Stealth Bomber - Ethical Issues

Jiakai Liu

4/10/2016

Stealth Bomber

Ethical issues:

  As a lead cost analyst of Department of Defense, D’Angelo was responsible for analyzing Cost Performance Reports and providing findings and recommendations to her supervisor, Elberfeld who was the manager of the program. But Elberfeld always used the lowest estimate of cost provided by D’Angelo and chose to ignore her warn of poor cost performance. D’Angelo complained to her immediate supervisor but didn’t disclose anything to Hafer, the senior budget analyst who came to investigate later. She knew there were other cost estimates but didn’t provide to Vines, who was the cost analyst of CAIG. Later, she was required to be present in another briefing conducted by OSD cost analyst Christle, but at last she didn’t show up. Finally, the program was cancelled.

Stakeholders:

  D’Angelo didn’t perform professional duties in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, technical standards by letting Elberfeld keep using lowest estimate reports(Sec I, 2). Elberfeld greatly broke DOD ‘s Joint Regulation (Section 4. Ethical Values). As a DOD employee, he didn’t behave honestly, loyally, fairly, respectfully and responsibly by keeping using the lowest estimates, ignoring D’Angelo’s warning, purposefully making D’Angelo exclude from briefing (even he denied) and so on. Patterson didn’t behave honestly, and as an immediate supervisor, he didn’t care about his subordinate enough (12-401, a&f). O’Keefe didn’t behave fairly by withdrawing Hafer’s PBD because of Elberfeld’s opposition (12-401, e).

Alternatives with related consequences:

  According to Appendix A: Resolution of Ethical Conflict, D’Angelo can contact with levels above the immediate superior who was not involved but employed. In our case, the senior budget analyst, Tom Hafer was one of the appropriate guys to talk to. D’Angelo could support Hafer’s investigation with her cost data on hand. But based on the fact that Hafer’s draft PBD was withdrawn due to the opposition from Elberfeld, the result might not be changed even with the cost data. And knowing D’Angelo provided support to Hafer, Elberfeld may be malignant to D’Angelo, if not fire her.

  Another alternative was to provide evidence to Jo Ann Vines or Gary Christle, who were both the cost analysts with the CAIG of OSD. The fact was Under Secretary didn’t take Christle’s report due to lack of evidence. With D’Angelo’s cost data, it’s reasonable to say the Under Secretary would take it and pass the report to the Secret of Defense. If it was still failed, D’Angelo might face the possibility of losing her job

  The Resolution of Ethical Conflict also suggests initiating a confidential discussion with an IMA Ethics Counselor or other impartial advisor. Since our case is related to U.S. Army, it may not be appropriate to release military information to outside. I think reaching to Chester Beach might also be a good option. Beach was the one who directly conducted investigative report, if D’Angelo can find access to him, the issue would be solved in an easier and faster way.

...