Print 17 comment(s) - last by Willhouse.. on Aug 18 at 9:06 AM

The Pentagon's DARPA Director, Regina Dugan, insists she's done nothing wrong in allowing a subordinate to award millions of dollars in government contracts to RedXDefense, a family firm that Ms. Dugan holds stock in.  (Source: Wired)

RedXDefense is designing the "XPAK", a portable fluorescent light-based explosives detector, which tries to catch terrorists red-handed. Now it may have been caught red-handed.  (Source: RedXDefense)

Defense auditors have vowed to scrutinize every contract awarded under Ms. Dugan's relaxed ethics rules.  (Source: TaxFacts)

DARPA’s Experimental Crowd-derived Combat Support Vehicle (XC2V)
The head of DARPA gave millions in contracts to a family firm

It took Regina E. Dugan nearly 15 years to rise through the ranks to become director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).  Starting as a DARPA manager in 1996, she assumed a variety of roles over the next decade and a half.  But now her climb to the top has been endangered by a financial scandal that has all the workings of a blockbuster -- allegations of nepotism, government corruption, and ethics violations.

I. Family Ties and Corruption Allegations Plague New Obama's DARPA Director

The scandal and active government investigations stem from a small defense contractor, RedXDefense, LLC, which Ms. Dugan launched in 2005.  Serving as President and CEO, she decided in 2009 to depart when she was offered the position of DARPA director.

The position seemed awfully attractive, after all Ms. Dugan had a long history with DARPA and DARPA gets the coolest tech toys -- from flying humvees to unmanned ocean frigates.

When she left RedXDefense, most expected she would cut all financial ties to the company.  After all, the previous Bush administration's DARPA director, Tony Tether, reportedly had strict policies when it came to fiscal accountability.  States a former DARPA program manager in an interview with Wired, "With Tony, there wasn’t a little line. There was a valley. You either sell your stock [in your old firm], or there's the door.  With Regina, things were very different."

Another ex-DARPA employee warns, "You could pull a lot of money out of that place if you really wanted to. There really isn't any due diligence there."

RedXDefense recently earned a $1.7M USD payday in research contracts -- a small, but notable chunk of DARPA's $3B USD annual budget.  Meanwhile Ms. Dugan still holds over $15,000 USD in private shares of RedXDefense and is owed a loan of $250,000 USD from RedXDefense.  Her former employers new boss is a familiar face, as well -- her father.

Ms. Dugan claims the awards to RedXDefense were fair, as she recused herself of the decision.  But there's concern that the way Ms. Dugan has redefined ethics rules at the firm may allow for abuse.

II. Regina Dugan Conveniently Redefines DARPA's Ethics Guidelines

Here's how it works.  

Under Tony Tether’s reign of DARPA, if you had stock with a company or used to work for a company/university seeking a DARPA bid, that firm was automatically disqualified from the contract if there were any other competitive bids.  Even if the former employer was the only bidder, the ex-employee still had to sell their stock options, before any award could be made.

Critics were unhappy with this policy, as they said that if employees took a research sabbatical at DARPA, it automatically precluded them from potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of DARPA contracts.

The critics were pleased when Ms. Dugan took office and redefined DARPA's ethics policy.  Under her rules, program managers no longer had to sell their stock if a former employer received a contract.  The only remaining restriction was that the former employee had to recuse himself or herself, designating a suitable alternative project manager to lead the effort.

DARPA deputy director Ken Gabriel called the rules "more realistic", and agency spokesperson Eric Mazzacone bragged, "These policies and practices are in place so that qualified people can come to government service and to ensure that all organizations have access to fair and open competition; neither favored nor disfavored."

But the new rules open a peculiar door, which Ms. Dugan appears to have crossed through.  She passed the decision on whether to award a contract to her family firm to a subordinate, someone whose job is dependent on her approval.

Nick Schwellenbach, director of investigations at the Project on Government Oversight comments, "If I was a DARPA employee. I wouldn’t want to be in a position of depriving my boss' family members of a large contract."

III. The Sheriff Steps In

The incident has stirred up the whole beehive, though, and now the full scrutiny of government auditors is bearing down on DARPA.  The Pentagon's Inspector General (IG) has launched a major investigation, not only into the RedXDefense contract, but every other DARPA contract approved during Ms. Dugan's two-year tenure as DARPA chief.

One of the targets of the probe is airship builder Aeros, who counts Tony Tether as a member of its board of advisors.  The irony here is that under Mr. Tether's rules that relationship would likely have precluded Aeros from the contract, but Mr. Tether appears to be happily taking advantage of the new rules, now that he's gone.

The IG writes, "The current audit will 'determine the adequacy of DARPA's selection, award, and administration of contracts and grants awarded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 for research and development projects.'"

Meanwhile, the IG is launching a separate inquiry that specifically targets Ms. Dugan and RedXDefense.  In a letter sent to the Project on Government Oversight the IG describes the investigation as a probe into "Regina Dugan's continued financial and familial relations with DARPA contractor RedXDefense."

At this point it's all allegations, but there seems a strong possibility that RedXDefense may find some of its contracts disappearing.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Personally
By gorehound on 8/17/2011 2:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
That is correct.We do not need corruption in our Government anymore and we should make sure we:
1.Do not stand for it
2.Penalties of Jail Time for these people who think they can take advantage of the system.

It is totally wrong and unethical to give out contracts to friend or family when one is in the high seat.You are supposed to be impartial and partial to your personal ties in the world.
There is no other way to look at it.Either you are corrupt or you are ethical.

RE: Personally
By chris2618 on 8/17/2011 2:50:08 PM , Rating: 3
But isn't it also corrupt for a company to be disqualified from a bidding process just because someone used to work there and still has connections.

RE: Personally
By cjohnson2136 on 8/17/2011 3:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
How would that be corrupt. The point is to make sure a contractor is not winning bids unfairly. If a gov't person has connections to a company they should not be allowed to win a contract.

Simple solution for the contractor make that employee disconnect and then they can bid.

RE: Personally
By chris2618 on 8/17/2011 4:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
"If a gov't person has connections to a company they should not be allowed to win a contract." That is a definition of a corrupt system.

So if a company has a product that costs less is more efficient than all of the rivals but one of there employees with shares now works for darpa that means darpa should be allowed to award the contract to that company. Your telling me that is corrupt

RE: Personally
By chris2618 on 8/17/2011 4:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
*isn't corrupt

RE: Personally
By BrightMoon on 8/17/2011 6:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe a better solution would be to make sure that the "connected" person is taken out of the decision making process regarding those corporations s/he has ties to? Like when a judge excuses himself from trying a case, but involuntarily...

RE: Personally
By Totally on 8/17/2011 7:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
You know as well as I do that is never the case, a company with a magic product that cost less.

RE: Personally
By chris2618 on 8/17/2011 4:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
completely disregard the other two replies should of proof read better

"If a gov't person has connections to a company they should not be allowed to win a contract." That is a definition of a corrupt system.

So if a company has a product that costs less is more efficient than all of the rivals but one of there employees with shares now works for darpa that means darpa should not be allowed to award the contract to that company. Your telling me that isn't corrupt

RE: Personally
By jhb116 on 8/17/2011 6:40:35 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect - that gov't person needs to recuse themselves from the source selection process thereby allowing all eligible companies to bid.

I'm not sure how she gets to "redefine" the rules - I believe DARPA falls under the Federal Acquisition Reg and rules - part of which is that all federal employees that have this type of work must disclose any significant holdings (currently defined as 5000, I think) in single companies. They are not required to report holdings in diversified mutual funds or gov't bonds. Maybe she got away with this because she is the boss??

BTW - the gov't normally looks for best value - not the cheapest.

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki