- African leader cancels trip to U.S. over Ebola outbreak; Obama still plans summit
- Sarah Palin’s online channel hits snag when Stephen Colbert buys similar URL
- SWAT spends seven hours in standoff with empty home
- U.S. troops told not to eat, drink in front of Muslims during Ramadan
- Iran’s Rouhani: Israel, Islamic State are ‘tumors derived from the same origin’
- Rep. Tim Murphy: GOP knew HealthCare.gov would be an ‘unmitigated disaster’
- Political speak: Planned Parenthood dumps ‘pro-choice’ for ‘women’s health’
- U.S. attorney warns Cuomo not to interfere with anti-corruption probes
- Investigators reach Ukraine jet crash site
- Ohio gives Obama a thumbs down; Hillary Clinton tops GOP all-stars: poll
$1.5 billion spent on Afghan structures that could easily burn down, watchdog says
Question of the Day
A big chunk of taxpayer investment in Afghanistan could go up in smoke because American-paid contractors built structures in danger of catching fire, a new investigation has found.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spent $1.57 billion constructing roughly 2,000 buildings for the Afghan military forces to use as offices, classrooms, medical centers, barracks and — ironically — fire stations.
But as many as 1,600 aren’t built to match international building code standards, largely due to the use of foam insulation that poses a “significant fire hazard,” the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported Thursday.
The Corps has been fixing the problems in some of the structures, but as many of 700 of them are still at risk. Fixing all of the buildings could take an additional $50 million to $60 million.
“While I am primarily concerned that people’s lives may be at risk, I am also concerned that USACE must now spend millions of taxpayer dollars correcting this problem because USACE did not enforce and properly administer its own contracts,” Inspector General John F. Sopko said.
For risking Afghan lives and hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wins this week’s Golden Hammer, a distinction from The Washington Times highlighting examples of federal misspending, waste, fraud or abuse.
There have already been two fires that completely destroyed buildings — both in 2012 The structures were still under construction at the time and not being used. A SIGAR spokesperson said no one was reported injured.
USACE Maj. Gen. Michael Eyre sent a memo in January saying it was “an acceptable risk level” to turn the buildings over to the Afghan military because “the typical occupant populations for these facilities are young, fit Afghan soldiers and recruits who have the physical ability to make a hasty retreat during a developing situation.”
That didn’t sit well with Mr. Sopko.
“I am very troubled by such logic, which seems to argue that fire hazards for a building are somehow remediated by the youthful speed and vigor of the occupants,” he wrote in a letter to the Corps, noting that many of the buildings are sleeping quarters and medical facilities, where it might take occupants longer to exit a burning structure.
Last year, SIGAR took the rare step to issue a public safety warning about the buildings, stating that they pose a “serious fire and life safety risk.”
USACE officials said that they’re working to correct a few problems identified in some of the structures but largely disagreed with the investigators’ evaluation, stating that the buildings all at least partially met International Building Code (IBC) and would give occupants enough time to evacuate in the event of a fire.
In the meantime, the Pentagon shouldn’t delay turning the structures over to the Afghans, a response from USACE said.
“The need to turn over facilities on time … during 2014 is critical for transitioning security operation of Afghanistan” to the Afghan National Army, the response said.
The buildings, known as “arch span” or “K span” structures, are long with a round roof and were chosen by the Army because they are usually cheaper and quicker to construct than other types. USACE guidance at the time said that construction should meet the “standard designs, which are in accordance with the IBC.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Phillip Swarts is an investigative reporter for The Washington Times, covering fiscal waste, fraud and political ethics. He is a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University and previously worked as an investigative reporter for the Washington Guardian. Phillip can be reached at email@example.com.
- U.S. chemical sites vulnerable to terrorists despite millions spent on security: Congress
- Insurgent-allied businesses in Afghanistan eligible for U.S. taxpayer aid
- Ex-Gitmo detainee Moazzam Begg charged with terrorism
- Chicago shooting spree: 22 people shot in 12 hours
- Christians flee Mosul after ISIL threat: Convert to Islam or die
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Ted Cruz
Israel saves its enemies; Hamas endangers its friends
- Al Gore's climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- GOP report sees ties between rich donors, green 'nonprofits'
- House votes to sue President Obama over claims of presidential power
- NAPOLITANO: Is the president incompetent or lawless?
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- EDITORIAL: The real Lois Lerner exposed in newly released emails
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world