Mindfully.org This Domain & Website Are For Sale. Serious Inquiries Only. Contact Here

Home | Air | Energy | Farm | Food | Genetic Engineering | Health | Industry | Nuclear | Pesticides | Plastic
Political | Sustainability | Technology | Water

Outsourcing the Pentagon

Who benefits from the Politics and Economics of National Security? 

LARRY MAKINSON / The Center for Public Integrity 29sep04

[Also see: How To Profit from a Stronger America by LOUIS RUKEYSER]


Graphic by Art Hazelwood from his series of etchings "Hubris Corpulentus"

Graphic by Art Hazelwood from "Hubris Corpulentus"

WASHINGTON, September 29, 2004 — The war in Iraq, with its urgent agenda of getting the job done and getting it done quickly, relied to an unprecedented degree not only on the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are expected to fight America's wars, but on a second American army: tens of thousands of civilian contractors hired on for the duration. This new, and often dangerous, role for civilians on the battlefield has raised a host of new questions about the role of private contractors in the nation's defense.

One of the biggest contracts awarded in the war in Iraq went to Kellogg Brown & Root, a key subsidiary of Halliburton Co., the firm Vice President Dick Cheney ran as CEO before he stepped into the White House and became one of the prime movers urging the president to invade Iraq. Of the $4.3 billion in defense contracts Halliburton won in fiscal 2003 only about half were awarded based on competitive bidding. Another $1.9 billion in contract dollars was awarded on the basis of "urgency" without bidding and without going to any other contractors.

The connection between Halliburton and the Vice President has led to no end of speculation about how that particular firm was chosen. While this report does not address that issue specifically, it does examine the practice of awarding no-bid contracts to well-connected defense contractors. Indeed, one might pose a new question on the role of contractors in the American military: Was the war in Iraq an example of the Pentagon's new way of doing business, or was it an outgrowth of a way of doing business that has been much longer in duration, albeit conducted off the field of battle without a worldwide—or even any—audience?

To find the answers, the Center began in early 2004 to investigate the patterns of Defense Department contracting. Our prime source was the Pentagon's own procurement databases—public information that had been posted for years on an obscure Defense Department Web site [http://www.dior.whs.mil/peidhome/guide/procoper.htm].

The Center examined more than 2.2 million contract actions totaling $900 billion in authorized expenditures over the six-year period from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal 2003 (Oct. 1, 1997-Sept. 30, 2003). Most of the research was focused on the biggest contractors, those that won at least $100 million in prime contracts over the period studied. Some 737 prime contractors, mainly but not exclusively for-profit corporations, fit that criteria, along with several thousand of their subsidiaries and affiliates.

After nine months of research, the Center has found:

More details on these findings can be found in the sections that follow. In addition, the report includes detailed statistical contracting profiles for each of the 737 largest prime contractors—the companies that won $100 million or more in defense contracts over the past six years. The profiles include breakdowns of each company's total contract dollars, the types of contracts they won, the competition they faced, a list of their key subsidiaries, breakdowns of their lobbying and campaign contributions, and a list of the chief products and services they sold to the Pentagon.

After nine months of research, however, this report may raise more questions than it answers. It brings to the surface for the first time the patterns of the Pentagon's contracting practices and many details of the $900 billion in taxpayer money the Defense Department paid out to its private suppliers. Both this report and the detailed profiles are designed to provide an important new body of research materials for a new wave of informed reporting about the ever-more-expensive, and profitable, business of defending America.

The pages that follow offer analyses of Pentagon spending habits from the following perspectives:

The Biggest Contractors / Competition / Cost-Plus Contracts / Joint Ventures / Foreign Contractors / Political Influence I: Campaign Contributions / Political Influence II: Lobbying / Small Business: Bigger Than You Think / What the Pentagon Buys / The Rise in Service Contracts / Accuracy in Pentagon Reporting


The Biggest Contractors

The Center's research examined the past six years of defense contracts, aiming to identify and profile every corporation that collected at least $100 million in prime contracts. A total of 737 contractors met that criterion and all are profiled in detail elsewhere in this report.

Most, but by no means all, of the top contractors were for-profit American corporations. But the list also includes three government agencies, 17 non-profits, 10 universities, four foreign governments, six hospitals or hospital networks, and nearly a hundred foreign corporations (many of which operate U.S. subsidiaries). Here are the 100 biggest Defense Department contractors over the past six years:

The 100 Biggest Defense Contractors, FY 1998-2003

Rank / Name / Location / 98-03 Contracts 
1 Lockheed Martin Bethesda, Md. $94,056,641,059 
2 Boeing Co Chicago, Ill. $81,645,655,400 
3 Raytheon Co Waltham, Mass. $39,904,717,897 
4 Northrop Grumman Los Angeles, Calif. $33,829,847,656 
5 General Dynamics Falls Church, Va. $33,280,959,821 
6 United Technologies Hartford, Conn. $17,953,516,117 
7 General Electric Fairfield, Conn. $10,600,007,101 
8 Science Applications International Corp San Diego, Calif. $10,598,835,883 
9 Carlyle Group Washington, D.C. $9,334,962,462 
10 Newport News Shipbuilding Newport News, Va. $8,852,781,214 
11 TRW Inc Cleveland, Ohio $8,725,744,602 
12 CLASSIFIED DEFENSE CONTRACTOR Washington, D.C. $8,267,851,367 
13 Computer Sciences Corp El Segundo, Calif. $6,789,832,719 
14 Halliburton Co Houston, Texas $6,768,728,331 
15 Textron Inc Providence, R.I. $6,629,835,387 
16 Litton Industries Woodland Hills, Calif. $6,478,824,475 
17 Honeywell International Morristown, N.J. $6,135,622,361 
18 Health Net Inc Woodland Hills, Calif. $6,111,054,478 
19 Humana Inc Louisville, Ky. $5,683,896,585 
20 L-3 Communications New York, N.Y. $5,233,392,435 
21 ITT Industries White Plains, N.Y. $5,079,977,541 
22 BAE Systems Farnborough, England $4,814,022,157 
23 Bechtel Group San Francisco, Calif. $4,407,883,109 
24 Dyncorp Reston, Va. $4,144,957,980 
25 Triwest Healthcare Alliance Phoenix, Ariz. $3,747,753,606 
26 Alliant Techsystems Edina, Minn. $3,232,676,891 
27 Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc McLean, Va. $3,031,707,940 
28 Boeing Sikorsky Comanche Team Philadelphia, Pa. $2,866,440,580 
29 FedEx Corp Memphis, Tenn. $2,741,817,111 
30 MITRE Corp Bedford, Mass. $2,581,129,647 
31 Oshkosh Truck Corp Oshkosh, Wis. $2,571,553,972 
32 Aerospace Corp El Segundo, Calif. $2,494,160,391 
33 Stewart & Stevenson Services Houston, Texas $2,449,600,260 
34 Titan Corp San Diego, Calif. $2,389,803,664 
35 Exxon Mobil Corp Irving, Texas $2,385,708,270 
36 Jacobs Engineering Group Pasadena, Calif. $2,375,316,745 
37 URS Corp San Francisco, Calif. $2,366,845,558 
38 Longbow LLC Orlando, Fla. $2,298,648,038 
39 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Mass. $2,297,676,759 
40 Electronic Data Systems Corp Plano, Texas $2,291,485,707 
41 Veritas Capital Management New York, N.Y. $2,208,194,107 
42 Government of Canada Ottawa, Canada $2,207,393,181 
43 Dell Computer Round Rock, Texas $2,190,422,159 
44 BP London, England $2,107,226,427 
45 Motorola Inc Schaumburg, Ill. $2,036,815,650 
46 Johnson Controls Milwaukee, Wis. $2,033,875,329 
47 Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin Joint Venture Oralndo, Fla. $2,029,406,010 
48 Harris Corp Melbourne, Fla. $2,022,433,071 
49 IT Group Inc Monroeville, Pa. $1,991,658,451 
50 Cardinal Health Dublin, Ohio $1,934,142,520 
51 US Dept of Energy Washington, D.C. $1,932,845,653 
52 Maersk Inc Copenhagen, Denmark $1,913,819,561 
53 Rolls-Royce London, England $1,893,580,507 
54 Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, Md. $1,869,047,201 
55 Renco Group New York, N.Y. $1,845,481,266 
56 North American Airlines Sterling, Va. $1,822,483,777 
57 Anteon International Fairfax, Va. $1,796,873,303 
58 WorldCom Inc Ashburn, Va. $1,764,171,786 
59 Philipp Holzmann AG Frankfurt, Germany $1,723,275,972 
60 Marconi Corp London, England $1,721,135,168 
61 Rockwell Automation Milwaukee, Wis. $1,701,279,408 
62 Parsons Corp Pasadena, Calif. $1,692,331,604 
63 Federal Republic of Germany Koblenz, Germany $1,671,428,334 
64 GTSI Corp Chantilly, Va. $1,619,414,562 
65 Engineered Support Systems Inc St. Louis, Mo. $1,573,708,929 
66 Goodrich Corp Charlotte, N.C. $1,533,440,992 
67 General Motors/GDLS Defense Group Joint Venture Shelby Township, Mich. $1,518,037,285 
68 ARINC Inc Annapolis, Md. $1,494,791,315 
69 AT&T Corp Bedminster, N.J. $1,485,237,074 
70 CACI International Arlington, Va. $1,483,947,675 
71 Royal Dutch Shell The Hague, Netherlands $1,476,146,182 
72 Federal Prison Industries Washington, D.C. $1,421,848,002 
73 Veridian Corp Alexandria, Va. $1,399,931,479 
74 Chugach Alaska Corp Anchorage, Alaska $1,377,589,626 
75 Washington Group International Boise, Idaho $1,358,513,193 
76 Procter & Gamble Cincinnati, Ohio $1,325,762,986 
77 Sierra Health Services Las Vegas, N.V. $1,316,880,115 
78 Battelle Memorial Institute Columbus, Ohio $1,285,901,619 
79 IBM Corp Armonk, N.Y. $1,236,706,457 
80 ManTech International Fairfax, Va. $1,206,103,879 
81 Anthem Inc Indianapolis, Ind. $1,191,963,918 
82 Unisys Corp Blue Bell, Pa. $1,187,394,747 
83 Shaw Group Baton Rouge, La. $1,139,031,714 
84 Texas Instruments Dallas, Texas $1,104,848,545 
85 Cubic Corp San Diego, Calif. $1,101,568,281 
86 Ocean Shipholdings Inc Houston, Texas $1,094,875,569 
87 Valero Energy Corp San Antonio, Texas $1,065,856,752 
88 CH2M Hill Englewood, Colo. $1,062,648,971 
89 AmerisourceBergen Corp Wayne, Pa. $1,047,753,030 
90 Vectura Holding Co New York, N.Y. $1,043,080,885 
91 Tyco International Portsmouth, N.H. $1,006,250,942 
92 Charles Stark Draper Laboratory Cambridge, Mass. $1,004,007,493 
93 Bell Boeing Joint Project Office (V22 Osprey) Patuxent River, Md. $986,978,469 
94 General Atomics San Diego, Calif. $981,366,405 
95 United Industrial Corp Hunt Valley, Md. $981,110,025 
96 McKesson Corp San Francisco, Calif. $980,913,729 
97 Tetra Tech Inc Pasadena, Calif. $974,375,724 
98 GTE Corp Irving, Texas $944,080,766 
99 Hensel Phelps Construction Greeley, Colo. $937,492,801 
100 Equilon Enterprises Houston, Texas $935,047,849 

* This is a category, not a company. Neither the names of the contractors or the services and goods they supply are 
publicly disclosed. 



A glance at the list of the Pentagon's top suppliers shows that nation's biggest defense firms won the bulk of their contracts without going through the competitive process. Of the 10 biggest defense contractors over the six year period of this study, only one—Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC)—won more than half its contracts through full and open competition.

To cite one example, Raytheon is the third largest contractor and the third largest recipient of no bid contracts. Company spokesman Dave Shea said Raytheon's sole source contracts "are for systems that are unique, where Raytheon is the only one capable of providing those systems to the Department of Defense."

Boeing spokesman Doug Kennett said the Pentagon negotiates sole-source contracts "when the Defense Department believes it's in their best interest."

Here are the details on how the 20 biggest contractors won their contracts, 1998-2003:

Name/Total Contracts/Full & Open/Not Full & Open/Other/No Info 
Lockheed Martin $94,056,641,059 25% 74% 1% 0% 
Boeing Co $81,645,655,400 40% 60% 0% 0% 
Raytheon Co $39,904,717,897 31% 67% 1% 1% 
Northrop Grumman $33,829,847,656 33% 59% 2% 6% 
General Dynamics $33,280,959,821 30% 69% 0% 0% 
United Technologies $17,953,516,117 3% 95% 2% 0% 
General Electric $10,600,007,101 9% 88% 1% 2% 
Science Applications Intl Corp (SAIC) $10,598,835,883 74% 6% 7% 12% 
Carlyle Group $9,334,962,462 38% 60% 0% 2% 
Newport News Shipbuilding $8,852,781,214 2% 98% 0% 0% 
TRW Inc $8,725,744,602 70% 24% 2% 3% 
CLASSIFIED CONTRACTOR $8,267,851,367 16% 82% 0% 2% 
Computer Sciences Corp $6,789,832,719 75% 10% 1% 13% 
Halliburton Co $6,768,728,331 65% 34% 1% 0% 
Textron Inc $6,629,835,387 5% 95% 0% 0% 
Litton Industries $6,478,824,475 38% 56% 1% 6% 
Honeywell International $6,135,622,361 31% 62% 4% 3% 
Health Net Inc $6,111,054,478 99% 0% 1% 0% 
Humana Inc $5,683,896,585 87% 13% 0% 0% 
L-3 Communications $5,233,392,435 34% 54% 4% 8% 

NOTE: Totals in this and all other charts naming defense contractors include both the corporate parent and their 
subsidiaries and affiliates. 


Looking at the entire universe of defense contracts over the past six years, some 40 percent of contracts were awarded through "full and open competition"—a process involving either sealed bids, competitive proposals, or a combination of the two.

Even within that 40 percent slice of the Pentagon pie, not all the dollars were given to the most competitive bidder. Ten percent of the "full and open" contracts—and 4 percent of overall defense spending—went to contracts were only one bidder responded.

The biggest slice of the pie went to contracts classified by the Pentagon as "other than full and open competition." Most of these (about two-thirds) were awarded because there was only one source for the product or service the Pentagon was buying.

Levels of competition varied widely depending on the industry of the contractor and the type of products or services the Pentagon was buying. Some categories—like construction and medical services—were very competitive, while others were not competitive at all. Here are the categories at both extremes where the Pentagon spent at least $1 billion:

Least Competitive Categories

Category / Total / Less than Full & Open Competition 
Guided Missiles $22,747,653,356  96% 
Fire Control Equipment $4,121,932,856  87% 
Engines, Turbines and Components $23,254,881,284  85% 
Aircraft Components and Accessories $14,875,527,520  84% 
Trucks, Trailers, Ground Assault & Other Motor Vehicles $14,892,149,100  80% 
Ships, Small Craft, Pontoons and Floating Docks $31,231,838,029  80% 
Weapons $7,484,413,528  79% 
Quality Control, Testing and Inspection Services $4,398,926,543  78% 
Aircraft and Airframe Structural Components $86,530,378,638  77% 
Engine Accessories $2,518,265,449  75% 
Lease or Rental of Facilities $2,668,382,442  74% 
Miscellaneous Products $10,542,274,617  71% 
Ammunition and Explosives $13,165,716,488  70% 
Ship and Marine Equipment $1,464,987,161  65% 
Vehicular Equipment Components $2,997,653,029  61% 
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Components $11,964,285,604  59% 
Food and Beverages $11,785,260,160  58% 
Communications and Detection Equipment $28,317,777,970  55% 
Instruments and Laboratory Equipment $6,496,703,459  51% 

Most Competitive Categories

Category / Total / Full & Open w/multiple bidders 
Fuels, Oils & Lubricants $24,450,584,124 81% 
Medical, Dental and Veterinary Equipment & Supplies $7,810,113,138 80% 
Chemicals and Chemical Products $2,634,514,879 80% 
Space Vehicles $2,867,529,030 78% 
Medical Services $24,563,339,971 78% 
Construction of Structures and Facilities $42,396,893,851 76% 
Operation of Government-Owned Facilities $11,218,471,798 66% 
Hazardous Substance and Natural Resources Management $9,234,078,017 64% 
Technical Representative Services $6,253,625,480 64% 
Maintenance & Repair of Real Property $34,430,112,159 61% 
Lease or Rental of Equipment $2,021,813,249 51% 
Materials Handling Equipment $1,745,198,018 51% 
Equipment Maintenance, Repair & Rebuilding $42,372,061,870 50% 


Cost-Plus Contracts

There's a significant difference in the types of contracts won by the biggest contractors versus smaller ones. Among the Pentagon's 737 biggest contractors, 33 percent of the contract dollars were awarded on a cost-plus basis, meaning the government would make up the difference for overruns and contractors had little incentive to control costs. Among smaller contractors, only 11 percent of the contract dollars came through cost-plus contracts.

The progression is gradual, as seen in the following chart

And here are the details on the types of contracts won by the 20 biggest contractors:

Name Total Contracts Cost-Plus Fixed Price Time & Materials Other No Info 
Lockheed Martin $94,056,641,059 50% 47% 2% 1% 0% 
Boeing Co $81,645,655,400 27% 70% 2% 0% 0% 
Raytheon Co $39,904,717,897 38% 58% 3% 1% 0% 
Northrop Grumman $33,829,847,656 42% 50% 2% 2% 4% 
General Dynamics $33,280,959,821 39% 60% 0% 0% 0% 
United Technologies $17,953,516,117 22% 77% 0% 0% 0% 
General Electric $10,600,007,101 10% 88% 0% 0% 1% 
Science Applications Intl Corp (SAIC) $10,598,835,883 52% 21% 15% 2% 11% 
Carlyle Group $9,334,962,462 44% 46% 9% 0% 1% 
Newport News Shipbuilding $8,852,781,214 78% 22% 0% 0% 0% 
TRW Inc $8,725,744,602 71% 23% 2% 0% 3% 
CLASSIFIED CONTRACTOR $8,267,851,367 11% 9% 1% 79% 0% 
Computer Sciences Corp $6,789,832,719 41% 26% 24% 1% 8% 
Halliburton Co $6,768,728,331 63% 34% 0% 3% 0% 
Textron Inc $6,629,835,387 51% 48% 1% 0% 0% 
Litton Industries $6,478,824,475 36% 56% 2% 2% 5% 
Honeywell International $6,135,622,361 22% 72% 3% 3% 0% 
Health Net Inc $6,111,054,478 1% 99% 0% 0% 0% 
Humana Inc $5,683,896,585 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 
L-3 Communications $5,233,392,435 38% 49% 7% 1% 5%

Deidre Lee, the Pentagon's chief of procurement, defends the policy of cost-plus contracting and maintains that it may actually cost the government less in the long run. If contractors were required to give a firm price for risky new defense systems, she argues, the bids would be sky high to protect the companies' risk. "What we don't want is to put someone in a financial position in which they cannot perform," she says.

Others disagree, among them Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), an outspoken critic of the government's contracting practices, who has called cost-plus contracts "notoriously prone to abuse."

Joint Ventures Another example of the concentration of defense contractors is the major role played by joint ventures—organizations formed by multiple partners to manage specific contracts or produce weapons systems. While rival defense companies may often be fierce competitors, they are also frequent partners in these joint ventures. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman jointly formed Longbow LLC, which manufactures the Longbow Hellfire missile system. Boeing and Sikorsky Aircraft (a subsidiary of United Technologies) developed the Comanche helicopter until the Army cancelled the project in February 2004.

The list goes on and on, and a total of 43 joint ventures earned at least $100 million each in defense contracts over the past six years. Four of them earned more than a billion apiece, and the partners in those four ventures are an echo of the top independent contractors: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Motors, United Technologies and Raytheon.

When compiling contract totals, the Pentagon treats these joint ventures separately from their partners, and so does this report. But the chart below gives a sense of their important role in supplementing the bottom lines of the companies that run them. Here are the revenue figures for the 20 biggest beneficiaries of joint venture contracts. The totals are based on each company's share of ownership.

Rank / Joint Venture Partner / Total Share / No of JVs 
1 Lockheed Martin $2,270,866,941 6 
2 Boeing Co $2,074,007,386 5 
3 Raytheon Co $1,834,994,679 4 
4 United Technologies $1,495,634,029 2 
5 Northrop Grumman $1,365,727,709 3 
6 General Dynamics $1,019,471,331 3 
7 General Motors $759,018,643 1 
8 ChevronTexaco Corp $525,804,320 2 
9 Royal Dutch Shell $523,626,795 1 
10 Textron Inc $493,489,235 1 


Foreign Contractors

It may come as a surprise to people who've always assumed that America's defense is in the hands of Americans to learn that the list of top Pentagon contractors includes 95 companies, or in some cases government agencies, with headquarters in foreign countries. Three foreign governments made the list—Canada, Germany and Japan—as did the Italian Post, Telephone and Telegraph Service.

The German and Japanese contracts primarily pay for costs associated with U.S. bases located in those countries. The Canadian contracts are all through the Canadian Commercial Corp., a government-owned agency that handles contracts from Canadian exporters, and according to its own description "wraps the Canadian flag around their proposal, providing a government-backed guarantee of contract performance."

But most of the Pentagon's foreign suppliers are corporations—many with U.S. subsidiaries. The biggest supplier by far is the United Kingdom, whose companies earned more than $14 billion in defense contracts. Germany is second with $5.9 billion (including the contracts with the government itself). Next are the Netherlands, France, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Bermuda and South Korea—all with contracts exceeding $1 billion between 1998 and 2003.

Some of the companies are multinationals—like DaimlerChrysler or Royal Dutch Shell—that have a considerable U.S. presence. Others have U.S. subsidiaries, or, like Japan's Sumitomo Heavy Industries, they provide products and services used by U.S. forces overseas.

The list of foreign companies also includes Tyco International., which operates mainly in the United States, though the company is actually incorporated in Bermuda. (Bermuda is also home to the consulting firm Accenture). And the roster includes a contractor listed as "European Utility Companies" that refers not to a single firm, but a whole category of utilities suppliers based throughout Europe.

Here's the list of countries whose governments or corporations have received major Defense Department contracts over the past six years:

Country / Total Contracts / No of Contractors 
England $14,467,558,907 19 
Germany $5,875,778,292 11 
Netherlands $2,898,934,824 7 
France $2,793,612,113 7 
Canada $2,207,393,181 1 
Denmark $1,913,819,561 1 
Japan $1,888,060,336 8 
Bermuda $1,641,013,751 2 
South Korea $1,505,901,909 8 
Saudi Arabia $915,458,201 2 
Greece $744,127,512 1 
Sweden $672,661,339 3 
Kuwait $651,366,569 1 
United Arab Emirates $506,285,005 2 
Italy $440,520,415 3 
Belgium $422,022,106 2 
Bahrain $419,219,209 2 
Qatar $399,636,545 1 
Singapore $358,651,458 1 
Spain $308,251,413 1 
Switzerland $284,346,086 2 
Greenland $258,745,272 1 
Luxembourg $144,833,745 1 
Netherlands Antilles $144,424,966 1 
New Zealand $128,625,559 1 
Israel $127,402,358 1 


Political Influence I: Campaign Contributions

All told, the 737 biggest defense contractors spent nearly $214 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties and leadership PACs during calendar years 1998 to 2003. The money came from PACs, soft money donations (before they were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) and individual contributions from company executives, employees and their families. Two thirds of the total went to Republicans.

President George W. Bush received more than $4.5 million during that six-year period; his Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry collected just $332,000. The top 10 contractors alone gave Bush $444,000, versus $56,000 to Kerry.

During 2004, however, it was a different story. Between January and the end of July, Kerry collected twice as much as Bush—$1.6 million versus $824,000 for the president. When those figures are added, Kerry drew just under $2.0 million in campaign contributions from major defense contractors since 1998; President Bush received nearly $5.4 million.

While the top 10 defense contractors were all major political donors, the biggest contributors among the wider group of 737 major defense contractors were not defense companies per se, but those from other industries that are hugely dependent on regulatory, tax and other decisions made in Congress. Only two of the top 10 contributors, and five of the top 20, were defense companies.

Telecommunications and energy firms were prominent on the top donor list, as were two accounting firms. All of them provide goods or services to the Pentagon, but their main business interests—and likely their main motivations for making political contributions—lie outside the defense sector. Here are the 20 biggest contributors among the top defense contractors:

Top Contributors Among Major Defense Contractors

Name 98-03 Contributions Dems Repubs Sector 
AT&T Corp $9,860,460 42% 58% Communications/Electronics 
SBC Communications $9,160,163 41% 59% Communications/Electronics 
FedEx Corp $8,017,939 31% 69% Air Transport 
Lockheed Martin $6,625,986 38% 61% Defense 
Verizon Communications $5,412,571 35% 65% Communications/Electronics 
Boeing Co $5,313,529 41% 59% Defense 
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $5,277,168 23% 76% Accountants 
General Electric $4,885,867 41% 59% Misc Manufacturing 
KPMG LLP $4,763,127 22% 77% Accountants 
Southern Co $4,585,519 29% 71% Electric Utilities 
WorldCom Inc $4,373,051 36% 64% Telecommunications 
General Dynamics $4,367,384 40% 60% Defense 
Northrop Grumman $3,715,150 34% 66% Defense 
Bell Atlantic Corp $3,356,856 38% 61% Telecommunications 
CSX Corp $3,329,960 20% 79% Railroads 
Raytheon Co $3,226,729 41% 59% Defense Electronics 
DaimlerChrysler $2,797,639 34% 64% Automotive 
BP $2,607,565 29% 71% Oil & Gas 
Pepsico Inc $2,535,039 19% 80% Food Processing & Sales 
FPL Group $2,506,708 11% 89% Electric Utilities 

On the other hand, the 10 biggest defense industry contractors—that is, those companies that make aircraft, ships, munitions and so on—were all generous contributors, with total contributions ranging from $1.6 million to $6.6 million. All gave a majority of their dollars to Republicans.

Contributions by the 10 Biggest Defense Industry Contractors

Name / 98-03 Contributions / Dems / Repubs 
Lockheed Martin $6,625,986 38% 61% 
Boeing Co $5,313,529 41% 59% 
Raytheon Co $3,226,729 41% 59% 
Northrop Grumman $3,715,150 34% 66% 
General Dynamics $4,367,384 40% 60% 
United Technologies $2,238,693 42% 58% 
General Electric $4,885,867 41% 59% 
Science Applications Intl Corp (SAIC) $2,117,163 37% 63% 
Carlyle Group $1,640,945 31% 69% 
Newport News Shipbuilding $1,593,104 28% 72%


Chris Ullman, a spokesman for the Carlyle Group, took exception with any characterizations that campaign contributions come from the company itself. "The Carlyle Group has never given any contributions to politicians or political organizations. Individuals who work here are free to do so, but it has nothing to do with the company," he said.

The study found that many companies that won substantial defense contracts were only minor players in the political arena, or even stayed out of it altogether. Some 171 of the top contractors—nearly a quarter of the total—gave no contributions whatever between 1998 and 2003. Another 181 gave less than $10,000—an amount so small it barely registers on the political Richter scale. Only 202 contractors gave $100,000 or more during the six-year period of this study.

Who Got the Money The top 737 defense contractors gave $61.6 million in campaign contributions to Republican Party committees and $26.4 million to Democratic Party committees. The rest of their contributions went directly to candidates, or to the "leadership PACs" they operate. The overwhelming majority of dollars went to incumbent office holders.

Here were the top recipients of direct contributions to their campaign committees, between 1998 and 2003:

Top Recipients to Candidate Campaign Committees

Recipient / To Candidate / To Leadership / PAC Total 
President George W Bush (R) $4,546,679 $0 $4,546,679 
Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) $939,165 $28,500 $967,665 
Rep John P Murtha (D-PA) $932,224 $0 $932,224 
Sen Richard C Shelby (R-AL) $928,518 $95,400 $1,023,918 
Rep Tom DeLay (R-TX) $873,074 $21,625 $894,699 
Sen John McCain (R-AZ) $850,585 $64,100 $914,685 
Sen Trent Lott (R-MS) $835,052 $50,910 $885,962 
Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA) $812,652 $36,750 $849,402 
Rep W J "Billy" Tauzin (R-LA) $733,396 $6,000 $739,396 
Sen Don Nickles (R-OK) $696,748 $51,200 $747,948 
Rep Heather Wilson (R-NM) $688,502 $0 $688,502 
Rep James P Moran (D-VA) $683,222 $14,000 $697,222 
Rep Tom Davis (R-VA) $673,922 $83,975 $757,897 
Rep Henry Bonilla (R-TX) $664,571 $30,200 $694,771 
Sen Rick Santorum (R-PA) $659,407 $15,350 $674,757 
Rep Michael G Oxley (R-OH) $653,900 $11,800 $665,700 
Sen Spencer Abraham (R-MI) $648,326 $15,000 $663,326 
Rep Roy Blunt (R-MO) $646,481 $9,650 $656,131 
Sen Christopher S Bond (R-MO) $632,845 $0 $632,845 
Al Gore (D) $626,264 $45,200 $671,464 

Not surprisingly, the list is top heavy with members of the House and Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittees—the panels that supply the money for the Pentagon's budget. But giving money directly to lawmakers is not the only way to win their gratitude. Many members of Congress operate "leadership PACs" that they use to deliver much appreciated dollars to other members and to up-and-coming candidates seeking a seat in Congress for the first time. Raising money for those leadership PACs has become an art form on Capitol Hill, and defense contractors, as the following chart illustrates, have been generous supporters. Here are the members of Congress whose personal PACs collected the most from the top defense contractors:

Top Recipients to Leadership PACs

Recipient / To Leadership PAC / To Candidate / Total 
Rep J Dennis Hastert (R-IL) $1,100,173 $46,200 $1,146,373 
Rep Jerry Lewis (R-CA) $1,002,199 $54,750 $1,056,949 
Rep Richard A Gephardt (D-MO) $620,550 $68,950 $689,500 
Rep Joe Barton (R-TX) $565,172 $20,200 $585,372 
Rep Don Young (R-AK) $497,870 $66,350 $564,220 
Rep Martin Frost (D-TX) $489,644 $39,450 $529,094 
Sen Tom Daschle (D-SD) $471,170 $68,775 $539,945 
Rep David Dreier (R-CA) $397,750 $14,000 $411,750 
Sen Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $376,482 $75,052 $451,534 
Sen John B Breaux (D-LA) $364,273 $23,950 $388,223 
Sen John Ashcroft (R-MO) $359,306 $94,585 $453,891 


Political Influence II: Lobbying

As with campaign contributions, the top defense contractors were of many different minds when it came to spending money on Washington lobbyists. Only half the top 737 contractors filed lobby reports with Congress indicating they'd spent at least $10,000 in their lobbying efforts. Many contractors reported spending only nominal amounts, while the biggest reported spending tens of millions. In all, the leading defense contractors spent nearly $1.9 billion on Washington lobbyists between 1998 and 2003.

Again, many of the biggest spenders on lobbying were companies—like Altria Group (the former Philip Morris)—whose main interests lie outside defense. But as with campaign contributions, the top 10 defense contractors all ran top-dollar lobbying efforts.

Top Lobbying Spenders Among Major Defense Contractors

Name / 98-03 Lobby Totals / Sector 
Altria Group $93,855,700 Agribusiness 
General Electric $88,416,756 Misc Business 
AT&T Corp $71,551,000 Communications/Electronics 
Lockheed Martin $71,454,870 Defense 
Boeing Co $64,390,810 Defense 
Northrop Grumman $61,150,346 Defense 
General Motors $55,441,483 Transportation 
SBC Communications $50,784,687 Communications/Electronics 
Verizon Communications $50,018,152 Communications/Electronics 
Sprint Corp $46,781,585 Communications/Electronics 
Exxon Mobil Corp $37,161,942 Energy & Natural Resources 
General Dynamics $37,011,522 Defense 
Southern Co $36,085,000 Energy & Natural Resources 
IBM Corp $34,758,000 Communications/Electronics 
Bell Atlantic Corp $31,539,272 Communications/Electronics 
DaimlerChrysler $31,500,680 Transportation 
Textron Inc $31,382,000 Defense 
Motorola Inc $31,255,333 Communications/Electronics 
Raytheon Co $27,461,500 Defense 
Royal Dutch Shell $25,780,768 Energy & Natural Resources 

Lobbyist Spending by the 10 Biggest Defense Contractors

Name / 98-03 Lobby Spending 
Lockheed Martin $71,454,870 
Boeing Co $64,390,810 
Raytheon Co $27,461,500 
Northrop Grumman $61,150,346 
General Dynamics $37,011,522 
United Technologies $24,133,633 
General Electric $88,416,756 
Science Applications Intl Corp (SAIC) $12,510,250 
Carlyle Group $15,221,560 
Newport News Shipbuilding $12,855,000


Small Business: Bigger than you think

For decades, the federal government has gone out of its way to help small businesses make inroads into the vast federal purchasing market, giving preference to small companies that compete for federal contracts. Under an informal quota system set by Congress, federal agencies are encouraged—though not legally required—to farm out 23 percent of their procurement dollars to small businesses.

While most people's conception of "small business" may conjure images of small retail establishments, professional offices, or family-run factories, the government's definition extends much more widely. Indeed, some 189 of the Pentagon's biggest contractors—those winning at least $100 million in prime contracts over the past six years—showed at least half their contract dollars as going to small businesses. Of those, 127 companies got at least 90 percent of their contracts under the small business designation.

The biggest "small business" was Chugach Alaska Corp., considered a disadvantaged small business since its owners are Alaska Natives who enjoy minority status. Chugach Alaska won nearly $1.4 billion in defense contracts between 1998 and 2003; some 95 percent of that total was marked as going to small disadvantaged businesses. The biggest non-minority "small business" was GTSI Inc., a Virginia-based supplier of computer equipment. Some $1.2 billion of the firm's total $1.6 billion in contracts were designated as having gone to small businesses. Six other corporations earned half a billion dollars or more in small business contracts over the six-year period.

The government's rules defining what constitutes a small business vary widely by industry. Companies wholesaling goods to the government must have fewer than 500 employees to qualify. Certain industries—from phone companies to airlines to small arms manufacturers—may have as many as 1,500 employees and still be classified as small in the eyes of the government. Others are designated small businesses based on their annual revenues.

But some companies that are large by anyone's definition have taken advantage of the government's interest in helping small business by acquiring companies that have won contracts thanks to their small business status. Under rules which have prevailed for years, a company can retain its small business status throughout the life of the contract—even if the company is no longer small. Since some government contracts may last as long as 20 years, critics have complained that this loophole is actually helping companies it wasn't meant to, and that more frequent reappraisals of a company's small business status should be required.

In December, the Small Business Administration is scheduled to adopt a new regulation that will require all small businesses contracting with the government to recertify their small business status every five years. In 2002 the General Services Administration adopted a similar requirement for those businesses that sell goods or services through the GSA Schedule—a fast-track ordering system that lets federal employees choose items off a list of pre-approved suppliers.

But neither of those rules have yet had much effect on big defense contractors, and the table below shows how much money the leading "small businesses" collected in Pentagon contracts between 1998 and 2003. (Set-aside contracts, shown in the chart below, are those that can only be awarded to small businesses.)

Name/Small Business Contracts/Total Contracts/Small Pct/Set-Aside Pct
Chugach Alaska Corp $1,317,304,425 $1,377,589,626 96% 88% 
GTSI Corp $1,170,934,893 $1,619,414,562 72% 3% 
CLASSIFIED CONTRACTOR $852,966,582 $8,267,851,367 10% 0% 
Ocean Shipholdings Inc $816,091,394 $1,094,875,569 75% 0% 
Metro Machine Corp $654,996,983 $660,195,544 99% 0% 
L-3 Communications $581,947,903 $5,233,392,435 11% 3% 
Wornick Co $561,372,502 $607,488,496 92% 0% 
Titan Corp $549,537,387 $2,389,803,664 23% 10% 
Engineered Support Systems Inc $522,233,418 $1,573,708,929 33% 21% 
Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp $457,257,838 $464,206,666 99% 1% 
Ameriqual Group $440,118,830 $440,118,830 100% 0% 
Paramount Petroleum Corp $432,191,289 $432,191,289 100% 77% 
Digital System Resources Inc $429,655,087 $460,235,430 93% 13% 
Holly Corp $423,826,222 $514,203,000 82% 80% 
Spectrum Astro Inc $423,027,650 $423,727,650 100% 0% 
Sparta Inc $410,448,703 $425,508,397 96% 41% 
Dynetics Inc $409,567,922 $435,244,949 94% 40% 
NLX Corp $395,071,192 $395,169,661 100% 33% 
Earl Industries $391,544,499 $391,900,184 100% 0% 
CAS Inc $388,010,361 $420,512,551 92% 33% 


What the Pentagon buys

Aircraft, ships, tanks, missiles, bombs and ammunition—these are the nuts and bolts of a modern military, but they're only the beginning of the Pentagon's ever-growing shopping list. Twenty years ago, nearly two-thirds of the Defense Department's procurement budget went for products; these days a majority of the dollars pay for services. The transition came in the early 1990s and it hasn't reversed since. In 2003, 56 percent of the U.S. military's contracting dollars went for services. Here's a chart showing the transition:

Still, the generals and admirals do buy a good bit of hardware—especially hardware that flies. Out of more than 2,200 detailed budget categories that describe what the Pentagon bought, fixed-wing aircraft was by far the single most expensive item, totaling $68.6 billion between 1998 and 2003. That was also the top category in every single fiscal year going back at least as far as 1984.

But the aircraft themselves are just the beginning. When the many additional categories are added in—for such items as helicopters, aircraft engines, research and development, maintenance, components and the like—the cost escalates to $157 billion over the past six years.

Aggregating the detailed budget categories—for both products and services—into larger groups, here are the top 20 items the Pentagon contracted out from 1998 to 2003:

Rank / Category / Total 
1 Research & Development $140,206,855,854 
2 Aircraft and Airframe Structural Components $86,530,378,638 
3 Professional, Administrative & Mgmt Support Services $73,583,447,989 
4 Construction of Structures and Facilities $42,396,893,851 
5 Equipment Maintenance, Repair & Rebuilding $42,372,061,870 
6 Maintenance & Repair of Real Property $34,430,112,159 
7 Data Processing and Telecommunication Services $33,010,309,515 
8 Ships, Small Craft, Pontoons and Floating Docks $31,231,653,405 
9 Communications and Detection Equipment $28,317,777,970 
10 Medical Services $24,563,339,971 
11 Fuels, Oils & Lubricants $24,450,584,124 
12 Engines, Turbines and Components $23,254,881,284 
13 Guided Missiles $22,747,653,356 
14 Utilities, Food Service, Janitorial & Housekeeping Services $22,604,076,518 
15 Transportation, Travel and Relocation Services $18,096,765,679 
16 Data Processing Equipment, Software & Supplies $17,394,506,239 
17 Trucks, Trailers, Ground Assault & Other Motor Vehicles $14,892,149,100 
18 Aircraft Components and Accessories $14,875,527,520 
19 Ammunition and Explosives $13,165,716,488 
20 Architect and Engineering Services - Construction $12,195,567,488 

The research and development component has always been a huge budget item at the Defense Department, and Pentagon contractors are paid to study everything from weapons systems to employment growth & productivity. Broken down into more detail, here are the main subjects they were researching and developing:

Research & Development Category / Total 
Ammunition $1,963,914,225 
Defense Aircraft $27,936,525,895 
Defense Electronics & Communications Equipment $17,280,934,955 
Defense Missile & Space Systems $21,844,945,949 
Defense Ships $3,779,334,874 
Defense Tank & Automotive $1,737,942,398 
General Science & Technology $1,592,345,867 
Space $7,372,810,325 
Weapons $7,896,155,075 


The Rise in Service Contracts

The rising importance of outside contractors in providing services to the Pentagon is of more than academic interest. As explored in the accompanying Shadow Pentagon report, it has major implications not just for contracting but for national security. When the normal functioning of defense operations becomes so dependent on contractors that the thought of running a war without them becomes unthinkable – as it has in Iraq – basic questions naturally arise about missing links in the military's overall command and control.

In that respect, what's happening in the Pentagon is a mirror of what's been happening throughout the federal government. The "Reinventing Government" initiatives of the Clinton administration have given way to new moves during the Bush administration to reduce the government payroll by having private contractors compete with the federal workforce for a huge array of jobs.

Angela Styles was the new administration's point person for following through on President Bush's campaign promise to open up 450,000 federal jobs to competition with the private sector. As Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy in the Office of Management and Budget, Styles was the top government official dealing with federal contractors. She saw firsthand the extent to which the government has come to rely on private contractors. "There is no question, without the contractors, you can't be on the battlefield," Styles told the Center for Public Integrity. "These people prepare all the equipment they have. They really are walking behind the tanks in Iraq."

Styles, who left the Bush administration in 2003, argues that the widespread growth of contracting for services has expanded beyond the ability of government to oversee it. "I don't know of any function within the government that would actually operate without contractors at this point," she said. "I mean it's a partnership that maybe we stumbled into," she said. "You walk into a government building, you've got a federal employee working next to a contractor, they may have the exact same duties, they may have precisely the same duties, they interact with the public, they make decisions." And yet, she adds, the public employee falls under government rules; the outside contractor answers to their private employer.

Given the dependence of the government on its private, rented workforce, that lack of management troubles Styles. "I don't have a problem with the model where there are 10 percent employees and 90 percent contractors; as long as you recognize what the problems are and make it work," she said. "But that is not what is happening now. You have this 50-50 mix, you've done something with human capital in the federal government where there are no incentives to stay. And they are buying things they don't understand, which is the problem on the front end because you are buying something where you can't understand the pricing, you can't understand what you are buying, you can't compare the people you are buying from. You are not going to manage that contract."

Adding to the problem has been the federal government's expanding reliance on streamlining procurement by ordering items – and services – not through the traditional bidding process, but from a catalog or "schedule" maintained by the General Services Administration. "The theory behind schedules was probably a nice idea in the fist place," Styles said. "It was supplies, it was commodities. It was things that lower level officials could figure out whether they were getting a good price for. It was pens and pencils. It was basic computers. But over time, the problem is that this has evolved to services."

Being a giant organization, the Defense Department also buys a lot of the same things everyone else buys, only more so. The Pentagon's electric bill, for instance, came to $3.7 billion over the six-year period. They paid $3.8 billion for fuel oil, $2.8 billion for dairy foods and eggs, $2.6 billion for family housing facilities, and $2.3 billion for custodial and janitorial services. Like a lot of us, the Pentagon even has a "miscellaneous items" category—only theirs amounted to $10 billion over the past six years.

Some of the other things the Pentagon spent money on over the past six years:

Pharmaceuticals $5.6 billion 
Nuclear Reactors $3.6 billion 
Bombs $3.1 billion 
Advertising $2 billion 
Dentistry services $1.2 billion 
Guard services $1 billion 
Personal armor $991 million 
Landscaping/groundskeeping services $989 million 
Men's outerwear $973 million 
Batteries (chargeable and non-rechargeable) $961 million 
Trash/garbage collection $910 million 
Men's footwear  $886 million 
Rivets $359 million 
Expert witnesses $219 million 
Women's outerwear $168 million 
Intelligence services $141 million 
Badges and insignia $46 million 
Insect and rodent control services $40 million 
Debt collection services $25 million 
Flags and pennants $17 million 
Tobacco products $11 million 


Accuracy in Pentagon reporting

Combing through six years of Pentagon databases is both a revealing and a frustrating experience. Since conclusions about the patterns in defense contracting are only as good as the data they rely on, much of the Center's time in the research was spent double-checking the accuracy of the databases. Since one of our most important goals was compiling a list of the top contractors, much of the research was aimed at assuring that all the subsidiaries and affiliates were connected to the right corporate parent.

Putting it mildly, this was not an easy job. Many defense contractors, like corporations in other business sectors, have in recent years accelerated the pace of buying and selling subsidiaries, linking together through mergers, divesting themselves of unwanted properties, sometimes even changing their names. Keeping up all this is a major undertaking, especially over a six-year period. (Had Google not been invented, it would probably have been nearly impossible.)

In the process of compiling the data, it quickly became clear that the Pentagon's database of contractors was rife with errors concerning the corporate parentage of contractors. The database includes three IDs (derived from Dun & Bradstreet code numbers): one for the contractor, one for their corporate headquarters, and one for the ultimate parent. While some smaller companies were easy to track, and had a single, consistent ID for all three fields, many others had duplicate IDs and outdated or incorrect information about their corporate parentage.

These errors are serious, since without accurate data, compiling a list of leading contractors is simply not possible.

Some of the Pentagon's errors in matching companies to their correct corporate parents is understandable, given the obscure nature of the company names. It's not immediately obvious, for instance, that Braintree II Maritime Corp (or Braintree III and Braintree IV, which are also contractors) are subsidiaries of General Dynamics, and the Pentagon database sometimes lumps them correctly and sometimes doesn't.

One of the most baffling examples was a series of contracts written to five companies with similar names and a common address in Norfolk, VA—Expander Transport Corp., Expediter Transport Corp., Exporter Transport Corp., Expresser Transport Corp., and Extender Transport Corp. In fact, all five are subsidiaries of Maersk Inc., a Danish shipping company that operates out of the same office. Those five companies earned a combined $780 million in Pentagon contracts between 1998 and 2003, but only $260 million of the total was correctly affiliated with Maersk. In all, Maersk shows up in the Defense Department database as collecting just under $967 million in contracts during the six year period. In fact, the company's awards totaled $1.9 billion. The Center found dozens of similar examples.

And then there are the cases of outright mistaken identity. According to the DOD database, NewTech Inc., a small roofing contractor in South Carolina, was on the receiving end of some $245 million in defense contracts between 1998 and 2003. The company is listed by Dun & Bradstreet as having 15 employees. Its office address, on Hilton Head Island, is no longer correct and the company telephone has been disconnected. More perplexing, the contracts were all for weapons testing and evaluation at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. In fact, the $245 million in contracts went to a New Mexico company with a similar name—a mistake the Pentagon database has still not caught up with after at least six years.

It should be noted that these were not cases of the dollars themselves being routed to the wrong company, but rather of the Pentagon's misreporting of where the money went in its procurement database. (Though it should also be noted that details on where the money actually did go are not publicly available.)

In all, the Center found that the 737 biggest contractors were identified in the database under a total of 1,612 different "ultimate parent" IDs. The total of incorrectly listed parents came to some $35 billion. The Center did not attempt to standardize IDs for smaller contractors, but a quick glance at the database shows that the problem there is similar.

Given all the inaccuracies in the Defense Department's database, it is always possible that other errors remain to be discovered. If and when they are, the Center's rankings, profiles and reports will be updated accordingly.

source: http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/report.aspx?aid=385 30sep04
            Index page: http://www.publicintegrity.org/pns/
Note: The original document contains 8 figures that are not included here.

To send us your comments, questions, and suggestions click here
The home page of this website is www.mindfully.org
Please see our Fair Use Notice