Booz Allen's San Antonio office faces AF debarment

Fresh off the height of being chosen one of San Antonio's "50 Best Places to Work" by the San Antonio Business Journal in 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton's regional office was suspended by the Air Force on Feb. 6.

The information on the suspension was published on the Excluded Parties List System and given an A1 code, meaning that the Air Force is proposing debarment "pursuant to one or more of the causes" listed in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).

Four people and the company are listed under the Excluded Parties List System posting.

On Feb. 8, Booz Allen confirmed that the listing relates to two current and three former employees in the Texas office.

Apparently, a former government employee hired by Booz Allen inappropriately retained and shared sensitive information about a pending government procurement.

"The government's current action does not terminate ongoing work under existing contracts; it does, however, affect potential new government business involving that location," the company said in an e-mailed statement today.

The company voluntarily decided not to submit a bid on the procurement, and has since fired the employee and reported the matter to federal authorities.

Debarment under FAR 9.406 excludes a contractor from government contracting and government-approved subcontracting for a reasonable, specified period as indicated by the debarring agency.

According to the Air Force General Counsel Department, suspensions and debarments may be based on a wide variety of misconduct, including but not limited to violations of criminal and civil laws, poor performance of government contracts, misconduct unrelated to government contracts, and general unethical conduct.

"This issue has the highest attention of our management, and Booz Allen holds every employee to the highest standards of ethics and compliance.  We will continue to cooperate fully with the Air Force on resolution, are evaluating the operational impacts of this matter and are hopeful the issue will be resolved soon," the statement said.

Booz Allen Hamilton, of McLean, Va., ranks No. 9 on Washington Technology’s 2011 Top 100 list of the largest federal government contractors.

About the Author

Alysha Sideman is the online content producer for Washington Technology.

Reader Comments

Tue, Mar 12, 2013 Steve Stallings

Ethical? Bull! I know of several retired Air Force people in their Hawaii office who are out and out criminals! They should be disbarred. Total fraud, waste and abuse magnet!

Fri, Apr 6, 2012

As a current Booz Allen employee, I am appalled that people would claim to know about inappropriate/illegal behavior and not report that to the Legal Department. Clearly the action of one person has had a devastating effect on many people who haven't engaged in those activities. For those former employees who claim to know about bad behavior: the company is better off without you.

Sat, Mar 24, 2012

As a previous employee at BAH, I can say they often know and use other contractors multiples to steal/win contracts. Someone said this was an ethical company, that is a complete scam. Perhaps 10 years ago, but today no. The two current employees, well one of them is a principle and still working there. I have so much dirt on this company I could probably get them debarred from many other govt. contracts.

Wed, Mar 21, 2012 Ex BAH employee (resigned by choice) Europe

I really believe most consulting firms, like BAH (I used to work for and have first hand experience), who provide "services" on government funded contracts, are wastes of taxpayers money. Ok, the services maybe of value but the work can be done at 20% cost. That is not to say that BAH "worker bees" employees are not working hard or were over paid. I would say the "worker bees" salary may fall slightly on the higher end of the market comparable to O&G Industries, but not outrageous. It's the "management" that costs the government the other 80%. My honest opinion, the taxpayers fund can be better spent somewhere else like education, valuable research, create more meaningful jobs for the economy, etc.. After a year I resigned by choice because I don't believe in the high price tag that BAH collected for the "questionable value" services I provided on taxpayers contracts.

Wed, Feb 15, 2012 Mr. Kretchmarr

It is always touching to read employees' love for their country, or, to hear virulent anti-contractor types damn the value received (perceived?) from them. This another case of the convergence of contractors and their clients. It is only natural that contractors intimately involved in government programs get tarred by the same brush. All the more so since many contractor folks are former government folks. Unmeasured or poor roductivity, lack of accountability and the like are similar in both workforces. There is no excuse not to act fast and decisively when a just-retired Air Force officer shows up on Day 1 with a hard drive full of procurement-sensitive info. Unfortunately, the lack of action, though optically the work of a few people, can reflect nothing but corporate values and ethics. The company is lucky that only the SA office will be debarred. Maybe retiring officers on the make (take?) and contractors will learn from this flaming example.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above.

WT Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.