those was difficulties with the Land Transport of materials, so some of these risks were known in advance. State predicted them in the 2010 study. If they had done the 2009 study, perhaps they would have had more time to develop some mitigation strategies. And perhaps we would have delayed award of a contract that is getting people into safe facilities as quickly as possible. They werent safe. Thats the point. They werent safe. Now theyre way overbudget. Were missing over hundreds of millions of dollars. The overall project is coming in three years late. It was supposed to be done last year and now its not supposed to be done until 2017. Whats the case to be made that youve made this huge progress by bypassing all the bureaucracy . Youve put people in a better situation, because you have two independent people whove come in and looked at that and i think disagree with that analysis, and as regards to the security on page 17 of the report, ds officials were not sufficiently involved in the Cost Containment study, and it goes on for a full paragraph. Thats the frustration. Just reading this, this is why were having a hearing, you would get the impression that theyre not even talking to the Diplomatic Security. We addressed that a little bit earlier, but that should be part of before you do 2009. It should have been part of 2010. But it evidently wasnt done, according to the report. Am i wrong . I believe you are. Well, this is why we have this hearing. Ds cited, this is from the report, ds is cited in the policy as an interested office, according to the attendee list, no one from Diplomatic Security participated in the meetings related to the study. You have a pretty hard case to make that you were taking security at the top of your list and putting it in there when they werent even invited into the meeting. They were invited to the meeting. So they were noshows . Mr. Starr, your staff just said were not showing up, not worth our time . Congressman, i think our people decided at that one particular meeting that there werent equities that we were necessary to be there. I want to emphasize something. And i know that there are individual points that can be brought out and looked at by both ig and gao. And by many cases they bring very important things to our attention, and we correct those things, but i dont want to leave you with the impression that ds and obo dont Work Together very closely to ensure that the physical Security Standards in our buildings are always she just said that your people dont show up at her meetings. At one particular meeting on thats not what this says. Thats not what this says. I didnt just make this up and say hey, lets pick on state. Im reading a gao report which pretty much concurs with what the Inspector General found. The reality is its 27 overbudget. You missed it by hundreds of millions of dollar. You got facilities that arent secure. Theres no master plan no plan for temporary facilities and the biggest expenditure we have in an Embassy Compound complex we have ever had in the history of the United States of america. So you have a really hard case to tell me that were doing things better and everythings good, just move on, nothing to worry about here. Thats a 2 billion expenditure, and its not yet finished. Mr. Chairman, i would disagree with your characterization. Which part, tell me. This is a certainly expensive project. Tell me what you disagree with. That we are not providing safe and secure facilities. It is true that they are behind the original schedule, but we are building safe and secure facilities. During the entire time that we were there in our temporary facilities, we have never lost a person on our compound. Even with the temporary facilities. And were building better ones today. Can our coordination be improved . Yes, the ig and the gao pointed out that there were problems and lydia and i have worked to ensure that those problems dont continue. There is always room for improvement, and i, quite frankly, would wish that we could have brought these projects in faster, because moving the people out of temporary facilities faster gives them even better protection. Weve been responsible for providing them protection during this entire time, and i think weve done a very good job. But none of us minimized the problems that have occurred in this environment as we tried to struggle to bring these buildings in, but i will tell you that, you know, while we appreciate gao and ig and they do bring a lot of good things to our attention, not everything can be characterized as off base here. We are delivering, although youre correct, it is behind schedule, and it is over budget. Now recognize the gentleman from oklahoma, yeah, mr. Russell. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and mr. Muniz, i wanted to make a correction. It was mr. Hays and his testimony that spoke about the International Construction and Safety Standards, and this was causing some unnecessary delays between obo and state. And so i would like to ask you, mr. Hays, you spoke to these International Construction and Safety Standards causing these delays. What were those . Well, the International Standards of construction which obo works to and has to work to because of legislation are the same that you would apply to Embassy Berlin or a building in downtown d. C. They require a building to be built in the way that is safe, sound for a longer period of time. The dod regulations authorize more flexibility, especially in war zones, and we raised the issue that obo and ds should look into the department to find more flexibility to move quicker in war zone situations. More expeditiously. Dod has that authority. They have a work around for a number of International Standards for specific areas like iraq and afghanistan. Thank you. Mr. Blanc you spoke of land route delays and i can appreciate what a closed Pakistani Border does to american anything or international anything in afghanistan. What, though if we should have Something Like this that happens again, with such a large footprint now. Can you foresee a time where we would need to reduce a footprint and be streamlined, to be more effective, because now we have these 5,500 personnel and if this happens again, which its not unlikely and certainly those routes get interdicted. What do we do about that . Well, sir, i think if i could say two things. First of all, even during the interdiction of those routes with the diplomatic and the military mission were able to continue using a whole variety of creative logistics and i think that in the unfortunate instance this happened again, obviously, were working hard on our relationship with pakistan to prevent it we would again initially fall back on creative logistics. I think your question in principle, are there conditions under which we would look to draw down the Diplomatic Mission in kabul, the answer is of course. We are always looking at a whole variety of questions. The immediate security situation, how effective is the team being, what specific needs do we need to fill either in the professional Diplomatic Service or what might we no longer need to contract, what might we be able to do on the economy in afghanistan. Those are all questions that we address on a i dont, i certainly, i certainly dont underestimate the complexities of the problems. I guess my concern is were seeing a pattern. Were seeing a pattern where weve become so cumbersome with it. It becomes cumbersome to get things there. It becomes cumbersome to secure things, it becomes extraordinarily expensive and wastes resources, and i would just think that a nation of 31 million souls with the types of problems that we have, that we can be efficient, but im not hearing that. Instead, what im hearing is, in particular from mr. Starr, which, look, everyone at this table, i have no doubt is dedicated to this nation. I mean, look at your resumes. Theyre not only impressive but longserving, and i have the highest respect for all of you, and youve done it from administration to administration and for that i sincerely thank you. But i guess the pattern that we are seeing now is just an increasing infrastructure where it just grows and grows and grows, and it requires more security and more security and more security. And the last question that i have is for mr. Gulino. While i have no doubt about the ability of the gerkhas to win almost any fight theyre encountered in, language barriers. We have seen the poster of that. In a nokidding combat situation, you have an american compound, and now you have gerkhas, how are you mitigating that . We have well over 400 u. S. I didnt mean to imply by any means, i dont think i did, that we have a gerkha work for us. We have 600 gerkhas youre quite right. Theyre selected from a wide pool i get that. But how are you mitigating the language barriers in a combat environment . And theyre vetted for language in nepal, first, and then when they go through training in jordan, amman, jordan, we dont just train them and test their skills with weapons, we test their language understanding and their ability to speak english. All of these gerkhas then are English Speaking . Yes, sir. So why do we need posters then . Why do we need what . Why do we need nepalese posters . If theyre all proficient in the language, why was this an issue . Let me just say this. Its a requirement, and not every nepalese gerkha on our post can read the Washington Post either, from first page to the back page. I think that as a matter of policy and procedure and human rights, we should have the posting of passports in nepal. I dont question for a minute we should have it from day one. We will now going forward. Anything we communicate to the nepalese we do it both in english as well as the nepalese, including their contracts, their employment contracts. I thank the chairman for additional time, and i yield back. Thank you. Now recognize mr. Cummings for five minutes. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Mr. Courts id like to discuss the gaos examination of two Construction Contracts at the Kabul Embassy. The first one was in 2009 and the second was awarded in 2010 to a different contractor, is that correct . Thats correct. Can you briefly describe the two sets of projects that were contracted and their originally estimated completion dates . I believe the 2009 contract was intended to construct a number of temporary offices and housing. It was also intended to construct an office unclassified facility that my state colleagues have referred to as well as some additional warehouses, some compound access facilities. Permanent security features and other things. In the end, that contractor ended up building mostly just the temporary offices and housing. And the rest of those requirements were transferred to the 2010 contractor. Now what about completion dates . What were the projected completion dates on the projects . I dont have the projected completion date for the 2009 contract at my fingertips. Director muniz, according to the report in 2011 the state department partially terminated the 2009 contract, and i quote in part due to concerns about contractor performance and schedule delays zdelays, end of quote. Can you please explain exactly the concerns were, what they were and why was the contractors, why were they terminated . What was the performance issue and schedule delays . So the contract included both temporary facilities and permanent facilities, and we knew there was a followon contract that would be building on that base and adding permanent facilities. We had concerns that the first contractor was not meeting key milestones and would not be able to meet their original schedule, which was the end of 2012, in a way that didnt interfere with the execution of the fy 10 contract. So the government terminated that contract for convenience. And have you experienced challenges terminating this contract or other contracts due to contractor delays . We do. Its a challenging circumstance. So we want to require contractors to perform. And we want to encourage them to have a track record of serious performance. Its actually under the Excellence Initiative one of the thins that weve pushed is going to best value awards as opposed to lowest cost, because we can hold contractors accountable based on past performance. Its complicated, and we always weigh a termination and the length of restarting with trying to push through with current contractors. In the instance of the 2009 contract, without going too much into it, we just had concerns that in the much longer term it was going to become a challenge for our 10 contract and it would be most effective to terminate it with just the temporary facilities built and transfer the permanent facilities to the 2010 contract. Now mr. Courts, according to the gaos report, the rest of the contract was shifted to the second contractor who was working on the 2010 contract at that point. Is that correct . Yes, thats correct. Your report also reveals the estimated completion date of the expanded twen 10 contract has been pushed out more than three years until 2017. Thats correct. Mr. Courts, would it be accurate to say that part of this additional three years is due to the termination, one of the contractors and the subsequent transfer of the remaining contract elements to another . I dont think theres any question that that did add time. Your record also mentioned additional modifications. Were all these modifications new or did some have to do with the prior 2009 contract . I believe there was a mix of both. Are you familiar with this . Would you know the answer to that . Which modification . This was the, this, i guess this would be the 2009 contract. Then they had some modifications. Would that have been the contract, mr. Courts, 2009, the modifications, thats right . Both the 2009 and the 2010 contract had modifications. Thats accurate. Both had significant modifications. And how did those modifications come about . What happened . Those were due to the increase in desk requirements. And, again, this is driven by National Security priorities and the increase in staff. I would turn to jarrett. Well, im going to unfortunately, have to get to another meeting. But i think there are a lot of concerns here. And i go back to something that mr. Duncan said, and maybe you can answer this for me because i think he said something that seems so accurate. He questioned, what is the incentive for saving money . Do we have any, mr. Courts . In other words, it seems like we spend and spend and spend. The chairman has been very clear that we havent, we probably could do better. So what is the incentive . And i got to ask you this, mr. Gulino, take one out of the we were just talking about this. What do you pay these nationals, by the way . Salaries for the yeah, the nationals, the ones that you hold the passports up for, those, those folks. Theyre paid in the 40,000 to 50,000 range a year. 40,000 to 50,000 . Yes, sir. Thats quite a bit of money for somebody over there, isnt it . I think its competitive with the, with the requirement no, i mean, im glad to hear that, and id like for you to give us some verification. Id like to see the documentation. You have contracts with these people . Yes, ill send documentation, ill get back with you on that to confirm the rates. And do they have benefits . They have insurance benefits, yes, they get a bonus payment at the end of their oneyear contract. They get a bonus payment. And are they doing the same types of jobs as other folks who are not nationals . Yes, sir. And youre telling me that the rates would be the same comparable, for people doing the same work, whether theyre nationals or not . Is that what youre telling me . The rates are different for expatriots. For u. S. , performing certain types of work or slightly higher, because its a marketdriven thing. We cant hire u. S. Person i understand that. But im trying to make sure. Im just trying to figure out what you are paying. And i guess, if youre using our dollars, which you are. Right. Im trying to make sure i want to go what youre paying. And i want to know i want detailed information about that. Can you do that . Sure, i would be happy to have our staff provide that to you. But the premise is this. If you dont need to hire all u. S. Personnel, and you can use fully qualified thirdcountry nationals that operate in the same post same kinds of jobs with weapons, you use those and then it drives the cost down. Im trying to make sure we dont have a situation where weve got people making peanuts we dont. No, sir, we dont. Let me finish. And then weve got contractors, stockholders and others who are making millions. And i just want to make sure we, i read all, i read your statement and you talked about reputation, integrity, compliance and all this kind of thing, and thats good. But i want to see some records as to what youre paying these people, all right . Yes, sir. Well provide it. Thank you very much. I got to wrap up with a few different questions, and then we will conclude this hearing. Appreciate your patience. Been here a long time. Mr. Hays, part of what mr. Cummings and i have discussed and we will formalize is were going to request of you that we look at the contracts, really around the globe. Im not suggesting we do each and every market, but find a way to look at how these security contracts work for the security, it plays such a vital role, and we have had some feedback in some countries that these people are not being paid very well. Im not suggesting that is at all the case with aegis, im not suggesting that at all. Im just saying we would like to look at it and feel more comfortable with it and well formalize something with you. There are two recommendations in the draft report where there seems to be a bit of conflict, and id like to clarify that. If theres still conflict theres still conflict. But recommendation two on page 50 says gao recommends the secretary of state consider establishing minimum Security Standards or other guidance for the construction of temporary structures, especially those used in conflict environments. Second sentence of the response from state says, ds, Diplomatic Security, does not support separate standards for temporary structures. Why not . Its still a disagreement, sir. We still maintain that our goal is to try to meet the permanent standards, the highest level standards as best we can. And if we cant, then we have to look at what risk that entails. We may have to give exceptions or waivers, but it is our goal to try in those situations to meet the highest level security standard we can. And mr. Courts, why did you make that recommendation . Well, lets just point to the osbb standards that mr. Starr referred to as sort of the goal theyre trying to achieve. In reality, the only buildings that can actually meet those standards are permanent structures. They do have the waivers and exceptions process that mr. Starr referred to. Thats supposed to be a process where mitigation strategies are proposed and considered as a condition for granting the waiver, and then a very conscious and explicit acceptance of the risk, considering all of those factors. In actual practice, we found that the state doesnt always follow that policy, we found a number of instances in kabul with temporary facilities that did not have those required waivers, so that process that was just described wasnt followed there. So we think somethings not working in establishing some sort of standards, state is really uncomfortable with the word standards or other guidance, and they propose perhaps some template or Lessons Learned document that takes the Lessons Learned from the experience that weve already had in kabul and perhaps provide some information to those procuring temporary facilities in conflict environments in the fuch. Future. We think if they follow through on it, they could meet the intent of our recommendation. I think part of the concern, at least my concern, is that many of these temporary facilities end up being not so temporary. Many are there for a decade if not longer, and it is much more convenient, a lot easier and less paperwork to deem it a temporary facility. Therefore you dont have to comply with all these other standards. So i think this is part of the problem we got ourselves in libya. This is part of the problem in some of these other places. And granted, theyre very difficult, tightlyconfigured situations, but to say that there ought to be some minimum standard or guidance, it seems like a reasonable request. Were not solving that here, but its something thats on our radar that we do need to solve. On page 51, recommendation three, we may have exhausted this, but develop a kabul strategic facilities plan, such a plan should comprehensively outline existing facilities, and well go through this as we give the staff briefing. So appreciate you doing that. I dont have another question about that. And director, have you issued any official policies or directives related to obos use of Design Excellence . Weve revised many of our pnpds, our policies and procedures, to reflect our trying to do work in different ways. Again, to include doing bestvalue awards as opposed to lowest cost when appropriate. I believe that we have revised probably the last two or three years over 30 pnpds. We could get you exact numbers on those. And which ways they have i guess, if you have issued directives related to Design Excellence, is it reasonable by the august 9th meeting that you would provide that . Im hoping this is just a photo copying exercise. Im not asking you to create anything new. Im just trying to get a snapshot of where are you at right now here today . I guess what i would say is because in my mind excellence is just a way of approaching our work and always trying to do our work in the best way we can, there isnt one policy written about excellence. It sort of permeates throughout all of our policies. So if the request is for a copy of all of our revised policies we can get back to you on that. We had standard embassy design, which is something that was put forward by secretary powell. Design excellence was changed by secretary clinton. There was a new direction, a new approach, its new, its different, but what we havent seen is what is that directive . What is that plan . What is that strategy . Ive seen bits and parts of it, but its not just some nebulous, hey, this is just a theory, we want to be great in everything we do. It was a concerted effort to change the way we were building embassies into a new Design Excellence plan. Absolutely. So when you ask, is there one policy that reflects that, i could give you general documents that highlight what the Excellence Program is. We could go to all of the policies and procedures that have been changed to reflect that. We could go to the standards, which are basically a flexible set of standards that we provide all of our architects and engineers to say these are the base requirements you need to meet in all of our buildings and put our buildings together like a kit of parts. So we could give you many documents, i think you have requested many of those already and were in the process of giving those, so im happy again to have our folks work with yours and to prioritize the list of things that youre asking for and to make sure that you get every single thing that youre asking for. This is sort of the recurring theme here. Were asking what was the plan for kabul, and there wasnt one. What is the plan for Design Excellence as opposed to standard embassy design, which was pretty clearly defined. I mean i think we have four different reports that say there are plans for both. And we can provide you documents for all of those things if we havent already. That would be great, because we have been asking for a long period of time. And we still havent got to that point where you could say, all right, now, based on this, you should be able to understand everything were doing with Design Excellence. Thats what were trying to get to. Thats why we keep asking. Thats the goal. But i need your help in getting to that point. I appreciate it. Understood. Okay. Mr. Starr youre involved in the construction of the new Embassy Compound in jucarkakartajakarta, indonesia, correct . Have you conducted any blast testing for the facade of the jakarta facility . Not on that particular one. Weve done extensive testing on facades and blast facades and the way to what levels theyll meet. Im confident that that building meets and actually exceeds our blast standards. But it has been the practice to do an actual blast test on the facade that would be there in jakarta . No. In that case, it was within the Design Engineering parameters that the blast engineers felt comfortable that looking and reviewing the drawings, they said yes, this meets the parameters. We did blast testing on the london design because these were very large and a different type of design but the parameters on jakarta fell within what the engineers were very comfortable with. Theyre very experienced and theyre confident, absolutely, that it exceeds our blast requirements. And can you provide us that documentation . Yes, i think we can. Its my understanding that we actually conduct actual blast testing, youre telling me we use the exact same materials, configuration, wall or facade that has been used other places that has gone through the actual physical testing . In other words is there anything different about this facade or wall that is that has not been used before, previously . Let me take part of that question. Then well turn it back to greg. So the curtain wall in, the curtain wall used in jakarta is not dissimilar to the curtain wall used in london to the jakarta, is not dissimilar to the curtain wall used in london, to the degree those are open there were tests performed. And those tests went very well. There were several times where it did fail correct . No. Youre telling me they didnt do any tests where they failed . Im telling you there was one full scale blast test and it passed. There were previous tests on that wall that failed . There were component tests that were derived to provide information for the final blast test. There was one blast test of the full curtain wall and it passed. Thats not my understanding of it, i think we have video of it, and so be careful there, but i dont believe the original tests that were done on the blast wall in london passed. There was one full scale test of the curtain wall in london and it passed, and it passed with flying colors. And using the exact same wall in jakarta . We are not using the exact same wall, but when you test it is a similar there are variations on the same system. And once ds was comfortable that the open system, which has been used for years in private industry, but not to the Security Standards that the department uses, when they were comfortable from the results of the london test that this solution worked, they accepted the calculations. Many of these performance standards are met by calculation and engineers that have done this for years. Ds and the engineers who designed the curtain wall were comfortable the curtain wall met all the standards. One of the things we do is test to find out what works and what doesnt work. And in early stages we often find things that dont work, and then we correct them, and then we eventually get to the point where we have a high level of confidence, and we did the large scale test. And then that passed. So failure at an earlier stage in blast testing gives us the information to make the corrections and do the right things so when we get to that engineering point, we know we have a product that works. How would you characterize where were at with jakarta . We wrote a certification to congress any time we build a building, we tell you that that building is going to meet or exceed the Security Standards and be safe and secure for our people, our National Security activities and our information. And we sent that certification to congress. And that building will pass everything. The one in jakarta . Yes. And is the embassy current in jakarta currently scheduled to be delivered as currently scheduled . If not, when will it be due . Right now, our contract completion is 2017. As you might know we were working with a very tight site, had a multiphase project, where the first phase had to was to move most of the embassy function off the compound to allow for the construction of the full embassy we encountered some difficulties with the contractor in that first phase which has delayed this later phase. We are working with the current contractor who is a very strong contractor, through the project to see what time can be made up for. But right now, there are are no final adjustments so the schedule. So it will be on time . Or you think it might be delayed because you dont have a date yet . It may be delayed because of the performance. We dont have a date finalized, but when we do we can provide how is it compared to the original budget . To my knowledge right now we are on budget. Are there any anticipated requests from the contractor for additional money to complete the jakarta facility . I would say until a project is completed. We always accept that there will be requests for equitable adjustments from contractors for any number of issues. To include the issue with the first phase delays. So i would say that we expect them like we do on any project and we work through them. We manage to our budgets to the best that we can, to include beginning to cut things out of the budget of the existing building. Thats an ongoing process of managing just to the budget. Are you aware of any upcoming requests for additional money to finish the jakarta embassy. I believe i already answered your question. I can answer it again. Like with any contract im asking if you have 234i direct knowledge that theyre about to ask you for a lot of additional money . Do you or do you not . I dont. Do you, mr. Starr . No, i certainly dont. Contractor indicated any intention to request an equitable adjustment . Ive answered this question a number of times. Im going to ask it, because i obviously know something about this, and i want you to be direct and complete with you act as if its your money and its not there isnt going to be some sort of consequence here. Theres obviously a lot of information that i have at my disposal, i want to know if youre going to be truthful and honest with us. You have yet to show or demonstrate you can produce a contract on budget, on time that is safe and secure it hasnt happened. We keep seeing overrun after overrun after overrun. Mexico city, jakarta mozambique zimbabwe, jakarta, the list is pretty long. London. I can go through every one. If you want to have another hearing on the Excellence Initiative. Were going to, youre going to be a regular visitor up here. Im happy to do that. Then provide us the documents that we asked and be forthright in your comments. We have provided you over 60,000 pages of documents. I want to know what percentage. Im tired of the state department telling me that theyve given us a certain number of documents. Weve been asking for very basic documents. For instance your testimony by a certain time, which was late, everybody else was on time, except yours. Its unbelievable how you respond to us. And were not going to continue to stand for that. Were going to continue to drag you up here. Wed rather not. We are having those Staff Meetings and weve provided a great deal of information. Im happy to continue to do so. All of the questions and concerns that have been raised about the Excellence Initiative, with respect to cost and the schedule are valid concerns. We have answers to all of those. And im also happy to report that of the four or five excellence projects, which ones would we say are under excellence. All are being delivered on budget, on schedule. The only one delayed is because of a new msg activation, and we had extend the contract to build a Marine Security guard quarters after the award of the initial contract. Everything what are those four . One moment. Yen ten wak cha do you recall off the top of your head, granted that the focus of this hearing is about afghanistan . The number of beds and desks built versus numbers of beds and desks occupied . Do you have that number or is that something you can provide this committee at some point . I think thats something we can provide. Its not something i know off the top of my head. I hope its not a difficult ask. We expect and would hope that you give that to us sooner rather than later. Last question, set of questions here on cyber security. Are you aware of any Network Disruptions or cyber intrusions at the state department that have affected obo . We have not we have had network intrusions, they have not affected any of our databases and obo was not affected by them. They affected our emails at within point. Is there any indication that any systems containing Sensitive Information about our embassies physical security was either viewed or compromised, extracted or hacked into in anyway shape or form . Im not aware of any information at that point. Nothing regarding your department . Not that i know of. Not that i know of. We could go back and look and ask the appropriate people but im not sure what youre referring to. Well, i through the years. And im going back quite a ways, there were incidents where documents were improperly handled, security violations were handed out and procedures were improved, i dont think i dont believe theres been any cyber intrusions into this. Its just over the last 12 months, obviously, weve had a number of issues and incidents, and some very high profile intrusions were in a regular basis were going to asking departments if thats been affecting them in anyway shape or form. Its a general question weve been asking. Its been a long hearing, thank you for your time, we do appreciate it. A lot of good men and women do a lot of good service. They care about their country theyre working hard we know and appreciate this. This is part of the process in the United States of america. Its what makes our country