Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 15 JAN 2010 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2010 to 00-00-2010 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Evaluation of DOD Contracts Regarding Combating Trafficking in 5b. GRANT NUMBER Persons 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Department of Defense Office of Inspector General,400 Army Navy REPORT NUMBER Drive,Arlington,VA,22202-4704 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 28 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 DEPARTMENT OF DE FENSE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR G ENERAL MISSION STATEMENT Promote integrity, accountability, and improvement of Department of Defense personnel, programs and operations to support the Department's mission and serve the public interest. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE hot line To report fraud, waste, mismanagement, and abuse of authority. Send written complaints to: Defense Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1900 Phone: 800.424.9098 e-mail: [email protected] www.dodig.mil/hotline This Page Intentionally Left Blank Evaluation of DoD Contracts Regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons Report No. IE-2010-001 January 15, 2010 Results in Brief: Evaluation of DOD Contracts Regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons What We Did Section 232 of the “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008,” Public Law 110-457 (December 23, 2008), requires the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the United States Agency for International Development to investigate a sample of contracts where there is a heightened risk that a contractor may engage in acts related to trafficking in persons. In response, we reviewed a sample of Department of Defense contracts for compliance with the “Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000,” title 22, United States Code, chapter 78, (as amended). We reviewed reports covering areas of heightened risk for trafficking in persons, selecting the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Territory of Guam for our first evaluation. We conducted site visits at United States military installations in these locations. We also reviewed and summarized DOD criminal investigative data collection efforts related to combating trafficking in persons. What We Found As a result of our site visits and interviews, we found: • DOD and other Federal law enforcement criminal activity databases had no effective mechanism to track trafficking in persons incidents, but a Federal law enforcement advisory policy group is considering this issue. • Half of the contracts sampled either did not contain the Combating Trafficking in Persons clause, or were modified to include the clause just prior to our site visits. • The Standard Procurement System contract building software allowed for deletion of the mandatory Combating Trafficking in Persons Clause. • Contracting officers lacked an effective process for obtaining information concerning trafficking in persons violations. What We Recommend • The Standard Procurement System should be modified so that the mandatory Combating Trafficking in Persons clause cannot be removed during solicitation or contract document build. • The DOD law enforcement community should proactively share trafficking in persons convictions information with contracting offices. • Relevant contract quality assurance plans should include combating trafficking in persons considerations. Client Comments and Our Response The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness agreed with our recommendation, and stated they planned to modify Department of Defense policy to comply with the recommendation after Federal law enforcement organizations agree upon an overarching identification scheme for TIP-related offences. The Director, Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy and Strategic Sourcing, of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics agreed with our recommendations, and provided plans for their implementation. i Evaluation of DoD Contracts Regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons Report No. IE-2010-001 January 15, 2010 Recommendations Table Client Recommendations No Additional Comments Requiring Comment Required Director, Defense Procurement, 1, 3 Acquisition Policy and Strategic Sourcing, of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Director, Law Enforcement 2 Policy and Support, of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Total Recommendations in this Report: 3 i i Table of Contents Results in Brief: Evaluation of DOD Contracts Regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons ......................................................................................... i What We Did ...................................................................................................... i What We Found ................................................................................................. i What We Recommend ....................................................................................... i Client Comments and Our Response ................................................................. i Recommendations Table .................................................................................. ii Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 Objective ........................................................................................................... 3 Scope ................................................................................................................ 3 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 3 Observations ....................................................................................................... 5 Trafficking in Persons Criminal Investigations Reporting .................................. 5 Combating Trafficking in Persons Clause Inclusion in Contracts ...................... 7 Notifying Contracting Officers of Trafficking in Persons Incidents ................... 11 Appendix A. Methodology and Acronyms ..................................................... 13 Methodology .................................................................................................... 13 Use of Computer-Processed Data ................................................................... 14 Acronyms ........................................................................................................ 14 Appendix B. Client Comments........................................................................ 15 Office of the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics .......................................................................................................... 15 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness ......... 17 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Evaluation of DOD Contracts Regarding Combating Trafficking in Persons Report No. IE-2010-001 January 15, 2010 Introduction Over the past decade, actions of U.S. Forces personnel and contractors working for DOD overseas involving sexual slavery, human trafficking, and debt bondage attracted media attention and motivated Congressional action. Prior to 2000, instances of sexual slavery, sex with minors, and human trafficking involving U.S. contractors in Bosnia and Herzegovina led to administrative and criminal investigations. In 2002, a local television news program aired a report that women trafficked from the Philippines, Russia, and Eastern Europe were forced into prostitution in bars in South Korea frequented by U.S. military personnel. In 2004, reports chronicled allegations of forced labor and debt bondage against U.S. contractors in Iraq, leading to foreign embassy involvement. These incidents were contrary to U.S. Government policy regarding official conduct1 and reflected poorly on DOD. Background In 2000, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, two statutes responding in part to identified U.S. Forces and contractor misconduct in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Public Law 106-386, which included the “Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,” on October 28, and Public Law 106-523, “Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000,” on November 22. Congressional intent regarding the first statute was “to combat trafficking in persons [CTIP], a contemporary manifestation of slavery whose victims are predominantly women and children, to ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.” The second statute established “Federal jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the United States by persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces, or by members of the Armed Forces who are released or separated from active duty prior to being identified and prosecuted for the commission of such offenses.” Congress specifically extended this extraterritorial jurisdiction over trafficking in persons (TIP) offenses committed by persons employed by or accompanying the Federal Government outside the United States in Public Law 109-164, “Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act Of 2005,” January 10, 2006. Additional reauthorizations expanded the scope and applicability of the original statute. Public Law 108-193, the “Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003,” December 19, 2003, gave the Government the added authority to terminate grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for TIP-related violations. 1 Executive Order 13257 “President’s Interagency Task Force To Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons,” of February 13, 2002, and Executive Order 13333, “Amending Executive Order 13257 To Implement the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003,” March 18, 2004. 1