Maria Cantwell Puts the Hurt on Gary Locke over NOAA Move

I had thought the fussin' and feudin' over NOAA's home port move from Seattle to Newport, OR, was over when NOAA decided they were right the first time. But Senator Maria Cantwell doesn't take NOAA for an answer.

*steely gaze at readers*

Cantwell told Commerce Secretary and former Washington governor Gary Locke that NOAA's Newport home port would be a waste of taxpayer dollars, and blatantly disregards an Inspector General's finding that there are "cheaper, government-owned alternatives."

Locke argued that the IG findings said the "defects" in NOAA's siting process weren't sufficient to overturn their decision, and Cantwell came down on him like a ton of bricks: "I don’t think the Inspector General has given you a blanket go-ahead authority. If you have such a document, I’d love to see it."

The lesson here is that you do not mess with Maria Cantwell just after she's been stood up by President Obama (her presentation on the CLEAR Act this morning was canceled) over some Rolling Stone kerfluffle.

In a news release, Cantwell said the next step would be for Congress to consider halting funding of the construction. BAM!

Here's the full text of their cage match after the jump:

Cantwell: Secretary Locke, I want to ask you about a separate issue which is why an Inspector General recommendation said that NOAA should withhold its finalization of practicable alternatives on their Marine Operations Center, but NOAA went ahead with that process. Do you think that your agency’s acquisitions process is above reproach?

Locke: No. Our acquisition processes within NOAA and throughout other agencies of Department of Commerce need a thorough review, and that’s why we’ve ask for a separate outside review of acquisition experts from other federal agencies and the private sector to come in. We’re very concerned about the fact that we have a defect and consistency in the evaluation of, for instance, the new home porting of NOAA ships in the Pacific Northwest. Although the Inspector General indicated that the defects were not sufficient to overturn that and still that the award should have gone to the ultimate site, which was Newport, but nonetheless, the underlying findings are very troubling and do not give me confidence, or I think the confidence that the American public expect on any type of acquisition procurement process. We’ve seen that with the census bureau years ago with respect to billions of dollars spent on handheld computers that did not work, where we paid the money and got nothing for it. We’ve seen it with the NOAA satellite procurement that was in collaboration with the Defense Department and NASA.

Cantwell: With all due respect, Mr. Secretary, I have no information from the Inspector General that says that you should go ahead and that it’s the lowest cost site. So we’ve asked the Inspector General if that is the case and they’ve said “No.” So where are you getting that information?

Locke: I read a report from the Inspector General just last week, prior to my phone call to you, indicating the problems that the Inspector General’s office uncovered, but his conclusion that these defects would not have changed the fact that the ultimate awardee was still the lowest cost and nothing to reverse that contract, but I’m happy to discuss that with you.

Cantwell: I would love to see that document that says so. I think when my staff called after our phone call, I think the response was the Inspector General’s office laughed that that was the answer that NOAA was given. And this document that I’m reading from, May 26, it basically says NOAA should examine whether it sufficiently complied with the requirement to consider existing federal facilities before pursuing a new lease acquisition. So we’re talking millions of dollars here to the U.S. taxpayer by the fact that this facility did not go through a process in which existing federal facilities were considered. The Inspector General said go back and do that homework and you guys said let’s just go ahead. So I don’t think the Inspector General has given you a blanket go-ahead authority. If you have such a document, I’d love to see it.

Locke: Let me just indicate that I also agree with you that it would have been preferable for us to consider outside existing federal facilities, instead of trying to lease from either a separate governmental agency whether state, local or private sector. I think in looking at all of this, it would have been preferable. And I think that’s why we need to have a thorough review of the acquisition processes within the Department of Commerce and especially NOAA in terms of are we asking for Cadillac versions of things, when in fact, we should be looking at more readily available, suitable facilities, products, and services before we procure.

Cantwell: Well, I don’t think the Inspector General has said for you to go ahead. I have a letter here from them saying that you shouldn’t go ahead. So when the Inspector General says an agency shouldn’t be taking action and are costing taxpayers money because they haven’t done a thorough review, the next step is usually Congress gets involved in saying you shouldn’t allocate money to such projects. So we’ll look forward to discussing this with you further.

Locke: I understand.