VA Spent $396K on Appointment Scheduling Software in 2013

    The Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) posted three notices on fbo.gov in 2013 regarding its intent to purchase appointment scheduling software to correct problems with preparation and delivery of appointment notices to veterans for the VA's compensation and pension clinics. The set-aside contract for software was awarded on September 26, 2013 for $395,949 to Tridec Technologies, LLC, a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) located in Dayton, Ohio. However, the contract award was not listed online at fbo.gov, the online government contracting website. According to an email response from the VA press office, the missing contract award notice was due to an oversight.
    The VA's compensation and pension clinics evaluate veterans for eligibility for disability claims, both physical- and mental-health related. The contract solicitation noted that the clinics "have a mandate to schedule and complete any examinations requested within 30 days." The VA faced several problems with the scheduling process as the documents accompanying the solicitation indicate:

• [T]he appointment letter mailing process is averaging 7-10 days for the Veteran to receive the information.

• There is a higher incidence of Veterans not showing for their appointments due to delays in notification. 

• [S]chedulers are currently unable to edit appointment letters in real time which results in pen & ink changes presenting an unprofessional appearance and increasing the opportunity for errors. 

• [M]ultiple appointments ... generate multiple letters which cannot be automatically consolidated.  
• Multiple appointments for different clinics that are under the same service line, print in alphabetical rather than chronological order.  This results in missed appointments as well since our Veterans look at the first appointment listed and assume it represents their arrival time.

    The VA also hoped that the quick turnaround time afforded by email would allow cancelled appointments to be refilled more quickly to cut down on unused time slots and more efficiently utilize the clinics. Regarding implementation, the VA said that "initially this program will be launched at multiple VA’s Compensation and Pension Clinics with the goal to transition to all VA Clinics nationally."
    As noted above, the VA press office informed THE WEEKLY STANDARD in response to an email inquiry that the "lack of post-award synopsis was an oversight". A response has not yet been received to a follow up email asking about the status of the software's implementation and if the VA has plans to expand use of the software beyond the compensation and pension clinics.
    The contract with Tridec Technologies covers twelve months, through September 2014. Tridec lists two contracts with the VA on its website, but neither of the two involve the scheduling software. Tridec has not responded to an inquiry regarding the software contract.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

State Department Official: 'Can Agriculture Save the Planet Before It Destroys It?'

    Secretary of State John Kerry recently told the graduating class of Boston College that climate change is threatening "nothing less than the future of the entire planet."  Now another state department official is asserting that even if the planet dodges the climate change bullet, the earth may be done in by agriculture.

    Jack Bobo, Chief of Biotechnology and Textile Trade Policy and Senior Advisor for Biotechnology in the Department of State's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, recent wrote a two-part article for ArcticApples.com, the website of a Canadian company, Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc.  The article, entitled "Can Agriculture Save the Planet before It Destroys It?", was republished last Saturday on DipNote, the official U.S. Department of State blog (the original source of the article was not noted.)
    Mr. Bobo's concern revolves around earth's growing population against the backdrop of the "negatives consequences of agriculture -- from polluted waterways to disappearing rainforests":

 With the global population expected to reach nine billion in less than 40 years, the sustainable production of agriculture will be increasingly on the minds of governments, private industry, and even many consumers. Not only do we have to increase the amount of food available, we have to find ways to minimize its footprint on the planet. There is no activity that humankind engages in that has a bigger impact on the planet than agriculture. This is true in terms of impacts on land and water resources as well as in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Therefore one of the great challenges that confront all of us in the next 40 years is to figure out how to maximize the production of food while minimizing the negatives consequences of agriculture -- from polluted waterways to disappearing rainforests.

    Mr. Bobo notes the tremendous advances in agriculture particularly over the past century and concedes that the "rapid pace of technological development suggests that scientists may, indeed, be able to sustain the growth of the past." However, he notes:

In order to sustainably feed 9 billion people, global agriculture will need to produce 60 percent more food using less land, less water, less fertilizer and fewer pesticides. In other words, we will need to do everything better than we are doing it today and our rivers and lakes are already running dry.

    According to Mr. Bobo, between now and 2050 will be the "most important 40 years there have ever been in the history of agriculture."  On the up side, if earth can make it to 2050 when population growth is projected to crash, "we will be good forever" in Mr. Bobo's words:

The good news is that after 2050 population growth will slow dramatically and everything will get easier. So, if we are able to get to 2050 without cutting down our forests and draining our rivers and lakes, we will be good forever. The next 40 years are not only the most important 40 years there have ever been in the history of agriculture. They are also the most important 40 years there will ever be in the history of agriculture.

    While Mr. Bobo is worried, he places great faith in science to help solve the agricultural crisis, noting that while he is the "first to admit that science doesn’t always get it right. It’s also true, however, that you can’t get it right without science."  The article ends on an optimistic note that, if everyone does his part, "agriculture just might save the planet."


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry: Obama "Will Go Down in History" For "Highest Standards of Transparency and Accountability"

    The same day President Obama held a press conference about the growing scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of State John Kerry faced the press in Mexico at a joint appearance with Mexican Foreign Secretary Jose Antonio Meade. Kerry was in the country to discuss trade, economic growth, higher education, and security cooperation, but a reporter asked Kerry some pointed questions about President Obama and his policies and actions regarding surveillance and deportation.  Kerry responded with unequivocal support for the president, beginning, "Well, I believe President Obama will go down in history as the president who has held himself and his Administration accountable to the highest standards of transparency and accountability."

    In answer to the reporter's assertion that President Obama would be "going into history as the president that has deported the most migrants," Kerry said the Obama administration's relationship with the Mexican government has been "productive on cross-border issues, on immigration issues, extradition issues, deportation issues," but that things wouldn't "change overnight." (Secretary Meade added later that the two countries need a "more structured dialogue so we can talk about migration, security in a framework of the right of migrants.")
    Apparently in response to the reporter's statements about "spying" and "wired" phone calls, Kerry suggested, "everybody here knows President Obama didn’t order [what was happening] because he was in the Senate – and not even in the Senate – when much of this was put in place." Kerry invoked privacy standards that he had authored with Senator McCain that he said influenced new rules that President Obama had recently established, and said that the president would be "measured as having taken the most extraordinary steps of any president in our history in order to try to put that [security and protection and prevention versus privacy] relationship back in balance."  Kerry placed President Obama at the top of the list of all presidents for transparency in this regard, saying, "No President, I think, in our history has laid open as willingly for everybody to judge what we are doing as a guideline or as a standard by which we are going to try to balance this equity between security and protection and prevention versus privacy and respect for the rights of all of our citizens."
    Kerry closed his remarks with the assurance that "the people of the United States and the people of Mexico should be pleased with the direction that we’re moving in. It’s open, it’s transparent, it’s accountable, and it’s productive. And I think we’re headed in the right direction."
    A complete transcript of the exchange between Secretary Kerry and the reporter is as follows:

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) This is a question for Secretary Kerry. When President Pena came into office, the level that he would have with the United States was questionable, especially in terms of unity. After one year and a half, what do you think about the relationship of this administration with the United States? 

You said that the United States doesn’t have any interest in Venezuela, only to foster dialogue. But how can you explain that in Mexico, we learned some time ago that U.S. operatives was spying the candidate Pena Nieto. And recently, we found out that many of the telephone calls are wired. How can you explain this to the Mexican population in terms of migration? Is it true that President Obama has – it is true that President Obama has been fostering the reform, but it seems that he’s going into history as the president that has deported the most migrants. I know that this is something related to Congress, but I don’t know what is the position of President Obama and how he wants to go into history.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I believe President Obama will go down in history as the president who has held himself and his Administration accountable to the highest standards of transparency and accountability. The President has personally committed his Administration, which it has accomplished, to take an in-depth analysis of precisely what was happening, which everybody here knows President Obama didn’t order because he was in the Senate – and not even in the Senate – when much of this was put in place. 

And President Obama has ordered a process of accountability and transparency, and has been willing to lay it out for the world to see and understand that process of accountability. He gave a speech recently in which he set up new standards by which he believed the United States ought to behave, and I will tell you, because I was the author in the United States Senate with Senator John McCain of privacy with respect to the Internet and other uses, that we both believe very, very powerfully in the right of people to privacy (inaudible). 

Now at the same time, the President of the United States has a fundamental responsibility to protect our people and to help protect people in the rest of the world who are potentially targeted by vicious extremists, terrorists in various parts of the world. The fact is that we have, because of our capable intelligence-gathering, been able to thwart many plots which would’ve resulted in the loss of civilian lives in one attack or another. There’s a delicate balance, and President Obama has worked very, very hard to achieve that balance. No President, I think, in our history has laid open as willingly for everybody to judge what we are doing as a guideline or as a standard by which we are going to try to balance this equity between security and protection and prevention versus privacy and respect for the rights of all of our citizens. And I think the President will actually be measured as having taken the most extraordinary steps of any president in our history in order to try to put that relationship back in balance.

Now, with respect to the relationship with President Pena Nieto and Mexico, I am convinced that our relationship is as strong and as vital as it has been. It is as productive on cross-border issues, on immigration issues, extradition issues, deportation issues; on our mutual interests in the economy; on our mutual interests of innovation, research, education that we’ve just been talking about – I don’t think we’ve ever had as in-depth and as repeated a series of meetings in an effort to make sure we’re on track. Now, does everything change overnight? No. I wish it did in lots of respects. But we are on track, with the agenda that we have set and the relationship that has been created, to deal with any bumps in the road, to work through difficulties of border police or policing or military, other kinds of things. 

We’re working cooperatively. That’s what’s important. And we have made tremendous gains in the actual cooperation day to day in those endeavors. So I think the people of the United States and the people of Mexico should be pleased with the direction that we’re moving in. It’s open, it’s transparent, it’s accountable, and it’s productive. And I think we’re headed in the right direction. 

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard. 

Kerry: If We're Wrong on Climate Change, 'What's the Worst That Can Happen?'

    Secretary of State John Kerry did not shy away from pejorative language when addressing "climate change" in his commencement speech at Boston College on Monday.  Kerry referred to those skeptical of the Obama administration's climate claims as "members of the Flat Earth Society" who are "risking nothing less than the future of the entire planet" by resisting implementation of the administration's policies.  At the very least, Kerry argued, what have we got to lose by taking the steps he and the president are advocating? [emphasis added]:

If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence – that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship. And it’s not a matter of capacity; it’s a matter of willpower.

    Kerry also suggested there's not much time to act, because "things will change in a hurry," and indeed some things have already changed:

Two major recent reports, one from the UN and one from retired U.S. military leaders, warn us not just of the crippling consequences to come, but that some of them are already here. Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent. Why? Because if crops can’t grow, there’ll be food insecurity. If there’s less water because of longer droughts, if there are stronger and more powerful storms, things will change in a hurry and they will change for the worse. 

    Kerry seemed to be echoing the words of French foreign minister Laurent Fabius who last week at an appearance with the secretary said that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos."  As CNS News later reported, Fabius went on to warn that the earth stands at "the edge of a climatic abyss."  He was heartened, however, from some "glimmers of hope," adsserting that since the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, "climate denial is – at least in Europe – less audible."


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Military Leave Policy Altered to Accommodate Same-Sex Weddings [Updated]

    The American Military Partner Association (AMPA) held its first National Gala Dinner in Washington Sunday, and the Department of Defense used the opportunity to tout the rapid advances the military is making in erasing gender distinctions in policies regarding military spouses and partners. As reported by the Armed Forces Press Service, the keynote speaker at the dinner, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy Rosemary Freitas Williams, told the attendees that the Pentagon had modified existing military leave policy to allow service members to travel to the nearest jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is permitted to be legally married:

“Since not all local laws are equal when it comes to marriage,” Williams said, “we’ve modified the department’s leave policy to allow service members, regardless of their sexual orientation, to be authorized administrative absence so they may travel to the nearest jurisdiction to be legally married.”

    The military leave policy change was not the only announcement at the dinner.  Williams also said there were ongoing "policy reviews of commissary and exchange privileges, the morale, welfare and recreation program, childcare and youth programs and others to ensure access is inclusive."
    Further, AMPA's Community Hero Award recipient Tracy Johnson revealed that the Department of Veterans Affairs had recently notified her that she had been retroactively approved to receive spousal survival benefits after initially being denied.  Tracy and her partner Donna had been issued a marriage certificate in Washington D.C. in February 2012 before Donna was killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan later that same year.
    Williams was effusive in her praise for the AMPA and the attendees at the dinner, telling them they were "among the new generation of pioneers within the ranks of military and veterans service organizations.  'History will record your actions and your significance for all time,' she said."
    The AMPA bills itself on its website as "[c]onnecting, supporting, honoring, and serving the partners and spouses of America's LGBT servicemembers and veterans - our 'modern military families.'"
    An email to the press office of the Defense Department seeking clarification on the extent of the leave policy and where the directive originated has not yet been returned.


UPDATE, 5/22/14: Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a DOD spokesman, has now responded via email:

A clarifying policy memo was issued by the Department Sept. 4, 2013...  

As operational requirements permit, commanding officers MAY grant an administrative absence (not paid leave) to service members that are assigned to duty stations located more than 100 miles from a jurisdiction that allows the couple to be married.   

Eligible Service members assigned outside the Continental United States may be granted an administrative absence for a period of up to 10 days, which may include up to 5 days for travel.   

The number of days of administrative absence will be based on:   

 o    The waiting period, required by law, to obtain a legal marriage from the jurisdiction nearest the assignment location; ando    Time to travel to and from the marriage jurisdiction (i.e., a maximum of 2 days travel if a member is assigned in CONUS and a maximum of 5 days travel if a member is assigned OCONUS).

A copy of the September 4, 2013 memo can be found here.



Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry: 'Not Going To Pin Ourselves Down' on Response If Syria Again Used Chemical Weapons

    In London Thursday for a meeting with the foreign ministers of the nations of the London 11, the Friends of Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that “raw data that suggests there may have been” chlorine-based chemical weapons used by the Assad regime in Syria:

Chlorine is not listed on the list of prohibited items by itself freestanding under the Chemical Weapons Convention. But chlorine, when used and mixed in a way that is used as a chemical weapon in the conduct of war, is against the chemical weapons treaty. And I have seen evidence, I don’t know how verified it is – it’s not verified yet – it’s hasn’t been confirmed, but I’ve seen the raw data that suggests there may have been, as France has suggested, a number of instances in which chlorine has been used in the conduct of war. And if it has, and if it could be proven, then that would be against the agreements of the chemical weapons treaty and against the weapons convention that Syria has signed up to.

    Kerry was then questioned by a reporter about the possible responses if the evidence eventually proves that chemical weapons were indeed used again:

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, to follow up on your last point, if it is proven that chlorine was used as a chemical in war, which is prohibited, what will the Syrian Government face? What steps can be taken? 

SECRETARY KERRY: ...With respect to the CW and what the consequences are, it has been made clear by President Obama and others that use would result in consequences. We’re not going to pin ourselves down to a precise time, date, manner of action, but there will be consequences if it were to be proven, including, I might say, things that are way beyond our control and have nothing to do with us. But the International Criminal Court and others are free to hold him accountable. And as you know, we have a resolution that will be in front of the United Nations with respect to culpability for crimes against humanity, atrocities in the course of this conflict. So one way or the other, there will be accountability.

    In an interview on September 10, 2013, the secretary said that proof of Syria's use of chemical weapons was the "straw that broke the camel’s back" that prompted President Obama to order military strikes against Syria:

That’s when the President decided that that was straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak with respect to his usage. And the President decided that it needed a response from the world because chemical weapons were suddenly being used as a tactical weapon in a civil war, and any use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. 

That’s why we’re here where we are today. There’s a moral imperative to this, there’s a strategic imperative to this, there’s a practical military imperative in terms of sending him a message that his infrastructure, militarily, and his capacity to wage war could be affected if he continues to use these prohibited, outlawed, and outrageous weapons.

    Two days later at an appearance with Russian Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, Kerry said that the president maintained that "force might be necessary" "should diplomacy fail[.]"  After the Russian-brokered deal with Syria headed off military strikes, Kerry said "Ensuring that a dictator's wanton use of chemical weapons never again comes to pass, we believe is worth pursuing and achieving."
    Kerry did not mention a renewal of the strike threat when questioned this Thursday about the consequences to Syria if use of chemical weapons is proven again.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry Compares Governing Libya to Being a Massachusetts Senator

    Secretary of State John Kerry, in the United Kingdom for a meeting of the nations of the London 11, spoke to the press at the Foreign Commonwealth Office in London.  While the gathering was principally addressing the military conflict and humanitarian crisis in Syria, the secretary commented on the situation in Libya as well.  Kerry noted the need to bring security and stability to the country in the face of continuing violence and threats from various extremist elements:

We need to try to accelerate the effort to bring about stability and security and the governance that is necessary to provide the time and the space for Libyan authorities to be able to confront the threat from extremism and the challenges that their country faces of just providing governance to their people.

    Kerry then briefly described some steps the Libyan government would be encouraged to take to provide stability and peace for the Libyan people.  He noted the country is "rich in resources, rich in people with talent and capacity."  Kerry also referenced his own experience as a senator from Massachusetts as an example to the Libyans that he knows "something about what you can provide when you want to."

[W]e’re going to do all we can to help the Libyans in these next days to try to be able to gain control over their revenues and begin to forge the kind of coalition that can actually begin to build the offices of governance that are necessary. This is a small country – six and a half million people – smaller than the state that I represented in the Senate – privileged to represent for almost 29 years. I know something about what you can provide when you want to. Libya is a country rich in resources, rich in people with talent and capacity. And we hope that in the days ahead we’re going to be able to tap into that and find a way to help the Libyan people to move forward to have the kind of stability and peaceful governance that they aspire to.

    Kerry's remarks on Libya came on same day Rep. Darrell Issa issued a second subpoena for Kerry to appear before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 29 to testify about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya in 2012.  Kerry was scheduled to be out of the country on May 21, the date of the original subpoena.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.