some pretty deep ties with the white house? and why is it that the company with deep ties to the white house, the company that just got a big contract for a drug that's not been proven yet, why is it going to make an 85% profit on its government contract? coming up we're going to talk with a member of the company's board of directors, a familiar face here at cnn. we first got wind of this story in the "los angeles times" but since then have learned a lot more. investigator drew griffin is keeping them honest. >> reporter: it's just another good business deal for billionaire investor and big-time democratic political supporter, ron perlman. this major political contributor to both parties but particular friend of the obama white house owns the controlling shares in a company called siga technologies, and siga this year won a sweet $432 million no-bid contract from the u.s. department of health and human services that even a democrat says is a little bit too sweet to ignore. >> how did this become a no-bid contract? was it justified as a no-bid contract? overall i think we need to begin asking some policy questions about the kind of money we're spending on developing drugs where the united states government is the only customer. >> reporter: democrat senator claire mccaskill is calling for an investigation. capitol hill republicans have already launched their own. >> the fact that the regular procurement process wasn't followed. that's something we definitely know. there's a lot of political connection there. >> reporter: first a little background. during the bush administration and following 9/11, the idea of terrorists using bioweapons became a real concern. among the threats, smallpox. it hasn't been a threat in decades, and even if it did return, the u.s. still has enough vaccine for everyone in the country. but what to do if terrorists somehow were able to release the smallpox virus before people could be vaccinated. siga, the company controlled by ron pearlman, says it now has a drug for that. a drug developed with a lot of taxpayer money and government help. but one of the world's leading smallpox experts, dr. d.a. henderson, says siga's drug simply may not work. >> the question is what will it do in the way of treating a patient who's had a fever and now has a funny rash that could be smallpox. will it treat the disease? i've not seen the data that suggests it will. >> reporter: that's mainly because you can't test the drug on humans without infecting them first. siga insists it has cured infected monkeys. but this is a story about contracts. and when the siga contract was being questioned last year, siga placed another democratic political supporter on its board of directors, andy stern, the former president of the service employees union international, a public workers union that put its entire weight in money behind presidential candidate barack obama, then used its political weight and money behind the president's push for universal health care. stern was named to the board at siga around the same time another company called kimerics said it too had a smallpox drug. stern was unavailable for comment. in fact they not only said they had a drug but it was and is a small business. and by the department of health and human services own requirement, the contract was supposed to go to a small business. that's when the department of health and human services did something pretty interesting. the government changed the terms of the bidding, making sure any company, even large ones like siga, could go after the contract. then health and human services determined that siga was the only bidder that actually qualified. >> do you feel because some very large democratic supporters of the white house, ron perlman and andy stern were involved that this has the impression of a political payoff? >> i'm not going to comment about people drawing conclusions about the appearances of this contract. i want to get into the facts. >> reporter: according to documents obtained by cnn, that's not the only question to be asked. because internal documents reveal a profit return that one health and human services official called outrageous. how much? on march 18th of this year, a contracting offer questions siga's return on investment, which he writes is an overwhelming 180%. he adds, i know you won't find a contracting officer in government who would sign a three-digit profit percentage. a half hour later, another hhs official, a doctor, writes back saying he fully concurs that 180% is outrageous and advises that considering all the money taxpayers have already invested in developing the drug, well, the u.s. government should get a major discount. but that's not what happened. instead, siga's ceo, a man named eric rose, complained in writing to the hhs contract officer about the government's approach to profit and asked that the negotiator be replaced by a more senior official. and that is exactly what happened. so what did the white house say? not one thing. they told us to get any answers we wanted from health and human services, the agency that granted the contract. guess what we found here. despite dozens of communication professionals on staff, not a single one would come out and talk to us. instead we got a statement saying the contract was awarded, quote, after a rigorous market analysis determined that siga was the only known company in the world with the capability to produce the required antiviral drug within the required time frame. as for that huge return on investment, hhs told us, quoting again, we can't get into the details, but the final rates ended up well within industry standards. hhs even told us that the change in negotiators actually resulted in substantial savings for the u.s. government. siga technologies got back to us in writing, telling us the negotiations and decision to award the contract were handled solely by career procurement officials at hhs who negotiated a fair and reasonable price. and that never at any time was any elected or political official asked to intervene in the procurement process by siga or anyone affiliated with the company. republicans aren't buying that just yet. >> you certainly can't ignore the political connections between the company and the administration. >> reporter: and in a postscript to this story, anderson, from the documents that we have seen, the ceo and cfo included in this contract bonuses for themselves of $200,000 to $225,000. >> drew, i want to bring in our national security contributor, fran townsend. fran is here not in her usual role but as a spokeswoman for siga technologies. she's on the board of directors. fran, thanks for being with us. you just heard the reporting. how do you respond. >> i'm glad we're calling it keeping them honest because there are so many factual inaccuracies i kind of don't know where to start. so, for example, the contract was put out in a competitive process and frankly it was clear that the government wanted it to be a competitive process. it was awarded to siga, as drew's package reports, and it was set aside because of the small business concern. they then went -- the government then goes out with what is a sources sought solution. the only one that respond is chimerix. they are not competitive because the scientist who discovers their drug admits in an application to nih which siga provided to drew that the drug, their smallpox antiviral, causes toxicity in the gastrointestinal tract, so there is no competition. and when the government finally awards the sole source contract to the only company that has a smallpox antiviral, what do they do? they also give a research and development grant to chimerix saying they want to encourage competition and they don't give at ward of the contract for the entire requirement. that is another 12 million doses of smallpox antiviral. they decide they're not going to decide that and give chimerix an opportunity to fix their drug so they can be competitive. so the government has bent over backwards to balance the need for an antiviral against competition. i sat in the seat when i was at the white house. these are difficult decisions. what you're trying to balance is the safety of the american people and competition, i think they did the right thing and they did make an award that allows them to stockpile some, while allowing a competitor the opportunity and they gave them the money to go back and try to fix the problem with their antiviral. >> i want to just point out that both these government oversight committees on the hill are calling these no-bid contracts. that's the language they are looking into and asking why it appears that the contract negotiations were that way. >> and you deny it. you're saying it was not a no-bid contract. >> it ultimately was a sole source contract but because there was nobody to compete. it was not a question of they directed it to siga. the fact of the matter was there was nobody with a smallpox antiviral that could meet the government's standards. siga had gone through testing in the animal as it's reported with monkeys. there are four cases of what's called compassionate use where they st-246 drug was used against humans who were infected with a virus who were cured. so there's substantial evidence in this case that this smallpox antiviral is effective and in fact the secretary of hhs has found that it's likely to feed fda approval and we're in the process of going through that. >> it's likely to, but in the company's own filings it says, look, we don't know if it works and we don't know if it's safe. that's why only the u.s. government is buying this right now because it has no commercial value. >> well, that's right. but what it requires for the government to have even purchased the amount in the awarded contract, the secretary had to make a finding that based on what they know so far between the animal testing and the compassionate use cases, it was likely to receive fda approval. by the way, what the piece doesn't mention is the fda advisory committee who are looking at this very issue will have an open and public hearing that drew can attend on december 14th. >> why would a guy like andy stern who has all these political connections, why would he be on the board of this thing? why would you bring in somebody like that unless it was to get influence with the white house? >> anderson, this is a board that's got doctors, it's got people with public experience, it's a very diverse board. but the fact of the matter is this may be the only thing in washington that republicans and democrats agree on. just this week the underlying enabling legislation that gives the government the authority to purchase medical counter measures of can which the smallpox antiviral is one, that legislation passed the house unanimously. >> i'm just not sure what the company gets from having a high level guy who worked at a big union that backed obama, other than that influence. i'm not sure what he brings to the table. >> anderson, i can tell you not ronald pearlman, not andy stern, no member of the board was involved in these contract negotiations and never contacted anybody in the government about this contract. the contract negotiations were handled by career procurement officials and the management of siga. >> fran, what does this say about how washington works, though? from the outside looking in, we've got very politically connected people to the white house and we have you yourself who was in the white house drawing up and drafting this very legislation that you are now outside of the white house at a private company bidding on. people tell me this is the way that washington works both cynically and not so cynically. >> well, this is fabulous. if i'm part of the washington revolving door, drew, i don't -- it doesn't work very well. i went into the federal government, was a career public seven and the for 24 years. i came out and siga wanted me on the board for the same reason cnn hired me and that is my expertise in national security and biodefense areas. there's nothing improper about that. if you look at any major defense board today, look at lockheed, northrop grumman or boeing, every one of them have men who are retired four-star generals or admirals who are on those boards. why? because those public companies want the expertise of retired public officials. and i don't see anybody questioning the appropriateness of that. >> actually we have on this show, and the watchdogs of government say this is the very problem, anderson, with a lot of these contracts revolving doors. i mean we have the government buying a drug that they can't sell to anybody else. >> what's the next step in the process for this? >> well, the fda advisory committee meets next week in this public hearing. chimerix will be at it. if they can get their drug together, they will compete for it. they will look at the animal rule and the testing that's gone on. by the way, we talk about a $433 million contract. if you look at the contract, you will see there are a number of milestones that siga as a company and the drug, sd-246 must meet in order to get payments along the way. this is not a guaranteed $433 million contract. >> we looked at the contract. most of what we got was redacted. let me ask you really quickly about the profit margins. are the profit margins accurate and is that too much for a government contract? >> the profit margins reported are not accurate. of course what they did, what was publicly available was take the 1.7 million doses and divide it into the $433 million on the contract. the government required another 300,000 doses and pediatric testing for pediatric doses, it requires a warm production capability so you can produce more. >> so what is the profit. >> it is competitively confidential and found by the government to be so, so i'm not at liberty to say. but we provided you, drew, with a list of drugs so you can see, even if you take the number that's out there publicly which is higher than is accurate and you look against orphan drugs and other drugs purchased by the government, it is substantially lower. and in the end, this is about value. and so i never got the smallpox vaccine because i am not able to because of my health and i would need an antiviral. if you're somebody who requires an antiviral, by the way, many people who did get the vaccine, it's no longer good, you would need it. the cost of it is fair and reasonable. and it's funny, the quotes from hhs officials about out rageous, i have to believe though i've never seen them were early in the process because they were very aggressive in the way they negotiated this contract. >> you can look at the full statement from the company on our website. fran, i appreciate you being on, drew griffin as well. you can check it out at the website. we're on facebook, google plus, follow me on twitter. i'll be tweeting tonight. up next, components take aim at newt gingrich. are they clean hits or below the belt. we'll look at his record. jam james car gil will join us. another deadly shooting at virginia tech university. let's also check in. >> jerry sandusky makes bail and his wife is speaking out. stay tuned to see what she's saying about the sex allegations now being leveled against her husband by ten accusers. that and much more when 360 continues. impact life expectancy in the u.s., real estate in hong kong, and the optics industry in germany? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. try bayer advanced aspirin. it's not the bayer aspirin you know. it's different. first, it's been re-engineered with micro-particles. second, it enters the bloodstream fast, and rushes relief to the site of your tough pain. the best part? it's proven to relieve pain twice as fast as before. bayer advanced aspirin. test how fast it works for you. love it, or get your money back. test how fast it works for you. fore! no matter what small business you are in, managing expenses seems to... get in the way. not anymore. ink, the small business card from chase introduces jot an on-the-go expense app made exclusively for ink customers. custom categorize your expenses anywhere. save time and get back to what you love. the latest innovation. only for ink customers. learn more at chase.com/ink luck? i don't trade on luck. i trade on fundamentals. analysis. information. i trade on tradearchitect. this is web-based trading, re-visualized. streaming, real-time quotes. earnings analysis. probability analysis: that's what opportunity looks like. it's all visual. intuitive. and it's available free, wherever the web is. this is how trade strategies are built. tradearchitect. only from td ameritrade. welcome to better trade commission free for 60 days when you open an account. no holds barred. mitt romney unloaded on rising opponent newt gingrich. he unleashed a number of surrogates and supporters who lit into gingrich's changing policy positions over the years. rick perry also took some shots on that subject but it's romney's attack on gingrich's personal life that's getting the most buzz. take a look. >> i've been married to the same woman for 25 -- excuse me, i get in trouble. for 42 years. i've been in the same church my entire life. i worked at one company for 25 years and i left that to go off and help save the olympic games. if i'm president of the united states, i will be true to my family, to my faith and my country and i will never apologize for the united states of america. >> romney married once, the comparison with gingrich is implied but it's pretty hard to ignore. it's no secret gingrich is on his third marriage or what he was having an affair with the woman who would become his third wife while pushing for bill clinton's impeachment. in a moment our political panel on what mitt romney hopes to gain by going on the attack and what newt gingrich stands to lose. first, the background from tom foreman. >> newt gingrich. >> reporter: newt gingrich's private life has long been seen as an achilles heel for the republican fire brand. strongly associated with the conservative base, he clearly relished that role when president bill clinton was caught having an affair with white house intern monica lewinsky and trying to hide it from investigators. gingrich called mr. clinton's actions -- >> the most systematic, deliberate obstruction of justice cover-up in an effort to avoid the truth we have ever seen in american history. >> reporter: later, however, gingrich's own personal issues came to light. married three times, he was famously in the process of divorcing his first wife, jackie, while she was recovering from cancer. the couple had two daughters. the split reportedly bitter and contentious. he was married to his second wife, mary ann, for close to 19 years. they separated at one point, reconciled, but in the end that ended badly too, with the revelation that gingrich was having an affair with an aide who was some 20 years younger. moreover, that relationship was secretly under way even as he pushed for the president's impeachment in relation to the lewinski affair. he said this and other affairs were the outgrowth of overwork. >> there's no question that at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately i felt about this country that i worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. >> reporter: he eventually married that former aide, his third and current wife. they have been together for 11 years now and he has made some seemingly large accommodations to keep the union strong. he was raised lutheran, w