Idk why IA just can’t get the record then. Talk about a giant waste of time for half a SU.
It’s a very imperfect process. Some in IA have reasonable expectations for this non criminal investigation and some get into way too deep into the weeds of the minute details and that’s not really helping customer, company, investigators, etc. It’s hard for some to realize we are investigating imperfect humans utilizing imperfect human sources, and we aren’t criminal investigators looking to prosecute anyone.
I hate the IA process. I am an ethical investigator who doesn’t cut corners. My coworkers are ethical investigators who don’t cut corners. Three of us could call the same company and get three different answers depending on who answers the phone that day and what kind of mood they’re in
3 Likes
Exactly! Sometimes I think IA is looking for a boogeyman.
Everyone wants to think their coworkers are ethical. Truth is, it is usually a shock to everyone when one gets fired for a fabrication. I caught a coworker in a lie and had to report it. No one could believe this person had done what they did and they lost their job, I don’t know if DCSA followed with official charges or not. This person had been in the field a long time and even trained other investigators. Nobody thinks it is someone THEY know, until it is.
3 Likes
Did this “fired” employee investigator tell you the details of why they were let go? The details of why a person is “let go” or “fired” are a very private matter for that employee and managers should not be sharing that information with the team.
Very interesting. I think what scares some people is they don’t know what IA considers a huge flag vs an honest mistake (besides the obvious examples of completely making stuff up, not doing interviews, etc)
I’m the one who caught them so I had first hand knowledge and then worked with IA to collect the evidence. There was no need for hearsay in my instance. No further details will be provided. But like I said, no one ever thinks that their coworker are breaking the law until they are caught.
2 Likes
“Breaking the law” is a strong accusation. We are not judges or juries. There are few among us who have not driven 60 in a 55 mph. Indications of investigator incompetence, ignorance, disorganization, poor training, unreasonable expectation and/or laziness are most of these instances. DCSA probably just takes the IA results and makes the final decision as to whether that investigator can continue to work on the contract or not. If they take them off the contract they then decide to prosecute or not. There are very few prosecutions but the ones they do contain some pretty heinous behavior. You can read about them on the justice.gov websites.
I know how the process works but will not be providing any further details to prove my point.
You can go on thinking whatever you’d like and argue but that will not change anything I’ve stated.
My point is not all investigator’s are criminal lying cheats and just because they get removed from working the DCSA contract does not mean they are “criminals”. Removal from the contract does not mean that investigator is a criminal lying cheat as you implied. My personal feeling is that a small (less than 10 )percentage of those removed from the contract are actually lying cheats and an even smaller number are actually prosecuted/convicted. The rest are just confused, poorly trained, not supported, pressured into working too fast, lazy, or incompetent.
5 Likes
I agree with you. I wonder how many less IA investigations would take place if they didn’t over burden investigators with work, not constantly change procedures, and properly train investigators (like a 6 month course)
3 Likes