Claire McCaskill

So what we would probably have to do is have the FAR clarify that business integrity would include compliance with labor and other human rights laws such as those regarding trafficking?

If a contracting evaluation gives negative information, they know they are going to get blowback from the contractor.

What worries me is that someplace else in the Federal Government they would be contracting with this company after this massive failure to provide a basic website that worked on a very important date.

Nobody is putting a gun to the head of these contractors and saying you must do business with the Federal Government.

I hope to have a hearing in a few years to congratulate you on a more integrated system with more information that is immediately transparent to anyone who wants to see it.

It is just easier to let it slide

CGI Federal should have had entries on October 1st in PPIRS. Major screw up.

My concern is that a contractor could settle a lawsuit without admitting fault.

Shouldn't the contractors report their involvement in any litigation, or should we just limit it to those where they had resulted in a finding of fault?

There is no information about the proceedings; they just answered yes.

It appears that CGI Group purchased a company called American Management Systems (AMS) that had a number of pretty high contracting failures.

But at some point in time, you have to pull the band-aid off and begin a system that makes more sense.

The notion that there is not negative information about CGI Federal or the subsidiaries of BP in PPIRS is embarrassing.

It just worries me that they overlook it and then there is nothing that happens. That is my biggest concern.

I want the government to have as much information as possible, because I do not want the government to be spending public money with a company that it should not be spending public money with.

I do not think we are ever going back and checking that they are reporting accurately, completely, or if they are reporting at all.

I think that makes it much harder. We will continue to followup on that, but I am glad that you are addressing that, because I think it really is a problem.

Well, what would be helpful for us to know, the Committee to understand, is that if this decision is being made, for the reasons that you indicate, Mr. Youel Page, and that is efficiency, then all somebody needs to know, that there is a…

I think it is troubling. There are lots of places that I think security warnings are appropriate, but I think we need to track down why we are getting a security warning for these particular databases that are run by the U.S. Government.

I wish we could have a discussion about whether or not we should change that rule to include information before April 2011.

Let's look at this source selection sensitive limitation and what seems to be an arbitrary length for protection, which is 3 years.

It sounds like we are still stuck there 4 years later. Is that accurate?

I want to talk a little bit why FAPIIS has so little information.

But I do not want you to think I do not recognize that there has been some progress.

The reason we are having this hearing today is because I think that this is an area that continues to need a lot of oversight.