By a voice vote, the the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved a bill (HR 5712) that would close a loophole in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that excuses federal contractors working overseas from reporting fraud. The loophole was inserted into the federal procurement rules and was published in November of last year as part of a contracting oversight measure. Called a "drafting error" by GSA chief acquisition officer David Drabkin, the loophole exempts companies performing federal contracts overseas from mandatory reporting of employee contract fraud.

For more background on (with hints of Administration shenanigans), see:

By a voice vote, the House approved HR 4881. The bill, the Contracting and Tax Accountability Act of 2007, if signed into law, would bar firms that are delinquent in paying their federal income taxes from obtaining federal contracts.

POGO's Scott Amey flags this update on the government's suspension of IBM from obtaining federal contracts:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government has lifted a week-old ban that prevented IBM from getting new federal contracts in an exchange for an agreement from the company to drop its protest of an $84 million Environmental Protection Agency contract it lost last year.

...

The two sides on Thursday signed an agreement in which IBM agreed to withdraw its protest from the Government Accountability Office and drop any interest in competing for the contract. The company will also refund the EPA any attorneys fees and costs the agency paid to IBM in regard to the filing of the protest.

Amey notes the general implications for government oversight of contractors:

So after seven days, what have we learned? The EPA is now convinced that IBM is a responsible contractor. The government believes that public-private agreements (and the promises within them) go a long way in establishing contractor responsibility. The government's reliance on large contractors is a big factor in government decisions. And, the decision to lift IBM's suspension may have been different if this were a small business (see Ray Bjorklund's quote in today's AP story).

As many of you know, federal contracting is complex and imperfect. We are talking about big money, politics, profits, power, influence, "best value" and so many other factors--as recently witnessed in the Air Force tanker contract award, bid protest, and subsequent fallout. I hope that EPA's decisions were aimed at protecting taxpayers. Finally, I appreciate EPA's effort to hold a contractor and its employees accountable, however short-lived, as well as IBM's willingness to promise to do the right thing.

Reuters:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - IBM is under investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over an $80 million bid it made in 2006 to modernize EPA financial systems and has been suspended from seeking new contracts with all U.S. agencies, the company said on Monday.

...

International Business Machines Corp, the world's largest provider of computer services, said it only learned on Friday of the temporary suspension from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tied to possible violations of ethical bidding provisions on an EPA contract IBM had submitted in March 2006.

...

The temporary suspension applies to all federal agencies and IBM business units. IBM may continue work on existing contracts as of the date of the suspension, unless a particular agency directs otherwise, the company said in a statement.

Fred McNeese, a spokesman for IBM, said "it's our understanding that the basic issue is whether certain information concerning a contract should have been provided to IBM employees by an EPA employee."

A person familiar with the matter said concerns were raised within the EPA about how IBM had acquired sensitive information relevant to its pursuit of a contract valued at more than $80 million to help the EPA modernize some of its computer systems. "It appeared they [IBM officials] used some information given to them by an EPA employee who didn't realize the ramification of sharing such information," the person familiar with the matter said.

USASpending.gov indicates that IBM received $1.4 billion in federal contracts in 2007. This represents about 1.4 percent of IBM's total revenues that year.

The response to the financial institution regulatory reform proposal introduced yesterday by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has been striking. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association, small banks and state attorneys general, left-leaning economists and analysists, and members of Congress, even the man with the max Street cred, Jim "I reiterate -- I am embarrassed by these guys. Thank heavens, no matter who wins the White House, they will soon be gone" Cramer, have trashed the plan unceremoniously.

The Paulson plan has been dissed on a number of grounds. It regulates already-regulated institutions, not ones lacking and needing regulation. It will weaken state banks. The plan could have been released anytime over the last several years and would not have changed a thing regarding market conditions today. It blithely declares that "market discipline is the most effective tool to limit systemic risk." And so forth.

Secretary Paulson is a bright man who understands financial market operations as well as anyone. His tenure at Treasury has, surprisingly, been as marginal thus far as those of his predecessors Paul O'Neill and John Snow. Treasury is facing its first full-blown crisis since the Asian contagion of a decade ago. This is Paulson's moment.

OK -- so what does Paulson's proposal accomplish ? Is it:

• A. an effort to disguise the administration's laissez-faire approach to the crisis?
• B. a smokescreen to distract from such "interventionist" initiatives as the Frank-Dodd bill?
• C. an April Fool's errand?
• D. all of the above?
• E. none of the above?