John Proxmire had his "Golden Fleece" award and AuntyM has her PITA award. Thank you AM, I shall wear it with pride! And yes, there were those who were happy to see me leave.

Stam, I suggest that reducing staffing by 25% and concurrently reducing pay by 25% is the wrong approach. If you want to reduce staffing then first look to reducing the programs which that staff is hired to support. But that is a whole different discussion and is not fishing related (but would certainly lead to less oversight and talent in the contracting field -those folks whose responsibility it is to try to control this kind of stuff).

Keeper, in a way you are correct. My experience is that many of the decision makers perceived (past tense as I am retired)
their budget as being "their" money. It is the responsibility of the procuring office and warranted Contracting Officer to try and enforce the procurement regulations and bring sanity into play. In this case the first Contracting Officer appears to have put up a good fight and the requiring activity later circumvented that CO and found another who, under pressure, found a way to give the appearance of competitive contracting but, in reality, failed miserably.

What is really so unfortunate is that the public is still only getting bits and pieces of this yet deserves a full accounting to include who (maybe only by position as non-criminal adverse personnel actions are generally not public info) was punished and the nature of that punishment. This reassignment pending full review is a start but (cynic that I am) will not result in any lasting punishment.