The Contracting Education Academy

Contracting Academy Logo
You are here: Home / Archives for influence

By

Mixing politics and procurement creates a toxic brew

If elected officials are allowed to influence government contracting decisions it won’t end well for the public.

Imagine this: You are a mid-career government acquisition professional responsible for making an award decision on a contract worth over $400 million. As you evaluate the bids you also can’t help but see and hear the president of the United States openly advocate for one bidder. You’ve already heard, directly or through channels, that one or more U.S. senators are also pressing for this company to get the award. What are you going to do?

This is the heart of the controversy swirling around the recent award of a border wall contract to a North Dakota company for which the president and at least one senator publicly advocated. Was the award politically influenced? Is the company the best positioned to build this portion of the border wall along the southwest border? Since the company was deemed unqualified on more than one previous occasion, one has to wonder: Has the company taken significant steps forward in its capabilities to the point where it is now best suited to the requirements of the contract?

Of course we don’t know the answers to any of those questions. Neither does the president or the senator. And we may only get answers should another bidder protest the award and the questions are litigated. But that’s not actually the biggest concern this incident raises. The biggest concern is that we even have to have this discussion.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/12/mixing-politics-and-procurement-creates-toxic-brew/161729/

By

Of politics and procurement

How best to say this?  “Here we go again?”  

US CongressOnce more, a group of well-intentioned members of Congress are pushing the president to issue a directive that would mandate that contractors disclose all of their political contributions upon being awarded a government contract.  Transparency, we are told, is essential to the integrity of the procurement process.

Odd as it may sound, they are half right.  The integrity of the process is essential. But in this case, the “transparency” being discussed actually risks opening the door to the very kind of malfeasance the acquisition system is designed to avoid. It is a poorly conceived proposal that should be set aside — for good.

So, what is the big deal?  There are several reasons to strongly oppose the proposal.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2016/01/politics-and-procurement/125053/

By

VA contracting official resigns amid agency’s attempt to fire her

A top Department of Veterans Affairs contracting officer who allegedly steered work to a Virginia firm resigned Tuesday, eight days after the agency announced that it had begun the process of firing her.

Susan Taylor, the Veteran Health Administration’s No. 2 contracting official, said in an e-mail to employees that she decided to “resign and retire,” effective Oct. 14. She has worked with the federal government for 29 years, spending four of them with the VA.

“I will definitely miss the terrific staff I have had at VHA, both at headquarters and in the field nationwide, but I know that you will continue to admirably serve our veterans through your dedicated service,” Taylor wrote. She also indicated that the VA is trying to recruit a replacement for her.

The VA inspector general’s office said in a report last month that Taylor helped steer a contract to Vienna-based FedBid and worked with the government-services company to overturn an agency moratorium on work by the firm, in addition to interfering with an investigation of the matters.

keep reading this article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/10/14/va-contracting-official-susan-taylor-resigns-amid-agencys-attempt-to-fire-her/

By

GSA’s new contracting policy tackles IG’s concerns about management interference

The General Services Administration is attempting to clarify to managers and vendors alike the proper approach to overseeing the schedules program.

A February memo and policy is part of the way GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service is trying to address a 2013 inspector general report that found examples of improper management interference on decisions by contracting officers under the schedules program.

“We’ve taken a number of actions to reinforce proper procurement while also focusing on doing more for our customers to save them time and money in acquisition,” said Tom Sharpe, commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, in an exclusive interview with Federal News Radio. “We’ve moved out on training. We’ve moved out on providing tools for the multiple award schedules, and we are in the process of standardizing part numbers, instilling horizontal pricing pressure. The schedules are priced vertically, the most favored customer price, so we are looking at comparison across suppliers to provide horizontal pricing pressure, and we’ve taken on initiatives to make the processes within the multiple award schedules faster.”

In June, the GSA IG found FAS managers improperly interfered with negotiations for new schedule contracts for Carahsoft, Deloitte and Oracle. GSA executives ended up suspending one senior official in light of what the IG found and have been taking steps over the last nine months to clarify and reinforce the role of managers in schedule contract negotiations.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/74/3609018/GSA-contracting-policy-tackles-IG-concerns-over-autonomy

Contracting Academy Logo
75 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30308
info@ContractingAcademy.gatech.edu
Phone: 404-894-6109
Fax: 404-410-6885

RSS Twitter