Army IG says Corps of Engineers rigged data on huge project

Officials at the Army Corps of Engineers manipulated economic data on a massive navigation project to justify its $1 billion price tag, according to the Army's inspector general. Top Corps officials changed data in a cost-benefit analysis studying navigation improvements to the Mississippi and Illinois rivers, according to a Nov. 13 Army IG report released Wednesday at an Office of Special Counsel press conference. The IG also said there were "strong indications that institutional bias [favoring large-scale construction projects] might extend throughout the Corps." The investigation grew out of allegations made in February by Donald C. Sweeney, an economist with the Corps and the original technical manager of the waterway project. Sweeney told the Office of Special Counsel--the independent agency responsible for investigating whistleblower complaints--that some Corps officials violated Army regulations when they pressured employees to alter cost-benefit data. Sweeney was eventually removed from the project. Sweeney's team said the cost of the construction project outweighed the benefits, but the officials pushed to go forward with the project despite his group's findings. According to Sweeney, his group's economic analysis of the project was independently reviewed and validated numerous times. The National Academy of Sciences is now studying the validity of the cost-benefit analysis. The Office of Special Counsel substantiated Sweeney's claims, and referred the case to the Defense Department for investigation. The Army IG agreed with Sweeney's allegation that Corps officials manipulated data in an effort to justify the cost of the project, and also examined broader concerns about the Corps' overall decisionmaking on construction projects. The IG cited reasons for the Corps' tendency to favor large-scale construction projects, including a reliance on external funding. At the press conference, Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan said the Army and the Defense Department will consider what punishment, if any, is appropriate for those involved in the case. As for possible reform within the Corps, the matter is in the hands of the President and the congressional oversight committees. Sweeney said he was "heartened" by the findings of both the Office of Special Counsel and the Army's inspector general. Asked about the possibility for reform within the Corps, Sweeney said, "I think this is an opportunity. I think it is remarkable that the Army found itself in bias."