I was ticked. One couldn’t find a more blatant example of congressional pork if it came slathered in BBQ sauce (O.K there is that rain forest in Iowa and the bridge to nowhere).

Soon the not-for-profit trucking research institute rep called and wanted to know when they would get the contract. By this time I cooked up a scheme of my own and told the rep I was going to compete the effort. I didn't know if there were any other qualified institutions, but I was going to try to find at least two.

I started doing my own research to develop options. I actually looked up the law signed by the President; that’s when I learned the complete earmark wasn’t there. The law just listed the title of the project and a dollar sum but the restrictive language was missing. That language could be found in a House Conference report – sort of like a signing statement. Technically the actual law didn’t specify restrictions on how to spend the money. That was nice to know. Bismark said once “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Except in this case I found some missing ingredients.

I learned from the House Conference report that your one million in tax dollars was really earmarked for two studies. The breakdown was in the appropriation - $750K was allocated for my “feasibility study to nowhere”. The remaining $250K was to be used to study private sector ammunition transportation security. A few more phone calls and I found the stuckee for this second study in the US Transportation Command. He was an Army Lt Col and he was red-hot mad – apparently they didn’t need that study either and he saw the earmark for what it was – a rip-off. Like me, the Lt Col had also discovered the law didn’t include the strait-jacket earmark language. He went to his Judge Advocate to see about spending the money on something useful. The decision went up to his three star vice-commander who directed they stick to Congress’s intent. They weren’t going to make waves either.

The Army Lt Col’s experience was a caution to me. If I was going to deviate from the earmark’s language it would be best if I didn’t ask for permission.

My task now was to fine tune the “intent” of Congress to spend it responsibly.

In reality the true intent of Congress was for the money to get into the hands of the designated lobbyist. That meant I probably had a free hand to alter the subject of the study to something useful as long as the lobbying outfit felt they still were in line for the funds, I figured they wouldn’t complain. I was right.

DLA had an operations research office next door to us. Their analysts were always coming up with ways to make the agency more efficient. I knew the director and stopped by with a proposition. I told him about the budget I had; he could have it as long as he could come up with a useful project that involved trucks. I’d manage getting everything on contract and then tie it with a bow and hand it over to him. In return, his office would have to manage the effort once on contract. It was a deal. He had some dispute with the Army about how to best contract for trucking (the Army was responsible for all ground freight contracts) but he didn’t quite have all the data he needed. The modified Congressional earmark would be perfect.

I still was on a mission to find competitors so I put an announcement in the commerce business daily (CBD) “Free to a good home, $750K…” Well something similar. I described what we were looking for along with the not-for-profit trucking research institute caveat. I figured the lobbyist would go running back to their Congressman if I left that out.

In the meantime my contracting officer asked how I was going to certify whether a company met the non profit trucking research requirements. I asked her if she had a problem if we just relied on respondents to self-certify. She liked the idea. We would have the requirement in the solicitation, but we weren’t going to check if folks were compliant.

I did get a call in response to the CBD announcement. An excited fellow told me he just got his PhD from MIT and he had done his dissertation on the very subject we wanted to study; he now had his own consulting business and was interested. I wondered if he played the harpsichord as I told him about the non-profit-trucking requirement. He blew a gasket as he described what kind of an ass I was. When he was done, I told him he could call his congressman. I also gave him the lobbyist's phone number.

In the end we got two proposals. I don’t recall the competitor but the lobbyists did their homework. Their submission included two subcontractors – the fellow who told me about his dissertation and MIT. It was a pleasant surprise. Equally surprising was the lobbyist pulled out all the stops. They had an impressive proposal and did not plan for a cake walk. We made the award to the lobbyist I initially despised. Ironically the competitor protested and I had to defend our decision. Go figure.