A day after we read that OMB denied the Army funds to employ 5 generals that would be in charge of overseeing contracting for the Army, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee issues a report that finds the Army's $300 million contract with fraudster contractor AEY "can be viewed as a case study in what is wrong with the procurement process." That OMB sees no imperative for improving military contracting is disturbing. The installation of 5 generals to oversee Army contracting follow a recommendation from the Gansler Commission report -- a study that found failures of Army acquisition systems have significantly contributed to the waste, fraud, and abuse..." The report also notes that "Notwithstanding a seven-fold workload increase and greater complexity of contracting, the Institutional Army is not supporting this key capability" and that there are "almost as many contractor personnel in the Kuwait/Iraq/Afghanistan Theater as there are U.S. military, [yet] the Operational Army does not yet recognize the impact of contracting and contractors in expeditionary operations and on mission success. The House report and associated hearing, meanwhile, describe in quite some detail how these weaknesses in Army acquisition led to "a grossly inadequate assessment of AEY's qualifications, and poor execution and oversight of the contract" with "[t]he result...that U.S. taxpayers have paid over $66 million to a contractor who provided 'unserviceable' ammunition, much of it apparently of illegal Chinese origin.