The Defense Base Act (DBA): The Federally Mandated Workers’ Compensation System for Overseas Government Contractors
Congressional research reportJun 2, 2010
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
The Defense Base Act (DBA): The Federally
Mandated Workers’ Compensation System for
Overseas Government Contractors
(name redacted)
Specialist in Defense Acquisition
(name redacted)
Specialist in Financial Economics
Scott Szymendera
Analyst in Disability Policy
June 2, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL34670
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Summary
Many overseas federal contractors are covered by the Defense Base Act (DBA), which mandates
that they provide workers’ compensation insurance for their employees. As the U.S. military has
increased operations in Iraq, the size of the DBA program has grown. Since September 2001,
there have been 49,472 DBA cases, including 1,584 cases involving the deaths of contractors in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly $200 million in cash and medical benefits were paid to DBA
claimants in 2008.
Congress has become increasingly concerned with the costs involved in the DBA program
because the federal government usually reimburses its contractors for their DBA premiums. The
Department of State (DOS) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have
seen some cost savings since adopting single-source models for their DBA insurance in which
contractors for each agency are required to purchase insurance from a single company selected by
the agency. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently testing such a model for its
DBA system. For the rest of the Department of Defense (DOD), however, including the Army’s
large Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, individual contractors are free
to select their own DBA insurers and negotiate their own rates, and one contractor, KBR, has
been criticized by DOD auditors for failing to demonstrate that it sought to control DBA premium
costs when selecting an insurer.
Although not directly related to the Defense Base Act, Congress has expressed concern over
negligent contractor behavior that may jeopardize the health and safety of both contractors and
government personnel. Accordingly, H.R. 5136, the proposed National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to
report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, by September 1, 2011, on incidents
where contractors have earned reduced award fees or been denied award fees because of incidents
where the contractor jeopardized the health or safety of government personnel. P.L. 111-84, the
NDAA for FY2010, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to reduce or deny award fees due to such
incidents, as defined in Section 823 of P.L. 111-84.
The NDAA for FY2009 (P.L. 110-417) includes a provision that requires DOD to change the way
its contractors provide DBA coverage for their workers. In a report issued pursuant to this
legislation, DOD concluded that making improvements to the current open-market DBA
insurance system would best meet the criteria for reform recommended by Congress and the
agency. The report also found advantages that could result from having the federal government
self-insure, with third-party administration, for DBA costs. However, there may be limitations to
the utility of the report as a guide for Congress in making overall changes to the DBA program.
This report provides an overview of the DBA and the systems used to provide DBA insurance at
DOS, USAID, DOD, and USACE. Also included are criticisms of the current DOD DBA policy
raised by GAO and Army auditors as well as responses to those criticisms by DOD and USACE.
The report concludes with a discussion of several DBA reform options suggested by the House of
Representatives in recent legislation and analyzed by DOD. A list of acronyms used in this report
is provided in the Appendix.
Congressional Research Service
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Contents
Workers’ Compensation in the United States ...............................................................................1
Federal Workers’ Compensation ............................................................................................2
The Defense Base Act .................................................................................................................2
DBA Benefits Paid................................................................................................................3
Contractor Injuries and Deaths Covered by the DBA.............................................................3
Contractor Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan ......................................................................4
H.R. 5136, Proposed Legislation to Deny Award Fees to Contractors due to
Negligent Contractor Behavior .....................................................................................5
Legislative History................................................................................................................5
Basic Provisions of the Defense Base Act....................................................................................6
DBA Eligibility.....................................................................................................................7
DBA Insurance .....................................................................................................................7
Insurance Through Private Carriers .................................................................................7
Self-Insurance.................................................................................................................8
DBA Waivers ........................................................................................................................9
DBA Benefits for Foreign Nationals......................................................................................9
DBA Administration ........................................................................................................... 10
Dispute Resolution........................................................................................................ 10
War Hazards Compensation Act .......................................................................................... 10
Selection of Defense Base Act Providers ................................................................................... 12
Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development............................. 12
Department of Defense ....................................................................................................... 12
DOD Insured Activities ................................................................................................. 13
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pilot Program................................................................ 13
Costs to the Federal Government............................................................................................... 15
DBA Premiums Under Single Insurer Programs .................................................................. 15
Comparison of DBA Insurance Premiums Paid by DOD and USACE.................................. 15
DBA Costs Associated with the Department of the Army’s Logistics Civil
Augmentation Program Contract ...................................................................................... 16
U.S. Army Audit Agency Report on DBA Insurance under LOGCAP ............................ 18
Defense Contract Audit Agency Audit of DBA Insurance Under LOGCAP.................... 20
Options for Congress ................................................................................................................ 20
P.L. 110-417, the FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act, as an Outline for
Possible DBA Reform...................................................................................................... 21
Single-Source Contract for DBA Insurance ................................................................... 21
Experience Rating for DBA Insurance........................................................................... 22
Federal Self-Insurance .................................................................................................. 23
DOD Analysis of DBA Reform Options .............................................................................. 25
Improvements to the Current Open-Market DBA System .............................................. 26
Figures
Figure 1. Defense Base Act Cases by Insurance Carrier ...............................................................8
Figure 2. Department of Defense’s Defense Base Act Premiums Paid, by Program .................... 13
Congressional Research Service
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Figure 3. Department of Defense’s Defense Base Act Premiums Paid, by Contractor ................. 14
Figure 4. Average Current Defense Base Act Premiums, by Agency and Location ..................... 17
Tables
Table 1. Workers’ Compensation Coverage, Benefits, and Costs for the United States,
2007 ........................................................................................................................................1
Table 2. Total Defense Base Act Payments, 1997 to 2008 ............................................................4
Table 3. Total Defense Base Act Cases, by Severity of Injury ......................................................4
Table 4. Military and Contractor Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan .................................................5
Table 5.Current DBA Insurance Premiums for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of State, and U.S. Agency for International Development .................................... 16
Table 6. Defense Base Act Premiums for the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program
Contract in Iraq and Kuwait, FY2002 to FY2006 ................................................................... 19
Table 7. Defense Base Act Premiums and Claims for the Logistics Civil Augmentation
Program Contract in Iraq and Kuwait, FY2003 to FY2005 ..................................................... 19
Appendixes
Appendix. List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................... 27
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 28
Congressional Research Service
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Workers’ Compensation in the United States
More than 131 million private and public sector employees in the United States are covered by
some form of workers’ compensation.1 Although the details of the various state and federal
workers’ compensation systems differ, all workers’ compensation systems in the United States
provide for limited wage replacement and full medical benefits for workers who are injured or
become ill as a result of their work and survivors benefits to the families of workers who die on
the job. In most cases, workers’ compensation is mandated by state law and administered by state
agencies. However, for some classes of workers, including overseas federal contractors, workers’
compensation is mandated by federal law and provided or administered by the federal
government. Table 1 provides summary data on workers’ compensation in the United States.
The workers’ compensation system is a no-fault system that pays workers for injuries or illnesses
related to employment without considering the culpability of any one party. In exchange for this
no-fault protection and the guarantee of benefits in the event of an employment-related injury,
illness, or death, workers give up their rights to bring actions against employers in the civil court
system and give up their rights to seek damages for injuries and illnesses, including pain and
suffering, outside of those provided by the workers’ compensation laws. With limited exceptions,
injuries, illnesses, or deaths that are the result of accidents or incidents that occur in the
workplace or that are the result of activities related to employment are covered by workers’
compensation.2
Table 1. Workers’ Compensation Coverage, Benefits,
and Costs for the United States, 2007
Covered workers
131.7 million
Covered wages
$5,855 billion
Total benefits paid
$55.4 billion
Medical benefits paid
$27.2billion
Cash benefits paid
$28.3 billion
Employer costsa
$85.0 billion
Source: Ishita Sengupta, Virginia Reno, and John F. Burton, Jr., Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and
Costs, 2007, (Washington: National Academy of Social Insurance 2009), p. 2.
a.
Employer costs include costs paid for workers’ compensation insurance or costs paid for benefits and
administration by self-insured firms.
State and federal laws differ on how private employers may meet their responsibilities to insure
against the economic losses to employees from workplace injuries and illnesses. In nearly every
1
Ishita Sengupta, Virginia Reno, and John F. Burton, Jr., Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs,
2007 (Washington: National Academy of Social Insurance 2009), p.2. Hereafter cited as Sengupta et al., Workers’
Compensation, 2009.
2
Common exceptions to coverage include injuries caused by the willful misconduct of an employee, the drug or
alcohol use of an employee, or “acts of God.” Traditionally, only injuries or deaths that resulted from specific accidents
were covered by workers’ compensation. Modern workers’ compensation systems now generally provide coverage for
illnesses or other conditions, such as hearing loss, that are the result of prolonged exposure to a dangerous workplace
environment.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
state and federal system, firms can self-insure or purchase workers’ compensation insurance from
private providers or, in some states, from state funds. 3
Federal Workers’ Compensation
Workers’ compensation policy is largely determined by the individual states. Each state and the
District of Columbia, with the exception of Texas, has its own basic workers’ compensation
policy that mandates that private-sector employers and state and local government agencies insure
against the financial damages caused by employment-related injuries and illnesses and provide
no-fault cash and medical benefits to employees who are injured, killed, or become sick on the
job.4
The federal government has only a limited role in the workers’ compensation system and
administers workers’ compensation programs for federal employees and several limited classes of
private-sector workers, including overseas federal contractors. In 2007, state workers’
compensation programs paid $52.1 billion, or 94%, of the $55.4 billion in total cash and medical
benefits paid by the workers’ compensation system; federal workers’ compensation programs paid
$3.3 billion, or 6%, of total workers’ compensation benefits.5
With limited exceptions, the federal government has traditionally left workers’ compensation law
and policy to the states. However, the federal government has intervened in workers’
compensation policy in three cases. First, the federal government administers a workers’
compensation program for most federal employees under the Federal Employees’ Compensation
Act (FECA). Second, the federal government administers workers’ compensation programs for
the longshore and harbor and railroad industries because of the interstate nature of those
industries. The Defense Base Act (DBA), created in 1941, extended the federal workers’
compensation program for longshore and harbor workers, initially to persons working on
American military bases abroad and then to most federal contractors working outside of the
United States. Third, the federal government administers limited workers’ compensation systems
for coal miners with black lung disease and energy workers with cancer and other diseases caused
by exposure to radiation and other toxic substances because state workers’ compensation systems
have proven unable to provide adequate coverage for these conditions.
The Defense Base Act
The DBA requires that many federal government contractors and subcontractors provide workers’
compensation insurance for their employees who work outside of the United States.6 Under the
3
In five states, firms are required to purchase workers’ compensation from state funds. Federal agencies that provide
workers’ compensation for their employees essentially self-insure and are responsible for 100% of the cost of all
benefits paid.
4
The Texas workers’ compensation system is not mandatory for private-sector employers in that state. However,
private-sector employers who do not participate in the workers’ compensation system can be sued for damages by
employees injured on the job.
5
Sengupta et al., Workers’ Compensation, 2009, p. 19.
6
The provisions of the Defense Base Act (DBA) are provided in statute at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1651-1654 and as part of the
Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) at 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950. Regulations implementing the
DBA are provided in Parts 701-704 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and in the Federal
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
provisions of the DBA, overseas federal military and public works contractors are subject to the
same workers’ compensation rules, including the same insurance requirements and same
schedules of benefits for affected workers, as maritime firms covered by the Longshore and
Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). DBA insurance is provided by private companies
or through self-insurance and the DBA program is administered by the Department of Labor
(DOL). Like all workers’ compensation systems, the DBA provides no-fault coverage and is an
exclusive remedy to injured workers. Injured workers and the survivors of workers killed on the
job are entitled to benefits for employment-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths regardless of
fault and are not permitted to sue their employers or the federal government for any types of
damages caused by employment-related incidents.
DBA Benefits Paid
Prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in 2003, DBA benefits were paid to several
hundred claimants per year. OIF was accompanied by an increase in the number of DBA cases
and the total amount spent on DBA claims. As shown in Table 2, the DBA caseload increased
more than six-fold between 2004 and 2007, with 2007 having the largest caseload of the entire
OIF period. The average amount of compensation and medical benefits paid per claim in 2007,
however, was at the lowest level since 2003. The number of DBA payments dropped in 2008, but
the average benefits per case rose to the 2006 level. DOL reports that the increase in cases in
2007 was due, in part, to greater compliance efforts that resulted in firms reporting a greater
number of claims that involved only minor medical care and no lost work time. 7 Table 2 provides
an overview of DBA claims paid between 1997 and 2008.
Contractor Injuries and Deaths Covered by the DBA
Between September 2001 and the end of December 2009, the DBA has processed 55,988 cases of
covered injuries or deaths. Of these, 27,820 or 49.7% involved no lost work time on the part of
the employee. During this period, the DBA has processed 1,987 cases involving the death of a
covered employee. 8 Just over 40% of all injury and death cases covered by the DBA during this
period involved employees working for Service Employers International Inc., an indirect
subsidiary of KBR, a military and public works contractor. Service Employers International Inc.
was the employer of record for 22,921 total cases including 107 death cases between September
2001 and the end of December 2009. Table 3 provides summary data on DBA cases during this
period. 9
(...continued)
Acquisition Regulation at 48 C.F.R. §§ 28.305, 52.228-3, and 52.228-4.
7
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Defense Base Act Insurance: Are Taxpayers
Paying Too Much?, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., March 15, 2008; statement of Shelby Hallmark, Director, Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs, Department of Labor. Hereafter cited as Hallmark testimony, 2008.
8
Department of Labor, Defense Base Act Summary by Employer, http://www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/dlhwc/
dbaallemployer.htm.
9
Id.
Congressional Research Service
3
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Table 2.Total Defense Base Act Payments, 1997 to 2008
Year
Cases
Paid
Cash Benefits for
Wage Loss and
Survivors ($)
Medical Benefits for
Covered Injuries and
Illnesses ($)
Total
Benefits ($)
Average
Benefits per
Case ($)
1997
432
4,905,081
1,203,217
6,108,298
14,140
1998
423
5,497,439
2,194,012
7,691,451
18,138
1999
269
3,724,290
1,727,703
5,451,993
20,268
2000
309
6,268,112
2,314,654
8,582,766
27,776
2001
516
7,212,869
2,198,061
9,410,930
18,238
2002
430
5,480,592
2,101,403
7,581,995
17,633
2003
688
7,885,666
3,452,728
11,338,394
16,480
2004
1,592
19,432,369
10,647,020
30,079,389
18,894
2005
3,080
36,140,994
23,656,467
59,797,461
19,415
2006
5,039
66,973,732
48,781,929
115,755,661
22,972
2007
11,887
100,319,949
69,815,704
170,135,653
14,313
2008
8,741
146,872,621
52,964,386
199,837,007
22,862
Source: Department of Labor, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Table 3.Total Defense Base Act Cases, by Severity of Injury
(September 1, 2001 – December 31, 2009)
Severity of
Injury
No Lost
Time
1-3 days
Lost Time
4 or More
Days Lost
Time
Death
Other
Total
Number of
Cases
27,820
3,810
21,207
1,987
1,164
55,988
Percentage of
Total Cases
49.7
6.8
37.9
3.5
2.1
100.0
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) table. Data taken from Department of Labor, Defense Base Act
Case Summary by Employer, http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/dbaallemployer.htm.
Notes: “Other” category includes continuation of pay cases, cases in which there is not sufficient information to
determine what type of benefits are payable, and occupational illness cases in which no compensation is currently
payable.
Contractor Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan
Between September 2001 and the end of December 2009, there were 1,987 contractor deaths
covered by the DBA. Of these, 1,459 or 73.4% occurred in Iraq and 289 or 14.5% occurred in
Afghanistan.10 Of the 289 deaths in Afghanistan, 100 occurred during the final six months of
2009. Contractor operations in Iraq and Afghanistan account for 87.9% of all covered contractor
deaths during this period. During this same period, there were 4,248 American military deaths in
10
Department of Labor, Defense Base Act Case Summary by Nation, http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/
dbaallnation.htm.
Congressional Research Service
4
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Iraq and 848 American military deaths in Afghanistan. 11 Table 4 provides a comparison of
contractor and military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Table 4. Military and Contractor Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan
(September 1, 2001 – December 31, 2009)
U.S. Military
Country
Iraq
Afghanistan
Hostile
Non-Hostile
Total
Contractors
Covered by the
DBA
3,459
789
4,248
1,459
662
186
848
289
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) table. Data taken from Department of Labor, Defense Base Act
Case Summary by Nation, http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/dbaallnation.htm; and Department of Defense, Defense
Manpower Data Center, Statistical Analysis Information Division, Military Casualty Information,
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm.
Notes: Deaths are classified by the country in which the incident leading to the death took place, rather than
the actual place of death. Thus, a person involved in an incident in Iraq who later died in the United States is
placed in the Iraq category. Military data does not include persons killed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom
or Operation Enduring Freedom who died as a result of incidents in countries other than Iraq or Afghanistan.
A direct comparison between military and contractor deaths can not be made due to the different roles played
by each group and the different numbers of total military and contractor personnel who have served in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
H.R. 5136, Proposed Legislation to Deny Award Fees to Contractors due to
Negligent Contractor Behavior
Congress has expressed concern over negligent contractor behavior that may jeopardize the health
and safety of both contractors and government personnel. Accordingly, H.R. 5136, the proposed
NDAA for FY2011, includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to report to the
House and Senate Armed Services Committees, by September 1, 2011, on incidents where
contractors have earned reduced award fees or been denied award fees because of incidents where
the contractor jeopardized the health or safety of government personnel. P.L. 111-84, the NDAA
for FY2010, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to reduce or deny award fees due to such
incidents, as defined in Section 823.12
Legislative History
The Defense Base Act, P.L. 77-208, was enacted in 1941 and extended workers’ compensation
coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) to persons
working on American military bases that were either acquired by the United States from foreign
countries or that were located outside of the continental United States. Coverage was extended to
11
Department of Defense, Defense Manpower Data Center, Statistical Analysis Information Division, Military
Casualty Information, http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm. A direct comparison between
military and contractor deaths can not be made due to the different roles played by each group and the different
numbers of total military and contractor personnel who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
12
Section 823. Authority for the Secretary of Defense to reduce or deny award fees to companies found to jeopardize
health or safety of Government personnel. P.L. 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
public works contractors working outside of the United States in 1942 with the enactment of the
War Hazards Compensation Act, P.L. 77-784, which also established the War Hazards
Compensation Act (WHCA) program. The most significant amendments to the DBA were
enacted in 1958 and extended coverage to non-citizens, to persons working on projects funded
under the Mutual Security Act of 1954, and to persons working to provide morale and welfare
services, such as through the United Service Organizations (USO) to the armed forces. These
amendments also further defined the types of work covered under the DBA to include service
contracts.13
In 2006, Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to examine ways it could improve
its DBA procedures14 and Section 843 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
for FY2009 (NDAA) requires DOD to change the way its contractors provide DBA coverage for
their workers and to prepare a report to Congress on a new DOD acquisition strategy for DBA
insurance.15
Basic Provisions of the Defense Base Act
The DBA extends the provisions of the LHWCA to federal contractors working outside of the
United States. The LHWCA is a federal law that requires that private-sector firms provide
workers’ compensation coverage for their employees engaged in longshore, harbor, or other
maritime occupations.16 Workers’ compensation insurance under the LHWCA can be provided
either by a private carrier approved by the DOL or through a self-insurance system.
Injured workers covered by the LHWCA and DBA are entitled to full medical benefits to treat
their injuries provided by a physician of their choice. Injured workers are also entitled to cash
disability benefits to replace a portion of their lost wages. The basic weekly LHWCA and DBA
disability benefit is equal to two-thirds of a worker’s pre-disability weekly wage. Under the
LHWCA and DBA, benefits for total disability are capped at 200% of the national average
weekly wage; benefits for partial disability are capped on the basis of a schedule of
impairments. 17 Benefits are also paid to survivors of covered workers killed on the job.
13
P.L. 85-477 extended DBA coverage to contracts under the Mutual Security Act of 1954 and to morale and welfare
workers; it also further defined public works contracts and extended coverage to service contracts. P.L. 85-602
extended DBA coverage to non-citizens.
14
P.L. 109-163.
15
P.L. 110-417. In September 2009, the DOD issued the following report pursuant to Section 843 of the NDAA:
Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition and Technology, Acquisition
Strategy for Defense Base Act Insurance, Report to Congress in Response to Section 843 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Washington, DC, September 2009. Hereafter cited as DOD, Report to
Congress, 2009.
16
33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950.
17
For example, a covered worker is entitled to receive benefits for a maximum of 312 weeks if he or she loses an arm
at the shoulder and 160 weeks if he or she loses an eye. The complete schedule of maximum partial disability benefits
is provided in law at 33 U.S.C. § 908(c).
Congressional Research Service
6
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
DBA Eligibility
Section 1 of the DBA applies the basic workers’ compensation protections and benefits of the
LHWCA to the following four categories of private-sector employees working as federal
contractors:
•
employees who work on U.S. military, air or naval bases outside of the United
States, including bases located in U.S. territories;
•
employees who work on public works projects outside of the United States under
contract to any federal agency;
•
employees who work outside of the United States on projects funded by the
federal government under the provisions of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 that
provide for the sale of military equipment or services to American allies;18 or
•
employees who work for American firms providing morale, welfare, or similar
services to the armed forces outside of the United States.
Work performed under a grant from the federal government is not covered by the DBA. 19
DBA Insurance
The DBA is a privatized workers’ compensation insurance program. Benefits are not paid by the
federal government but rather are the responsibility of a covered worker’s employer. Employers
subject to the DBA can purchase insurance from a private provider approved by the DOL or, with
the permission of DOL, self-insure. Firms that fail to provide compensation for their injured
employees covered by the DBA can be subject to criminal prosecution and the firm and its
officers can be subject to civil suits brought by the injured workers.
Insurance Through Private Carriers
Contractors covered by the DBA may purchase workers’ compensation insurance from private
carriers approved by the DOL. Currently, the major providers of DBA insurance coverage are
ACE-USA, American International Group (AIG), and CNA.20 Of the 55,988 new DBA cases
created between September 2001 and the end of December 2009, 54,449, or 97.3% were insured
by one of these three companies or their subsidiaries. The largest single insurer of DBA cases
during this period was the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, an AIG company that
18
The Mutual Security Act of 1954 was replaced by the Foreign Assistance Act, codified at 22 U.S.C. § 2151 et seq., in
1961. For additional information on the Foreign Assistance Act, see CRS Report RL34243, Foreign Aid Reform: Issues
for Congress and Policy Options, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
19
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in University of Rochester v. Hartman, 618 F. 2d. (2nd Cir.
1980), that an employee injured in Antarctica while working on a scholarly research project funded through a grant
from the National Science Foundation was not covered by the DBA. The DOL has adopted a position, which it claims
is consistent with this decision, that work done pursuant to a federal grant is not covered by the DBA.
20
Department of Labor, Defense Base Act: Workers’ Compensation for Employees of U.S. Government Contractors
Working Overseas, p. 2, http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/ExplainingDBA.pdf. A complete list of authorized DBA
carriers is available on the website of DOL at http://www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/dlhwc/lscarrier.htm.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
insured 43,901 DBA cases. 21 Figure 1 provides a breakdown of all DBA cases from September
2001 to the end of December 2009 by insurer.
Self-Insurance
Insurance prices can be quite variable, moving between “hard market” periods with higher
premiums and difficulties for consumers finding insurance and “soft market” periods with low
premiums and relatively easy availability. Particularly when faced with high premiums, some
insurance consumers choose not to purchase insurance from an insurance company but instead
choose to “self-insure.” Self-insurance is a very broad term, possibly covering any situation in
which an entity chooses to retain a risk rather than purchasing insurance. Self-insurers can cover a
spectrum from (1) entities who essentially ignore a risk and take few, if any, steps to financially
prepare for a loss; to (2) entities who consider and evaluate risks, while perhaps setting up some
sort of savings or reserve accounts to pay for future losses; to (3) entities who set up a legally
licensed insurance company, known generally as a captive insurer, to whom actuarially
determined premiums are paid but ownership of the insurer is retained by the insured, so both
profits and risks are also retained by the insured.
Figure 1. Defense Base Act Cases by Insurance Carrier
(September 1, 2001 – December 31, 2009)
ACE-USA, 9%
AIG, 79%
CNA, 9%
All Others, 3%
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) figure. Data taken from Department of Labor, Defense Base Act
Case Summary by Carrier, http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/dbaallcarrier.htm.
Notes: The DOL collects and reports data by the company name on the issued insurance policies, and not by
the more common corporate names. Information from the DOL Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Affairs and AIG was used by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to categorize this data by corporate
names. “All Others” category includes cases for which the insurance carrier information is pending or not
available and cases in which the employer was uninsured.
21
Department of Labor, Defense Base Act Case Summary by Carrier, http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/
dbaallcarrier.htm. The DOL collects data by the company name on the issued insurance policies, and not by the more
common corporate names. Information from the DOL Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs and AIG
was used by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to categorize this data by corporate names.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Because the DBA mandates workers’ compensation insurance for federal contractors overseas,
the first self-insurance option, essentially ignoring the risk, is generally not an option. Under the
DBA, however, employers do have the option to self-insure if they meet certain financial criteria
and are approved to do so by DOL.22 Under the federal regulations, self-insurers are not required
to go so far as to set up captive insurers in order to self-insure. Nearly 170 employers are listed by
DOL as authorized self-insurers.23 Firms may also self-insure under most state workers’
compensation laws, and according to the Self-Insurance Institute of America, more than 6,000
corporations and their subsidiaries self-insure their workers’ compensation risks. 24 Many selfinsurers still purchase some form of insurance, typically a “catastrophic” policy that would take
effect if extraordinarily high losses occurred, and federal rules actually require such a policy.
Many self-insurers also hire third-party administrators, who undertake much of the administrative
burden of dealing with claims but without assuming any of the financial risk.
Choosing to self-insure is a decision taken on a wide variety of business grounds. In general,
those self-insuring are seeking to reduce insurance costs and ensure the availability of insurance.
Self-insurance can reduce costs through three primary mechanisms. First, any profits that would
have flowed to the insurer could be captured by the self-insurer; second, the self-insurer may be
able to save on administrative costs, either by undertaking the administration in-house or finding
a more efficient third-party administrator; and third, if the self-insurer is a relatively low-risk, its
costs would be lower if it were not pooled with other, higher risk parties.
DBA Waivers
The Secretary of Labor may, at the request of a federal agency, grant a waiver that exempts a firm
from the DBA if the firm can demonstrate that an alternative workers’ compensation system that
provides benefits in the case of disability or death is in place to cover the firm’s employees. DBA
waivers do not apply to American citizens or nationals or to persons hired within the United
States.
DBA Benefits for Foreign Nationals
The DBA covers all eligible federal contractors, including non-U.S. citizens and foreign
nationals. Foreign nationals receive the same DBA benefits as U.S. citizens or nationals with two
exceptions. First, benefits for the survivors of a foreign national who was not a resident of the
United States or Canada are only available to the worker’s surviving spouse and children or, if
there is no spouse or children, the worker’s surviving father or mother, provided that the worker
supported the father or mother for at least one year before the worker’s death. The eligibility for
survivors benefits for foreign nationals is more limited than that for American citizens and
nationals. Survivors benefits in the case of the death of an American citizen or national can be
paid to the worker’s spouse, children, siblings, parents, grandparents, or grandchildren.
22
The DOL’s Procedure Manual outlining the authorization of self-insurers is available on the website of the DOL at
http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lspm/lspm7-400.htm. The full regulations for self-insurers can be found at 20 CFR §§
703.301-703.313.
23
See the website of the DOL at http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/lscarrier.htm.
24
Self-Insurance Institute of America, Workers’ Compensation Programs, http://www.siia.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?
pageId=3284.
Congressional Research Service
9
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Second, permanent disability benefits or survivors benefits payable for foreign nationals who are
not residents of the United States or Canada may be commuted from installment payments to a
single lump-sum payment equal to one-half of the present value of the future compensation. The
decision to commute benefit payments for foreign nationals is made by the Secretary of Labor
and can be requested by the insurance carrier responsible for paying benefits.
DBA Administration
The DBA is administered by the DOL, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP),
Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation (DLHWC). DBA claims are
processed through one of five LHWCA regional offices, with all claims originating in Iraq and
Afghanistan processed through the New York office. 25
Dispute Resolution
An applicant dissatisfied with the decision made on his or her DBA claim may request a hearing
before a DOL Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The decision of a DOL ALJ can be appealed to
the DOL Benefits Review Board, and the decisions of this board may be appealed to the U.S.
District Court. In addition to this formal process for adjudicating claims, the DOL has an informal
dispute resolution process that seeks to bring the worker and his or her insurer or employer
together either over the telephone or in an informal conference to resolve the dispute before an
ALJ hearing is required. DOL reports that 8.2% of all DBA cases originating in Iraq or
Afghanistan between 2001 and 2005 involved claims disputes.26
War Hazards Compensation Act
The War Hazards Compensation Act (WHCA) supplements the DBA by providing a form of
reinsurance for injuries and deaths to contractors directly related to military conflict. 27 If an
employee’s injury or death is caused by a war hazard, the workers’ compensation benefits are
provided not by the insurer or employer but by the federal government. Under the provisions of
the WHCA, an injury or death is considered to have been caused by a war hazard if it occurred
during
•
a war in which the United States is engaged;
•
an armed conflict in which the United States is engaged, whether or not war has
been formally declared; or
•
during a war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin in a country
in which a covered employee is working;28
25
DBA claims are processed through the following five LHWCA regional offices: Boston, New York, Houston,
Honolulu, and Seattle.
26
Hallmark testimony, 2008.
27
42 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.
28
For the purposes of the WHCA, a covered employee includes any person covered under the DBA, any person
working outside of the United States under a personal services contract with the federal government, and any person
working as a civilian employee paid by non-appropriated funds under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense,
such as an employee of a military post exchange or officer’s club.
Congressional Research Service
10
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
and if the injury or death was caused by
•
the discharge of any weapon by a hostile force or in combating an attack;
•
the action of a hostile force or person, including an insurrection or rebellion
against the United States;
•
the discharge of any munitions intended for use against a hostile force;
•
the collision of vessels in convoy, or the operation of vessels or aircraft without
running lights or other aids to navigation;
•
the operation of vessels or aircraft in a hostile zone or engaged in war activities.
Generally, an insurance carrier or self-insured employer will first pay DBA benefits to an injured
worker or his or her survivors and then seek reimbursement from DOL under the WHCA.
Insurers and employers may be reimbursed for benefits paid and itemized and non-itemized
administrative costs associated with the claim. Non-itemized administrative costs are capped by
regulation at 15% of the total value of the benefits due on a claim.29 A claim is not reimbursed
under the WHCA if the insurance carrier charged an additional premium, referred to as premium
loading, to cover the specific war hazard that caused the injury or death.
WHCA benefits are paid out of the Employees’ Compensation Fund, which also pays workers’
compensation benefits for federal employees under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act
(FECA).30 The WHCA is administered by the DOL OWCP Division of Federal Employees’
Compensation (DFEC), and the DFEC makes determinations on whether claims should be paid
under the WHCA. While the costs associated with FECA benefits paid out of the Employees’
Compensation Fund are charged back to the injured workers’ host agencies, WHCA costs paid out
of the Employees’ Compensation Fund are not charged back to the contracting agency.
WHCA claims make up a relatively small percentage of the total DBA claims that originate in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Between September 2001 and June 2009, over 37,000 DBA claims had
been filed for cases originating in Iraq and Afghanistan.31 However, since 2003 when combat
operations in Iraq began and June 2009, 823 WHCA claims had been filed, 781 for cases from
Iraq and 42 for cases from Afghanistan. Thus, even in two military operations in which the United
States is fighting insurgent enemy forces without clearly established front lines and in which
contractors are playing significant roles, WHCA claims make up just over 2% of all DBA claims
filed. Among the WHCA cases that have been paid since 2003, a total of $12.1 million has gone
for compensation and benefits, whereas $19.7 million has gone to reimburse insurers for itemized
and non-itemized expenses associated with these claims.32
29
30
20 C.F.R. § 61.104.
The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) is codified at 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
31
Department of Labor, Defense Base Act Case Summary by Nation, http://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/
dbaallnation.htm.
32
Data provided by Department of Labor, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Selection of Defense Base Act Providers
Although many federal agencies have had or currently have overseas contracts subject to the
DBA, the Departments of State (DOS) and Defense (DOD) and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) are the major DBA contractors operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. These
agencies take different approaches to contracting for insurance services under the DBA. DOS and
USAID have awarded competitive contracts through the use of blanket contracts, with fixed rates,
to a single provider for each agency. In contrast, under the DOD approach private contractors
negotiate individually with private insurers. Over time, evidence has shown that rates for DBA
insurance charged to DOD have been significantly higher than DBA insurance rates for DOS and
USAID.33
Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development
Before 1990, DOS required contractors to obtain DBA insurance independently, resulting in a
variety of rates on the basis of company size, claims history, and work site. This arrangement
proved particularly onerous for small businesses with limited overseas experience. Such
companies found it difficult to obtain insurance, and when insurance was possible, they paid
significantly higher premiums. However, a DOS Inspector General (IG) found that costs could be
reduced through the use of a blanket contract to a single provider. In 1991, DOS competitively
awarded a multi-year contract to CIGNA Property and Casualty Insurance Company. As a result,
in 2000 DOS conducted a competition for a follow-on, multi-year contract. Four companies
competed: CIGNA, AIU, Ace International, and CNA. CNA was competitively awarded the DOS
contract in 2001 and has held the contract since that time. DOS issued a formal notice in April
2008 of its intent to solicit bids for a permanent contract for DBA insurance.34 In the most recent
competitions for DBA insurance contracts, both the DOS and USAID received only single bids
from CNA’s Continental Casualty Company.35
Department of Defense
DOD, with the exception of contracts issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and
the Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan (JCC-IA), permits its overseas contractors to
purchase DBA insurance from any insurance company approved by DOL. Currently, DOD
contractors pay over 76% of their DBA insurance premiums to AIG. CNA’s Continental Casualty
Company, through its single provider contract for USACE and JCC-IA claims receives nearly
14% of DOD insurance premiums while ACE USA receives over 6% of DOD premiums.36
33
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Defense Base Act Insurance: Are
Taxpayers Paying Too Much?, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., March 15, 2008; statement of John K. Needham, Director,
Acquisition and Sourcing Management Issues, Government Accountability Office.
34
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Defense Base Act Insurance: Are
Taxpayers Paying Too Much?, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., March 15, 2008; statement of William Moser, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Logistics Management, Department of State.
35
DOD, Report to Congress, 2009, p. 41.
36
Id., pp. 28-29. Data are for policy periods ending after October 31, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
12
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
DOD Insured Activities
Contracts issued by the Department of the Army are responsible for 69% of DOD’s DBA
insurance premiums. The Department of the Navy contracts account for 23% of premiums while
the Department of the Air Force contracts are responsible for 5% of premiums.37
Activities in Iraq and Afghanistan account for 88% of DOD’s DBA insurance premiums. A total
of 61% of DOD’s premiums are paid to insure activities under the Department of the Army’s
Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract with KBR and KBR contracts
account for the largest share of DOD premiums.38 Figure 2 and Figure 3 provide break-downs of
DOD DBA insurance premiums by primary program and contractor.
Figure 2. Department of Defense’s Defense Base Act Premiums Paid, by Program
(For policy periods ending after October 31, 2008)
Other, 28%
MRAP, 5%
LOGCAP , 61%
APS-3, 4%
Iraq Base
Construction, 2%
Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition and Technology,
Acquisition Strategy for Defense Base Act Insurance, Report to Congress in Response to Section 843 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Washington, DC, September 2009, p. 30.
Notes: APS-3: Army-Prepositioned Stock program; MRAP: Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle program;
LOGCAP: Army Logistics Civil Augmentation program.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pilot Program
Shortly after the 2005 GAO report, DOD began working closely with the USACE to conduct a
competition to award a contract for a pilot DBA project based on the DBA programs already in
place at DOS and USAID. CNA was the only company to submit a proposal and was awarded the
contract. The contract was awarded in November 2005 and coverage began in December 2005
with coverage extending through March 2008. DOD’s report to Congress discussed the early
37
38
Id., p. 29. Data are for policy periods ending after October 31, 2008.
Id., p. 30. Data is for policy periods ending after October 31, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
13
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
results under the USACE pilot program. After the first six months of the pilot program, USACE
reported that estimated savings to the federal government on DBA insurance costs already had
exceeded more than $19 million. 39 On the basis of these results, the pilot program was extended
through September 2008.
Figure 3. Department of Defense’s Defense Base Act Premiums Paid, by Contractor
(For policy periods ending after October 31, 2008)
Other, 40%
DynCorp, 9%
ITT, 6%
KBR, 45%
Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition and Technology,
Acquisition Strategy for Defense Base Act Insurance, Report to Congress in Response to Section 843 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Washington, DC, September 2009, p. 31.
A new contract for DBA insurance coverage of USACE contracts was awarded to the sole bidder,
CNA’s Continental Casualty Company, in October 2008. This new USACE contract also covers
DOD contracts issued by the JCC-IA.40
At the May 15, 2008, hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on
the DBA, Richard Ginman of the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, projected that continued success with the USACE pilot
program would, in all likelihood, make it a permanent DOD program stating:
Although the contract for the pilot program is continuing, the USACE in February 2008
decided to make the program permanent. A goal of the pilot program was to provide data to
build and present to our office and the Army, a formal business case to determine if the pilot
should be expanded Army or DoD-wide. To help USACE develop such a case, the Army
Audit Agency recently agreed to the Army’s request (through the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Army, Policy and Procurement) to review the results of the two-year pilot program to
39
Department of Defense. Report to Congress: Review of DBA Insurance pursuant to the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Washington, DC, February 27, 2007, p. 5.
40
DOD, Report to Congress, 2009, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
14
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
determine if it warranted permanent placement at the USACE and warrant further extension
in the Army. Once Army Audit’s review is complete, USACE will develop the business case
and we will review the results to determine the Department’s next steps.41
Costs to the Federal Government
Although the DBA requires that federal contractors working overseas either purchase workers’
compensation insurance for their employees or self-insure, the costs of this insurance is usually
passed along to the federal government as a cost item in the contract. If the agency is purchasing
services under a cost-plus contract, the contractor receives a set percentage of the total cost of all
items, including DBA insurance, billed to the federal government. In cost-plus contracts, the
contractor’s fees rise with contract costs. There is no financial incentive for the contractor to limit
the government’s costs.
DBA Premiums Under Single Insurer Programs
It is possible to compare the costs of DBA insurance purchased through the USACE pilot
program with the costs of DBA insurance paid by DOS and USAID contractors as all three
agencies use single insurer programs. In the competitions for their most recent DBA contracts,
each of the three agencies received only one bid, from CNA’s Continental Casualty Company.42
Currently, USAID contractors pay the lowest DBA insurance premiums for services, construction,
and security. The highest premiums are paid by all agencies for aviation-related activities. Table
5, below, provides current DBA insurance premiums for contractors in the USACE pilot program,
DOS, and USAID.
Comparison of DBA Insurance Premiums Paid by DOD and
USACE
The competitive market for DBA insurance for non-USACE DOD contracts results in lower
premiums than are paid by USACE under its single insurer system. For all types of contracts in
all global locations, the weighted average premium for competitive market DOD contracts is
currently $5.30 per $100 in covered payroll, versus $8.32 for single insurer system USACE
contracts. Figure 4 compares the weighted average premiums under the DOD competitive market
and USACE single insurer systems. DOD competitive market contracts have a wider variance
than those under the USACE system, with the cheapest DOD premium at $0.09 per $100 as
opposed to $3.50 under the USACE system and the most expensive DOD premium at $40, double
the highest USACE premium of $20.43
Premiums under both systems are higher in Iraq and Afghanistan than in other locations. The
weighted average DOD premium in Iraq and Afghanistan is $5.64 per $100, while the USACE
41
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Defense Base Act Insurance: Are
Taxpayers Paying Too Much?, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., March 15, 2008; statement of Richard Ginman, Deputy Director
for Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics.
42
DOD, Report to Congress, 2009, p. 7.
43
Id., p. 32.
Congressional Research Service
15
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
premium is $8.64. In areas other then Iraq and Afghanistan, average premiums are lower and
DOD’s competitive market premiums remain less expensive then those paid under the USACE
single insurer system. 44
Table 5.Current DBA Insurance Premiums for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of State, and U.S. Agency for International Development
Effective date of contract
Insurance carrier
USACE
DOS
USAID
October 1, 2008
July 22, 2009
May 30, 2009
CNA
CNA
CNA
Labor Category
Premium ($) per $100 in Covered Payroll
Services
4.00
3.60
3.25
Construction
7.50
4.95
4.50
Security
12.50
N/A
N/A
Security without aviation
exposure in Global War on
Terrorism-designated areas
N/A
9.45
N/A
Security and aviation
N/A
N/A
9.00
Aviation with exposure in
Global War on Terrorismdesignated areas
N/A
18.00
N/A
Aviation
20.00
N/A
N/A
Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition and Technology,
Acquisition Strategy for Defense Base Act Insurance, Report to Congress in Response to Section 843 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Washington, DC, September 2009, p. 7.
DBA Costs Associated with the Department of the Army’s Logistics
Civil Augmentation Program Contract
The Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) was established by the Department of the
Army on December 6, 1985, with the publication of Army Regulation 700-137. LOGCAP is an
initiative to manage the use of civilian contractors who perform services in support of DOD
missions during times of war and other military mobilizations.45 LOGCAP contracts are intended
to augment combat support and combat service support to military forces.46
44
Id., pp. 33-36.
45
For a detailed discussion of the origin, background, and current issues with the Department of the Army’s LOGCAP
program, see CRS Report RL33834, Defense Logistical Support Contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan: Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted).
46
Prior to OIF, LOGCAP contracts have been awarded for work in Rwanda, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, Ecuador,
Qatar, Italy, southeastern Europe, Bosnia, and South Korea. Under LOGCAP, private sector contractors are used to
provide a broad range of logistical and other support services to U.S. and allied forces during combat, peacekeeping,
humanitarian and training operations.
Congressional Research Service
16
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Figure 4. Average Current Defense Base Act Premiums, by Agency and Location
$9.00
$8.54
$8.32
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.30
$5.64
$5.63
$5.00
$4.00
$2.96
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
All Areas
DOD-Open Market
Iraq and Afghanistan
All Other Areas
USACE-Single Insurer
Source: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition and Technology,
Acquisition Strategy for Defense Base Act Insurance, Report to Congress in Response to Section 843 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Washington, DC, September 2009, pp. 32-36.
Notes: Premiums are weighted by the size, in amount of payroll, of each contract.
Although the LOGCAP program began in 1985, the program has been the subject of intense
scrutiny since the start of OIF. The LOGCAP troop support contract in Iraq has been the subject
of several congressional hearings. The contract is the largest single contract for combat operations
in Iraq to date. Policymakers continue to express concern over the reported lack of oversight of
LOGCAP contracts in Iraq for several reasons, including the expense and difficulty of managing
large-scale logistical support contracts; allegations and reported instances of contract waste,
fraud, abuse, and financial mismanagement; and questions regarding DOD’s ability and capacity
to manage such contracts.47 Congressional concerns over the DBA insurance program have been
driven, in part, by the lack of transparency and oversight of the overall costs incurred under the
LOGCAP program.
Recent assessments from the GAO, DOD’s IG, and the SIGIR reveal a lack of federal oversight,
management, and accountability for funds spent for Iraq contracting. An audit conducted by the
DOD IG revealed that the federal government failed to substantiate the disbursement of at least
$7.8 billion of $8.2 billion spent for goods and services in Iraq. In a May 22, 2008, congressional
hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, DOD officials revealed
estimates that the Army disbursed $1.4 billion in commercial payments that lacked the minimum
supporting justification and documentation for a valid payment, such as certified vouchers and
invoices. In one reported instance, a $320 million payment in cash was made without justification
beyond a signature.48
47
See the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Quarterly Report to Congress, April 30, 2008.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Accountability Lapses in Multiple Funds
(continued...)
48
Congressional Research Service
17
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
U.S. Army Audit Agency Report on DBA Insurance under LOGCAP
In early 2007, an audit of the DBA program was initiated by the U.S. Army Audit Agency
(USAAA) due to several factors, including the growing complexity of the DBA program, rising
program costs, wide fluctuations in insurance rates, and the federal government’s efforts to reduce
and avoid future program costs. In September 2007, the USAAA released its audit report.49
Army auditors found that KBR, the LOGCAP contractor, paid approximately $284.3 million in
DBA premiums during the period from FY2003 through FY2005. These premiums rose steadily
each fiscal year from approximately $4.7 million in FY2003 to approximately $164.7 million in
FY2005.50 As a result of these premiums, the auditors concluded that DBA insurance represented
a “significant and recently increasing cost element” of the overall LOGCAP contract.51
USAAA found that whereas total LOGCAP DBA costs rose between FY2003 and FY2005, DBA
premiums for Iraq and Kuwait as a percentage of total payroll increased from FY2003 to FY2004
and then declined in FY2005 and FY2006. The audit also found that these rate fluctuations
appeared inconsistent with the risks associated with providing DBA insurance for this contract. In
addition, the audit found that the LOGCAP contractor reported accident rates that were lower
than the U.S. private industry average yet it was paying higher than industry-average worker’s
compensation premiums.
Table 6 provides the LOGCAP DBA premiums for Iraq and Kuwait for the period between
FY2002 and FY2006.
Army auditors found that the Department of the Army paid “substantially” more in DBA
premiums than was expected to be paid out in DBA claims. The auditors found that while $284.3
million in DBA premiums were paid under the LOGCAP contract between FY2003 and FY2005,
just under 26% of these premiums went to pay the $73.1 million in DBA claims and potential
future claims arising from cases during this period.52 Table 7 provides data on LOGCAP DBA
premiums and potential claims for the period between FY2003 and FY2005.
(...continued)
for Iraq, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., May 22, 2008; statement of Mary L. Ugone, Deputy Inspector General for Audit,
Department of Defense.
49
The USAAA does not publicly release its audit reports. However, the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform has posted a copy of this report, Audit of Defense Base Insurance for the Logistics Civil
Augmentation Program, Audit of Logistics Civil Augmentation Program Operations in Support of Operation Iraqi
Freedom, on its website at http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080515102103.pdf.
50
During the period covered by the USAAA audit and this report, KBR was the exclusive LOGCAP contractor under a
contract referred to as LOGCAP III. On April 17, 2008 the Department of the Army announced that it was awarded its
latest LOGCAP contract, known as LOGCAP IV, to KBR, DynCorp International, and Fluor Corporation.
51
U.S. Army Audit Agency, Audit of Defense Base Insurance for the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, Audit of
Logistics Civil Augmentation Program Operations in Support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Audit Report A-2007-0204ALL, September 28, 2007, p. 5. Hereafter cited as USAAA, Audit of Defense Base Insurance.
52
Id., p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
18
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Table 6. Defense Base Act Premiums for the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program
Contract in Iraq and Kuwait, FY2002 to FY2006
Fiscal Year
Premium
(rate per $100 in salary)
Percentage Change in Premium from
Previous Fiscal Year
2002
3.75
NA
2003
3.75
0.0%
2004
16.20
332.0%
2005
13.80
(14.8%)
2006
8.50
(38.4%)
Source: U.S. Army Audit Agency, Audit of Defense Base Insurance for the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, Audit of
Logistics Civil Augmentation Program Operations in Support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Audit Report A-2007-0204-ALL,
September 28, 2007, p. 5.
Notes: Parentheses indicate a decrease from the previous fiscal year. Data does not include subcontractors.
One explanation offered by the USAAA for what it deemed as these “excessive” premiums was
the practice of basing DBA premiums on total payroll costs, including costs such as overtime pay
and hazard pay while basing DBA benefit amounts, usually two-thirds of pre-injury wages, only
on base pay.53
Table 7. Defense Base Act Premiums and Claims for the Logistics Civil
Augmentation Program Contract in Iraq and Kuwait, FY2003 to FY2005
Fiscal Year
Premiums Paid ($)
Potential Claims ($)
Potential Claims as
Percentage
of Premiums Paid (%)
2003
4,671,775
9,882,515
211.5
2004
114,992,588
25,329,820
22.0
2005
164,657,004
37,905,929
23.0
Total
284,321,367
73,118,264
25.7
Source: U.S. Army Audit Agency, Audit of Defense Base Insurance for the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, Audit of
Logistics Civil Augmentation Program Operations in Support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Audit Report A-2007-0204-ALL,
September 28, 2007, p. 8.
Notes: Potential claims do not include claims under the War Hazards Compensation Act (WHCA) reimbursed by
the federal government.
Auditors found that between January 1, 2003, and September 30, 2005, KBR paid $23.1 million
in premiums on the special incentive payments made to its employees for the hazard pay
component of its payroll. 54 In addition, DBA benefits, but not the wages used to calculate DBA
premiums, are capped, and thus a portion of the total premium is paid on salary above the cap that
53
In his testimony before the House Oversight Committee, Joseph Mizzoni of the USAAA characterized the premiums
paid by KBR for LOGCAP DBA insurance as “excessive” (U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, Defense Base Act Insurance: Are Taxpayers Paying Too Much?, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., March 15,
2008; statement of Joseph Mizzoni, Deputy Auditor General for Acquisition and Logistics, U.S. Army Audit Agency).
In its response to the USAAA audit report, the U.S. Army Sustainment Command stated that KBR, the LOGCAP
contractor, does not pay an overtime rate (USAAA, Audit of Defense Base Act Insurance, p. Enclosure 5).
54
USAAA, Audit of Defense Base Act Insurance, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service
19
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
will not be replaced by DBA disability benefits. Because of this, KBR is essentially paying
insurance on payroll that does not need to be insured because it can not, by law, be replaced under
the provisions of the DBA.
Defense Contract Audit Agency Audit of DBA Insurance Under LOGCAP
The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audited the costs billed to the DOD by KBR for
DBA insurance under LOGCAP in 2003. The results of this audit were reported to the
Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan at the Commission’s May 4, 2009,
hearing. 55 At this hearing, DCAA Director April G. Stephenson testified that the DCAA could find
no evidence that KBR attempted to use a competitive bidding process to secure DBA insurance or
ensure that the rates it paid were competitive. Because of this lack of evidence, DCAA reported
that it was unable to determine the reasonableness of the DBA rates paid by KBR in 2003 or
subsequent years. In addition the DCAA audit found that KBR was not verifying the actual labor
costs of its subcontractors and thus was paying DBA premiums on estimated rather then actual
labor costs.
As a result of its audit of KBR’s DBA insurance under LOGCAP in 2003, the DCAA
recommended to the Department of the Army that, unless KBR can provide some evidence that
its purchase of DBA insurance was competitive, that the Department of the Army determine if
KBR should be required to reimburse the federal government for some of the DBA insurance
costs it billed under LOGCAP in 2003. In addition, DCAA reported that it is currently
determining whether or not KBR’s use of estimated rather then actual subcontract labor costs
makes a reduction in the amount billed by KBR for DBA insurance for its subcontractors
necessary.
Options for Congress
Current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought increased congressional
attention to several issues surrounding the DBA. Concerns have been raised over the following
issues:
•
the overall cost and variability of DBA premiums paid;
•
the basis for DBA premiums;
•
the costs of the program to the federal government;
•
the manner in which contractors select their DBA providers; and
•
the coordination of the DBA with the WHCA.
In 2006, Congress enacted language in the Defense Authorization Act that required the DOD to
review its DBA procedures and to work with the DOS and USAID to find ways to more
effectively provide DBA insurance to overseas military contractors.56 On May 15, 2008, the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on DBA issues that focused
55
Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, LOGCAP: Support-Contracting Challenges in Iraq
and Afghanistan, May 4, 2009; statement of April G. Stephenson, Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency.
56
P.L. 109-163.
Congressional Research Service
20
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
on DBA costs involved in the LOGCAP contract as well as the possibility of the DOD adopting a
single-source model for DBA insurance similar to what is currently used by DOS, USAID, and
USACE as part of its pilot program. 57
P.L. 110-417, the FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act, as an
Outline for Possible DBA Reform
Section 843 of the FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act requires DOD to adopt a
department-wide DBA insurance provision that will minimize costs, ensure that premium prices
are tied to expected claims, minimize risk to DOD, and provide for a competitive DBA
marketplace. Although this legislation does not require DOD to adopt any specific DBA strategy,
an earlier version of the bill (H.R. 5658) provision passed by the House provided an outline of
several policy options that DOD was required to consider when formulating its overall DBA
strategy. 58
In H.R. 5658, the House-passed version of the bill, Section 850 contains policy options that fall
into three broad categories of DBA reform that are similar to those mentioned in reviews of the
DBA performed by the GAO, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the USAAA, and the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The three categories of policy options are
•
using a single contracted source, or a limited set of contracted sources, for all
DOD DBA contracts, similar to the model used by DOS, USAID, and the
USACE pilot program;
•
using a rating system to set premiums based on past claims incurred, similar to
the experience rating systems used in many private insurance lines; and
•
having the federal government self-insure for all DBA costs similar to what is
currently done with the workers’ compensation for injuries and death related to
war hazards under the WHCA and workers’ compensation for federal employees
under the FECA program.
Single-Source Contract for DBA Insurance
Currently, DOS, USAID, and USACE use single-source contracts to provide DBA insurance for
their contractors. Under this model, all agency contractors purchase DBA insurance from a single
source selected through a competitive bidding process. This process allows a single insurer to
pool the risks of multiple contractors and contracting activities with the goal of using this pooled
risk to reduce the premiums paid by all contractors.
Because of the different nature of the contracts issued by DOS, USAID, USACE, and DOD, it is
difficult to compare premiums to determine if DOD would experience cost savings from a singlesource contract for DBA insurance. Currently, across all geographic areas and activities, DOD
pays lower average premiums then does USACE. However, the highest premiums paid by DOD
are double those paid under USACE’s single-source contract. In addition, both DOS and USAID
57
Defense Base Act Insurance: Are Taxpayers Paying Too Much?: Hearing Before the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, 110th Cong., (2008).
58
See Section 850(c) of H.R. 5658, the House-passed version of the bill.
Congressional Research Service
21
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
have lower negotiated premium rates under their single-source contracts than USACE does under
its contract.
A report issued by the Majority Staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
found that underwriting gains were significantly higher for major DBA contracts independently
negotiated than for the single-source contracts used by DOS and USAID.59 CBO estimates that
adopting a single-source model for all DOD DBA insurance would result in savings of $33
million in the first year and a 10-year cost savings of $362 million.60
Although there are indications that adoption by DOD of a single-source model for DBA insurance
could result in cost savings, the size and complexity of the DOD and its contracts may result in
difficulties in that agency adopting the system used by the smaller DOS and USAID. It is not
known if a single insurer would be willing or able to take on all of the DOD’s DBA business.
USAAA reports that only one insurance carrier bid to provide coverage under the LOGCAP
contract, and an earlier effort by DOD to find a single carrier for all DBA contracts in Iraq
resulted in no carriers placing bids.61 Similarly, a DOD survey of the four largest DBA insurers
found that all opposed a single source contract system and none would bid for such a contract if it
were offered by DOD.62 This problem is not unique to DOD as in their most recent contract
solicitations, DOS, USAID, and USACE each only received a single bidder for their DBA
insurance.
USACE reports that even with a single source for all DBA insurance under its pilot program, the
agency is still required to provide administrative support and bear administrative costs.63 The
CBO concurs with this assessment and notes that although it estimates overall cost savings if
DOD were to adopt a single-source model for DBA insurance, these cost estimates do not take
into account the costs to DOD involved in setting up and administering the system and that these
costs “could greatly diminish savings.”64
Experience Rating for DBA Insurance
In its audit of DBA insurance for the LOGCAP contract, USAAA concluded that the premiums
being paid by KBR did not reflect either the expected claims to be paid or the risks involved in
the covered activities, especially given KBR’s relatively low accident rates. USAAA also found
that LOGCAP DBA rates were subject to large annual fluctuations and were a major component
of the overall cost of the LOGCAP contract. The use of experience ratings, in which current
premiums are based on past claim rates, could bring DBA premiums more into line with the risks
faced by DBA contractors.
59
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Majority Staff, Supplemental Information on Defense Base
Act Insurance Costs, Memorandum to Committee Members, May 15, 2008. Available on the website of the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080515102024.pdf.
60
Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options (Washington: GPO 2007), p. 35. Hereafter cited as CBO, Budget
Options.
61
USAAA, Audit of Defense Base Act Insurance, p. 6.
62
DOD, Report to Congress, 2009, p. 41.
63
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Defense Base Act Insurance: Are
Taxpayers Paying Too Much?, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., March 15, 2008; statement of James Dalton, Chief of Engineering
and Construction, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
64
CBO, Budget Options, p. 35.
Congressional Research Service
22
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Experience rating is common in the insurance industry and is a feature of many workers’
compensation systems governed by state laws. Under an experience rating system, a base
premium can be increased if a customer has a history of claims that indicate a greater risk to the
insurer or be lowered if the claims history indicates a reduced insurance risk. The proprietary
nature of individual insurance arrangements between contractors and carriers and that neither
DOL nor any of the contracting agencies has any authority to regulate DBA claims makes it
difficult assess what factors are currently used to set current DBA premiums.65
There may be difficulties in using experience ratings to determine DBA premiums. The
fluctuations in the price of premiums charged under the LOGCAP program may indicate
difficulties in accurately estimating insurance risk in a war zone. One such difficulty involves the
determination of whether a claim should be paid under the DBA or the WHCA. For example,
USAAA reports that KBR’s insurance broker was concerned with the probability of increased
DBA claims due to a plane crash and the current DOS insurance contract allows for higher
premiums for security contracts that involve aviation.66 However, under some circumstances a
plane crash would be covered not by the insurer under the DBA but rather by the federal
government under the WHCA. In addition, in response to USAAA’s audit of the DBA insurance
under the LOGCAP contract, the U.S. Army Sustainment Command stated that it “may prove
difficult to find insurance carriers who use retrospective rating plans in determining DBA
insurance premiums for countries where war risk hazards have been recognized by the DOS.”67
Federal Self-Insurance
The DBA is a privatized workers’ compensation system in which individual contractors either
purchase insurance from private carriers or self-insure. However, because the terms of many
federal contracts allow the contractors to bill the federal government for the cost of DBA
insurance, DBA insurance costs are often ultimately paid by the federal government. One option
for DBA insurance reform would be to eliminate the private nature of DBA insurance and have
the federal government act as the sole DBA insurer and pay 100% of all DBA administrative and
claim costs. Having the federal government self-insure for DBA insurance would be similar to the
way workers’ compensation insurance is handled for injuries and deaths caused by war hazards
under the WHCA and for federal employees under the FECA program.
Under a federal self-insurance system, benefits would likely be paid from a trust fund in a manner
similar to the way that FECA and WHCA benefits are paid from the federal Employees
Compensation Fund. The federal government could administer the program itself or hire a thirdparty administrator.
There are several potential advantages to having the federal government self-insure for DBA
hazards. First, rather than paying insurance premiums, the federal government would only be
responsible for paying the actual cost of claims and administration. Given that claims make up
just over 25% of total costs paid for DBA insurance under the LOGCAP contract, the federal
65
In an October 2006 report, the SIGIR criticized KBR for its labeling of nearly all of the data on its LOGCAP
operations as proprietary and stated that this practice constituted an “abuse” of the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Interim Audit Report on Inappropriate Use of Proprietary Data
Markings by the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) Contractor, SIGR-06-035, October 26, 2006.
66
USAAA, Audit of Defense Base Act Insurance, p. 7.
67
Id., p. Enclosure 6.
Congressional Research Service
23
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
government could potentially see cost savings through self-insurance. In addition, issues
involving premium loading and the charging of DBA insurance premiums on non-covered
components of payroll such as hazard pay would be eliminated if the federal government selfinsured.
Second, the use of the federal government as self-insurer would eliminate the need to distinguish
between DBA and WHCA claims, because every claim would be paid by the federal government.
There is evidence that the current process, in which the federal government identifies WHCA
claims after they have been paid as DBA claims and then reimburses insurers for claim and
administrative costs, results in the federal government paying significant amounts that do not go
directly to claimants. Over the past six years under the WHCA, the federal government has paid
more in reimbursements to insurers for expenses ($19.7 million) than it has paid in compensation
to claimants ($12.1 million).
There is also evidence, including testimony provided by DBA and WHCA claimants at a 2009
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing, that in some cases, claimants
with injuries that clearly fall under the statutory requirements of the WHCA must first navigate
procedural and other requirements of their contractors’ DBA insurers before their cases are
eventually transferred to DOL.68 In some cases, DBA insurers controvert claims or oppose
specific benefits for claims that are likely to end up at the DOL under the WHCA. Under the
current system, insurers have the right and responsibility to investigate all claims and controvert
or oppose claims and benefits they feel are not their responsibility or that fall outside of the DBA.
However, this can cause delays for claimants, including claimants with clear WHCA cases that
will eventually be paid by the DOL.
Having the federal government self-insure for DBA hazards would change the historic private
nature of the DBA program and place the program at odds with the privatized LHWCA program.
In addition, federal self-insurance for DBA claims would go against current trends in state
workers’ compensation programs. Exclusive state funds, in which the state pays all workers’
compensation claims, are being replaced either by state funds that compete on the open market
with private carriers, or by systems in which all workers’ compensation insurance is provided
privately.69
The DOD, in its 2009 report to Congress on DBA insurance alternatives, stated that a selfinsurance system, in which none of the costs of employee-injuries or deaths would be paid by the
employer, could result in moral hazard.70 Contracting firms with no financial stake in the health
and safety of their employees may take additional risks or compromise procedures without any
fear of ultimately having to pay, through higher insurance premiums, for the negative
consequences of these actions.
68
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, After
Injury, the Battle Begins: Evaluating Workers’ Compensation for Civilian Contractors in War Zones, 111th Cong., 1st
sess., June 18, 2009.
69
The DOD, in its 2009 report to Congress, also raised the issue of possible violations of the AntIdeficiency Act [31
U.S.C. § 1341(a)] under a self-insurance system. For additional information on the AntIdeficiency Act see CRS Report
R40814, Interagency Contracting: An Overview of Federal Procurement and Appropriations Law, by (name redacted)
and (name redacted).
70
DOD, Report to Congress, 2009, p. 43.
Congressional Research Service
24
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
DOD Analysis of DBA Reform Options
In September 2009, in response to Section 843 of the NDAA, the DOD reported to Congress the
results of its review of various possible acquisition strategies for providing DBA insurance to its
contractors.71 This report used information from industry sources and data from existing DOD
DBA activities to evaluate the following four DBA reform alternatives:
•
Alternative A: Improvements to the existing open market DBA system;
•
Alternative B: A single-source contract for all DOD DBA coverage;
•
Alternative C: Limiting DBA insurance to a small number of pre-selected
providers; and
•
Alternative D: Federal self-insurance with third-party administration.
These four alternatives were evaluated against the following six criteria, based, in part, on criteria
provided by Congress in Section 843 of the NDAA.
1. Minimize overhead costs associated with obtaining DBA insurance;
2. Minimize the costs of coverage consistent with realistic assumptions regarding
the likelihood of incurred claims by contractors;
3. Provide for a correlation of premiums paid in relation to claims incurred that is
modeled on the best practices in government and industry for similar kinds of
insurance;
4. Provide for a low level of risk to the DOD;
5. Provide for a competitive marketplace for insurance required by the DBA to the
maximum extent practicable; and
6. Consider implementation issues.72
The DOD’s analysis of the four alternatives evaluated against the six criteria resulted in the
highest rankings for Alternative A: improvements to the existing open-market DBA system; and
Alternative D: federal self-insurance with third-party administration. Specifically, improving the
existing open-market system was predicted to best minimize overhead and coverage costs;
provide the best correlation of premiums paid to claims incurred; and provided the lowest risk to
DOD. Federal self-insurance with third-party administration was predicted to best provided for a
competitive marketplace and be the easiest to implement.73
Although the DOD’s analysis of four major policy alternatives is comprehensive, there are
limitations to its utility as a guide for Congress in making changes to the overall DBA system.
The DOD report only focuses on DOD contractors and while these make up the bulk of DBAcovered firms, other contracting agencies, such as DOS and USAID may have different
experiences and issues than DOD and DOD’s recommended policy changes may not be as
successful if applied across the entire federal government.
71
DOD, Report to Congress, 2009.
72
Id., p. 45. Criteria 1 through 5 were provided by Section 843 of the NDAA while Criterion 6 was provided by the
DOD.
73
Id., p. 49.
Congressional Research Service
25
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Two of the six criteria used to evaluate the four alternatives also serve to limit the utility of the
DOD analysis. Congress required DOD to consider the how each alternative provided for a
competitive DBA marketplace. This requirement may have biased the study against policy
options, such as self-insurance or single or limited-source contracts for DBA insurance which, by
definition, do not support a competitive marketplace but which may still be viable policy options
for Congress to consider.
In its analysis, DOD added an additional criteria based on the ease of policy implementation.
Evaluations of alternatives against this criterion were based, in part, on how quickly policy
changes could be made and whether or not federal laws or regulations would need to be changed.
it is understandable that DOD would consider this criterion necessary, given the time and
cooperation within the executive branch and with the Congress that regulatory and statutory
changes would require. However, when looking at alternatives for making changes to the national
DBA program, Congress may not want to limit itself to alternatives that provide for easy
implementation.
Improvements to the Current Open-Market DBA System
The DOD report identified making improvements to the existing open-market DBA system as one
of the preferred alternatives. Specifically, the DOD report suggests four improvements to the
current DBA insurance system. 74 First, all approved DBA carriers should have access to
comprehensive data on losses and costs. In its discussions with industry representatives, the DOD
found that some carriers felt that they were at a competitive disadvantage without this data as
more than 75% of the DOD DBA market is covered by a single carrier, AIG.75 In addition, unlike
in conventional workers’ compensation insurance, there is no national clearinghouse, such as the
National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), for loss and cost data.
Second, the DOL should be given the authority to establish a program of assigned risk pools for
the DBA program and require that large insurers provide coverage to pool members. An assigned
risk pool would assure that small contractors, those that are high-insurance risks, or contractors
otherwise unable to secure DBA insurance would be covered at reasonable rates and that all
major DBA insurance carriers would share the risks of providing insurance to these contractors.
The DOD also recommends requiring that insurance carriers separate out the pricing of DBA
insurance from other types of insurance, such as accidental death and dismemberment and ransom
insurance. In addition, the DOD recommends establishing a single DOD contact for issues
relating to country-waivers under the DBA program.
74
75
DOD, Report to Congress, 2009, pp. 54-56.
Id., pp. 29, 54, and 55.
Congressional Research Service
26
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Appendix. List of Acronyms
AIG:
American International Group
ALJ:
Administrative Law Judge
APS-3:
Army-Prepositioned Stock Program
CBO:
Congressional Budget Office
CFR:
Code of Federal Regulations
CPA-IG:
Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority
CRS:
Congressional Research Service
DBA:
Defense Base Act
DCAA:
Defense Contract Audit Agency
DFEC:
Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation, Department of Labor
DLHWC:
Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation, Department of Labor
DOD:
Department of Defense
DOL:
Department of Labor
DOS:
Department of State
FECA:
Federal Employees’ Compensation Act
GAO:
Government Accountability Office
IG:
Inspector General
JCC-IA:
Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan
LOGCAP:
Logistics Civil Augmentation Program
LHWCA:
Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act
MRAP:
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Program
NCCI:
National Council on Compensation Insurance
OIF:
Operation Iraqi Freedom
OWCP:
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Department of Labor
SIGIR:
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
USAAA:
U.S. Army Audit Agency
USACE:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USAID:
U.S. Agency for International Development
USO:
United Service Organizations
WHCA:
War Hazards Compensation Act
Congressional Research Service
27
The Defense Base Act (DBA)
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Defense Acquisition
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Scott Szymendera
Analyst in Disability Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted)
Specialist in Financial Economics
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
28
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.