WASHINGTON — Parsons Corp., the Pasadena engineering firm that won one of the largest rebuilding contracts in postwar Iraq, fell dramatically short of a number of goals, according to interviews and documents that cite shoddy work and negligent government oversight.
The firm was to have rebuilt Iraq's health and security infrastructure. However, an audit and interviews show it will finish only 20 of 150 planned health clinics, and nearly $70 million of medical equipment meant for the clinics sits unused.
Additionally, as few as 12 of 20 hospitals planned to be refurbished will be completed. Some border forts built by the company lack walls, and some fire stations may be structurally unsound.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to properly monitor Parsons' performance, stonewalled investigative efforts and exercised "poor cost controls" as Parsons spent $186 million on a contract to build the health clinics, according to a draft copy of an audit obtained by The Times. About $60 million of that was spent by Parsons on management and administration.
The reports and interviews taken together suggest a wholesale failure in two of the most crucial areas of the Iraq reconstruction -- health and safety -- which were supposed to win Iraqi goodwill and reduce the threat to American soldiers.
Parsons officials declined to comment because they had not seen a copy of the audit, which was conducted by the U.S. special inspector general for the reconstruction of Iraq.
"There's a lot of blame to go around," said Ginger Cruz, deputy inspector general for the oversight agency.
In the past, Parsons has said security problems in Iraq made work difficult. The company did finish at least two government administration buildings as well as courthouses and oil infrastructure projects.
In a letter responding to the audit, the Army corps deflected blame for oversight failures and sharply criticized Parsons.
"From the beginning of the [health clinic] project, Parsons failed to meet various contract requirements through numerous significant management and technical shortcomings," according to a letter signed by Army corps Brig. Gen. William H. McCoy.
"They ignored, or failed to respond adequately to, numerous expressions of concern by the government over these issues, and in some cases failed or refused to provide the government with information that would have allowed the government to make decisions to assist Parsons in regaining control over subcontractor performance and cost," McCoy wrote.
