On Friday, the White House released a list of 10 administration officials who were granted ethics waivers. Among them is Ashton Carter, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. (See our separate story about the waiver granted for NASA Administrator Bolden).

The May 11 memo granting the waiver, signed by Jeh Charles Johnson, the Designated Agency Ethics Official, is available here. The memo concludes that Dr. Carter’s work for Textron, Inc. involved providing “strategic” advice except for one instance of providing “specific business advice” on the Sensor Fuzed Weapon. DOD production funding of that weapon ended in FY2007, according to the memo. Consequently, Mr. Johnson waived restrictions on Dr. Carter’s dealings with Textron that might have been applicable under paragraph 2 of the Ethics Pledge, and went further by saying that “while a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts may question your impartiality in matters relating to Textron, I have made a separate determination, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2635.502, that the Government’s interest in your ability to participate in these matters, given the critical responsibilities associated with your position as DoD’s chief acquisition official, outweighs the concern that a reasonable person may question the integrity of DoD’s programs and operations.”

Colin Clark reports in DODBuzz that some aerospace companies are being forced to sell subsidiaries in order to comply with the recently enacted Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act. Clark quotes sources as saying that Northrop Grumman’s pending sale of its TASC unit is a case in point. Some of those sources are highly critical of the strict interpretation of the law by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which designs, builds and operates the nation’s reconnaissance satellites. A follow-up story by Clark includes a link to the NRO memo and a response from a “government official” to the original story.

The original story included this criticism of NRO’s interpretation of the law.

“Intelligence community sources say the National Reconnaissance Office, builder and operator of the nation’s spy satellites, is interpreting the bill’s language very strictly. ‘The NRO is nuts!’ said one irate expert. They are being more draconian than anyone else and it is hard to understand why. While there are certainly instances where the same company should not be involved in helping with the requirements during a competitive acquisition they are going beyond this. In fact companies with 40 years worth of experience in a particular specialty are being thrown over the side in search of purity. This is not in the government’s best interest from either performance or cost perspectives. This is all part of the NRO destroying itself and paying attention to process.'”

The follow-up story included this response from an unnamed government official:

“‘I don’t care how many firewalls’ a company puts up to mitigate OCI, the fact remains TASC provides advice on the cost, schedule & performance of developmental contractors such as Northrop Grumman. It is particularly disconcerting when going through a source selection and we need the advice of a particular subject matter expert but we can’t turn to him because the company he works for is owned by one of the potential bidders,’ the official said. ‘This is a good thing and not a bad thing. The sky is not falling as a result and the other companies mentioned above will absorb contracts and employees as a result. There will be no perception of conflict and I don’t have to kick my subject matter experts out of the room during a crucial time in a review.'”