Center for Public Integrity<\/a>, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative media organization in Washington, D.C.<\/p>\n<\/aside>\nWilson replied, \u201cSir, the United States of America deserved my best work, and that\u2019s what they got.\u201d In government work, \u201cwe should expect contractors to comply with the contracts which they signed. In this case, I did.\u201d<\/p>\n
Drafts of Wilson\u2019s contracts contained a standard clause requiring that she detail her tasks and accomplishments, but the clause was removed from the copy she signed, according to internal reports by investigators at the Energy Department\u2019s Office of Inspector General.<\/p>\n
The irregular arrangement, which contradicted federal acquisition guidelines for subcontractors, made contractor officials and Energy Department personnel uneasy, according to internal government documents obtained by the Center under the Freedom of Information Act. One of the contract officers said it was the only contract with such provisions that had ever crossed his desk.<\/p>\n
When Wilson was asked by the committee\u2019s ranking Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island \u2014 a former Army captain, private attorney, and state lawmaker \u2014 whether she intentionally negotiated contract language with the weapon firms that exempted her from federal acquisition guidelines, Wilson said, \u201cI don\u2019t recall.\u201d But she said she did recall discussing with their senior executives what she would be doing for the labs.<\/p>\n
Part of Wilson\u2019s work for Sandia, she said, was to help it navigate the Washington contracting thicket. \u201cI was always available to them to answer the [lab] vice president and the president\u2019s questions regarding the United States Congress and the federal bureaucracy,\u201d Wilson said.<\/p>\n
Wilson added that Sandia\u2019s director had liked her consulting work enough to offer her a position as one of its vice presidents. She also said that if auditors at the Energy Department\u2019s inspector general\u2019s office had wanted to know more about exactly what she did, they could have asked her directly during their probe. But they never did, she said.<\/p>\n
Asked for comment, the inspector general\u2019s spokesperson Felicia Jones said in a written statement that her office\u2019s probe \u201cinvolved allegations of misconduct by Sandia Corporation,\u201d and that \u201cIt was Sandia\u2019s responsibility to ensure only allowable and properly supported costs were charged to the Department of Energy. Consequently there was no need for the OIG to contact Ms. Wilson.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wilson also acknowledged during the hearing that as part of her consulting work, she had indeed told Sandia executives \u2014 who were seeking to extend their contract with the government \u2014 that \u201cyour message to these people [at the Department of Energy] is that competition is not in the best interest of the government.\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the committee chairman, if she believes competition for contracts isn\u2019t always in the government\u2019s best interest, Wilson gave an answer that will cheer many existing Air Force contractors. On a select basis, she said, longstanding relationships between the government and its contractors on particular projects are better off if they are not disrupted by competitions.<\/p>\n
Wilson said she would exercise that philosophy, in her future role, \u201cwhen it\u2019s in the best interest of the government.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wilson\u2019s perspective clashes with the findings of a 345-page Government Accountability Office study published in March 2011. \u201cThe benefits of competition in acquiring goods and services from the private sector are well established\u2026\u201d the GAO report said. \u201cCompetitive contracts can save money, improve contractor performance and promote accountability for results.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sandia and the other three labs that employed her \u2014 Los Alamos, the Nevada National Security Site and Oak Ridge National Laboratory \u2014 play a pivotal role in producing the nuclear weapons that the Air Force puts atop its ballistic missiles and inside its bombers. As such, if confirmed, Wilson will be responsible for helping to pay for and to oversee some of the work that the laboratories, her former clients, undertake.<\/p>\n
In all, five Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee expressed support for Wilson\u2019s nomination during her hearing. Nine more Republicans on the committee and all 13 Democrats have yet to say whether they support sending Wilson\u2019s nomination to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation.<\/p>\n
During the hearing, Republicans and Democrats alike on the committee implored her to follow through with Air Force commitments that would sustain economic drivers in their states or consider their states for fresh Air Force roles, such as bases for the new F-35 aircraft under contract with Lockheed Martin, which owns the Sandia Corp. Those moments made it clear that if confirmed, Wilson would have a hand in choosing winners and losers.<\/p>\n
After the hearing ended, Wilson stopped briefly to talk with reporters on the way out. But when questions turned to her work for the labs and the investigations they\u2019d spawned, she walked away.<\/p>\n
The committee\u2019s vote is expected next week.<\/p>\n
Heinrich questions\u00a0Wilson<\/h3>\n
Watch committee member Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., question Wilson during Thursday’s hearing:<\/p>\n
![\"Heather](\"http:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/Wilson-Heather-336x248.jpg\")