JPL Critic Punished, Suit Claims : * Research: Manager says he was fired in June to stifle questions about a $175-million, NASA-related program. Outside investigations of the program appear to support his findings.
An engineering firm hired by Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory to assess a $175-million program that administers NASA research warned in 1988 about serious problems due to poor planning and cost overruns.
A year after the memorandum by MITRE Corp. of Boston, a Price Waterhouse review commissioned by JPL outlined similar concerns and urged major changes. Caltech says it halted the review after the first draft and declined to make it available. But internal JPL documents obtained by The Times cite the conclusions reached by Price Waterhouse.
Statements by both firms appear to corroborate the findings of a former technical manager at JPL, who filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against the laboratory after he was laid off in June.
Vasudeva Rajagopalan, 49, alleges in the suit that he was fired for turning in critical assessments of JPL’s MASS program--a complex computer system that serves as JPL’s administrative arm and handles everything from payroll and personnel to information databases, financial management and flight project planning.
Rajagopalan’s lawsuit claims that JPL tried to suppress his critical findings, falsified documents and engaged in a conspiracy to defraud taxpayers of millions of dollars.
JPL, a U.S. government facility operated by Caltech under a National Aeronautics and Space Administration contract, declined comment on the reports or the lawsuit because of the pending litigation but said in a written statement:
“All of JPL’s engineering projects are subjected to a vigorous review process designed to identify any potential shortcomings or deficiencies and correct them. These review procedures have also been applied to MASS, from its earliest stages, in the form of review boards and critiques by both JPL and external evaluators.”
But Rajagopalan’s lawsuit and the outside evaluations paint a picture of a JPL program that is poorly managed, plagued by cost overruns and overly reliant on an outside contractor.
The lawsuit also comes at a time when NASA faces increased scrutiny in Washington for mismanagement and cost overruns.
In 1989, the Office of Management and Budget said NASA spends 88% of its $14-billion annual budget on contractors but fails to monitor them adequately.
And earlier this month, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology began looking into costs and accountability of NASA contracts.
Although JPL is not the subject of any hearing or investigation, an official with the General Accounting Office, which reviews government agencies such as NASA, said he is looking into allegations made by Rajagopalan.
“We haven’t taken any action so far, but that’s not to say that we might not in the future,” said Allan Roberts, assistant director for information management issues in the GAO Los Angeles office.
“Allegations like this can lead us to wonder whether this is a systemic problem that’s national in scope. Sometimes you’re just looking at the tip of the iceberg,” he said.
The first criticisms came in 1988 from MITRE, a Boston-based engineering firm that provides analysis to the Defense Department and other government agencies.
In a detailed memo to JPL, MITRE concluded that the MASS program faced delays, budget overruns and compromised quality. Due to inadequate planning, “technical problems . . . that normally could be detected in a timely manner will not surface until later stages . . . when they are much more difficult and costly to correct,” Chester Hashizume of MITRE said in a letter evaluating MASS.
In 1989, according to JPL documents, Price Waterhouse concluded that the laboratory “has not been able to effectively monitor and manage MASS program efforts. Cost and schedule for MASS is excessive. . . . There is a high risk that intended benefits will not be achieved.”
Both firms questioned JPL’s long-term, multimillion-dollar contract with Andersen Consulting, a subsidiary of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm. They said the structure of the contract failed to provide JPL with accountability for costs or completion of tasks.
An Andersen spokesman declined to discuss the matter.
JPL said Andersen has received consulting fees of about $6 million a year since 1989, almost a third of the program’s $17-million annual costs.
Rajagopalan said he tried to point out similar program flaws in MASS during his three years with JPL. The former employee, who sued Aug. 30 in Los Angeles Superior Court, said he felt secure in his job because JPL had hired him to perform an independent risk assessment, required by law on federally funded contracts.
But Rajagopalan said he was pressured, intimidated and threatened by supervisors to tone down critical reports. At one meeting, he said, he was “hounded” by up to 30 managers. He said he was made to rewrite one report 40 times.
“They kept up a public show that they had independent risk management, but it was really a facade,” charged Rajagopalan, who is suing for reinstatement, $250,000 in lost health-care benefits and unspecified punitive damages from JPL and two JPL supervisors.
Rajagopalan’s lawsuit also alleges race discrimination, claiming that he was singled out for retaliation despite receiving excellent performance evaluations. A 1989 evaluation said Rajagopalan, who is Indian, “served as the voice of conscience in spite of constant harassment and threats.”
Rajagopalan’s suit is the latest by current and former JPL employees. A former supervisor of Rajagopalan, Marilyn Bush, sued JPL in March for sexual harassment and gender discrimination.
Four other JPL employees are also suing JPL for civil rights discrimination. A fifth claims in a lawsuit that he was harassed and forced to quit after pointing out errors in a report.
A spokesman said JPL treats all of its about 6,300 employees fairly and does not tolerate discrimination or retaliation.
