Defense Bill includes secret blacklist of contractor

One of the bills still probably arisen in lame duck session is 2011 Defense Authorization Act. Includes the repeal of "Don't Ask, don't Tell" language and has been considered a bill must pass (48 years since Congress has not been able to pass annual Defense Bill).
It is a large Bill: 981 pages authorized spending $ 725 million, and because it is considered essential laws to maintain the operation of the Department of Defense frequently there is much controversial material that gets thrown without exhaustive debugging. American small business League is considering a red flag in Article 815 Bill this year, they say "would create debarments 'de facto' small businesses in federal defense programs, recruitment department with potential for these debarments 'de facto' touch all corners of the federal government staff, thereby creating a list Black where the companies linked to work with the Government."
The section entitled, "The acquisition of national security systems supply chain risks reduction". Basically, empowered to two people at the Department of Defense, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and Assistant Secretary of Defense networks and integration of information - to decide that a company raises "a risk of unacceptable supply chain", and then block that company since being awarded government contracts. Bill specifically states that exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information and the examination by the Office of governmental responsibility or federal Court Act debarments by virtue of the provision. Congress will display a "statistical summary" of how many companies have been blocked at work with the Government, but could not be said that the companies have been blocked and why.
Now, there is no doubt reduce risk in the defence supply chain is a necessary and worthy goal, but this particular provision seems absurdly ripe for abuse. Establish a path clear for anti-competitive peddling influence and bribery, while at the same time restricting the public from the tools they need to hold government officials accountable for.
When decision-making is centralized, as it would be here (at the "discretion" of two officials of the Department of Defense), companies that want to influence decision makers know exactly where to focus their efforts, and can play the game of influence much more effectively. In this case, we have a small group of huge, politically connected contractors defence, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. - that have invested in pressures to those responsible politicians as an important component of your business. These giants and experienced companies have a financial interest in the Department of Defense to convince their smaller competitors to do work of low quality and that doing business with them would "a risk of unacceptable supply chain." This provision makes it easier for them to do so and avoid that every time that the public discover.
View the original article here