Summary and course material application

Diem-Thi Le testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on September 10, 2008. She told the committee that, because of the emphasis on the increase of the productivity rate, DCAA auditors, including herself, were pressured by management to perform audits within certain numbers of budgeted hours. Given the change in audit opinions by management without performing additional audit work or without discussing it with the auditors whose opinions were altered, she concluded that it was a lack of due professional care, at best, and negligent and fraudulent, at worst. She confided with other colleagues about her findings and was told she had no choice but to call the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) Hotline. She did so in November 2005.

Le said she never imagined that she would call the hotline and make an allegation against her management. She became disillusioned when she found out the complaint was sent back to her own agency for investigation. The independent process of review and determination of action by DoD IG personnel had been compromised. She followed up on her complaint several times, and, in February 2006, she was told that it might take a long time for someone to work on her case due to limited staff. She then decided to contact the local office of the Defense Criminal Investigative Services (DCIS) and met with a special agent on March 4, 2006. She also found out that her complaint had been referred to DCAA headquarters and that the referral included specific personal identifying information about her, such as her name and cell phone number, as well as details of the accounting system audit that triggered the hotline complaint. She concluded that her identity as a whistleblower had not been adequately protected; therefore, she suffered reprisal from DCAA management.

She made the following points about her experiences in her testimony:

• In September 2005, my management overruled my audit findings. In October 2005, I was transferred to another team. In the November 2005 Staff Conference, the regional audit manager stated that if we auditors did not like management's audit opinion, we should find another job.
• In early July 2006, I was transferred to another team. In late July 2006, my management was interviewed by the DCIS special agent. In October 2006, I found out that I was the only auditor with an "Outstanding" performance rating who did not get a performance award.
• In early April 2007, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) investigator contacted DCAA Western Region management to inform them of my OSC complaint. Shortly after that happened, my supervisor told me that I should seek mental health counseling because of the stress I was under. She gave me an Employee Assistance Form and asked that I sign it.
• In August 2007, I was given my annual performance evaluation for the period of July 2006 through June 2007. I was downgraded from an "Outstanding" rating to a "Fully Successful" rating (two notches down). Also, my promotion points came down from 78 (out of a maximum of 120) to 58 points. Please note that prior to this job performance evaluation, I had been an outstanding auditor for several years.

• On August 31, 2007, I was given a memorandum signed by my supervisor and prepared by the DCAA headquarters' legal counsel. The memo instructed me that I was not allowed to provide any documents generated by a government computer, including e-mails and job performance evaluations, to any investigative units, including the OSC.
• On September 10, 2007, my supervisor advised me to read the 18 USC 641, Theft of Government Property. My supervisor stated that the unauthorized distribution of agency documents is theft, and it does not matter if the purpose is to respond to a hotline or OSC complaint.
• In August 2008, I was given my job performance evaluation for the period of July 2007 through June 2008. I remained at "Fully Successful," which is one notch above the rating that one would be put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). My promotion points came down to 53.

Le concluded her testimony by stating that it was her opinion that DCAA management had become so metric driven that the quality of its audits and independence had suffered. Audits were not dictated by audit risks, but rather by the established budgeted hours and due dates. The pressure to close out audits and to meet the productivity rate was so intense that it often prevented auditors from following their instincts in questioning the contractor costs, reporting internal control deficiencies, and evaluating any suspected irregular conduct. In the end, contractors were "getting away with murder" because they knew that DCAA was so metric driven. She also pointed out that DCAA management had reduced the number of audit staff and created layers of personnel who did nothing but monitor metrics. She had hoped the culture would change and enable auditors to perform high-quality audits in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards in order to protect the government's interest and taxpayers' money.