Sacramento buys local

In an era when many state and local governments are abandoning control and outsourcing the spending of taxpayer dollars to other states and localities, Sacramento, California is trying to funnel the money back home. Not all of it, nor blindly nor dogmatically, but purposefully, at the margin, with a mind to increasing the tax base and providing a return to local taxpayers.

Sacramento is a large city with a small town feel to it. I remember first going there over 50 years ago to visit relatives who had transplanted there from the farms of Tennessee. It is the center of gravity for a constellation of neighboring towns that spread out across the valley between the Sierras and the Pacific in north-central California.

According to this article, "the Sacramento region is ranked No. 26 on a list of the most populous metro areas in the nation. The official U.S. Census Bureau count as of April 2010 was 2,149,127, which instead would put the region at No. 24 for population."

Sacramento County considers strengthening local bid preference

The goal of enhancing its procurement and contracting program would be to spur the local economy and streamline the process for vendors. The program has been in place for a number of years — three years in its latest iteration.

“The county purchases more than $100 million each year in goods and services with about half of that expenditure directed to small and/or local businesses,” board chairman Don Nottoli said in a news release. “Expanding the opportunity for additional businesses to participate in the program will have a positive impact on our business climate and help create more jobs.”

Program changes the board will consider include:

... Increasing the contract limit for goods and non-professional services to $1 million from $250,000

... Increasing the local business preference percentage from 3 percent to 5 percent

... Continuing to give small businesses in Sacramento County a 2 percent bid preference, and allow local businesses in the county a 5 percent preference

... Allowing the 2 percent and 5 percent preferences to be combined for a total preference of 7 percent for local small businesses in the county, with a preference of $50,000 per vendor for any single solicitation

Antidote to impulse shopping

We have all been impulsive shoppers. You are bombarded every day every where to increase your reflexivity to impulsive shopping ads and opportunities. The reflex is so often repeated that it becomes habit. Impulsive shopping is habit forming. And the marketing people with a bunch of stuff to move know that and love you for it.

If there is an opposite word for "impulsive shopping", it is procurement. If you engaged in procurement rather than impulsive shopping, your retirement stash would be a whole lot bigger than it is. And if governments diligently, objectively, fairly, transparently and professionally paid heed, our taxes would go a long way further. And, perhaps even, decrease the rot of influence that corrupts governance, if that's not too much to hope for.

Procurement is a process, not a whim, an antidote to impulse shopping disease.

That is my take-away from reading an excellent skeletal outline of the procurement process. Note that this article discusses US federal procurement, so specifics will vary with jurisdictions. But it illustrates the essential road markers.

The article is actually a blog post by Lindley Ashline, and one of many similar posts shes done: lindleyashline's blog. I've provided the skeleton. Click the link and read her post for the meat.

Note, this article is about the "source selection" process. That is, it is focused on the buying process. One thing impulse buying marketers do is rush you past the antecedent decision making process: do I really need this? What exactly do I need? Given multiple and alternative needs, what priority do I give this with respect to other demands for my money (and time)?

A hallmark of impulsive buying is the untested assumption you have a need, and more to the point, a need for this particular item, right now, above all others. Before you ever even begin to consider the "how" question, engage in a rigorous discussion with yourself about "why" and "what" and "when" questions.

First Year in Contracting: The Procurement Process

1. Determine the Required Resources.
2. Assign a Program Manager and Contracting Officer.
3. Develop an Acquisition Strategy.
4. Develop an Acquisition Plan.
5. Develop a Plan of Action and Milestones.
6. Obtain Approval and Funding.
7. Establish the Source Selection Authority.
8. Develop the Final Statement of Work.
9. Conduct Market Research.
10. Finalize the RFP.
11. Send Out Draft Documents.
12. Conduct Bidders' Conference.
13. Review Requested SOW Changes.
14. Review and Approve Final RFP
15. Release RFP
16. Finalize the Source Selection Plan.
17. Answer Contractor Questions.
18. Finalize Source Selection Approach.
19. Receive Company Proposals and Begin Evaluation.
20. Receive Company Responses to Clarifications and Deficiencies.
21. Evaluate Companies’ Price Proposals.
22. Initiate Audits.
23. Make Competitive Range Determination.
24. Conduct Live Test Demonstrations.
26. Prepare for Discussions with Companies.
27. Call for Best and Final Offers.
28. Negotiate Final Contract.
29. Make Contract Award.
30. Ramp up Contract.
31. Perform Contract.
32. Close out Contract.

Can you cut corners, you ask, or make exceptions?

Sure, unless someone has a gun to your head.

But let me ask, at what point did your last diet fail?

~~~~~~~~~~~~
And now, something new for this blog, and likely not to be repeated. Bound to offend someone, probably someone who hates a bad joke, but others as well, maybe. I was led to this by an odd "search" result on my blog that searched for "procurement act jokes". I tried the search myself, not expecting much there, and found exactly that.

But, in the spirit of the (intended) message this post, I did find the following procurement joke(s) here:

4. Why is it better to have a woman as the buyer? Because a male buyer will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.

5. Why is it better to have a man as the buyer? Because a female buyer will pay $1 for a $2 item she doesn’t need but is on sale.

Uncooperative purchasing

Army procurement switch puts boot into Afghan dream

When it opened, inside huge white sheds that once held PVC piping machinery but is now home to high-tech German injection molding and boot-making equipment, Afghan and U.S. generals were keen to be photographed alongside a local success story.

Saffi's Milli Boot Factory, in Kabul's sprawling industrial hinterland, was a model for Afghanistan, showcasing local manufacturing while giving jobs to hundreds of people who may otherwise have picked up insurgent guns.

But a U.S. decision to hand procurement to the Afghan government has left Saffi with something of a developed world problem - local officials opted for cheaper boots made in China and Pakistan, killing off Milli's contracts after a year.

"The U.S. government told me when I started I would have contracts for five years, until at least 2014," he told Reuters. "The Afghan government gave me only three months notice of cancellation and now I have $30 million worth of raw material I can't use."

Saffi sold his leather boots, which underwent a rigorous quality testing process in the United States, for $62 a pair, while Chinese-made boots with imitation leather cost the Afghan government $22 in a contract for up to 700,000 pairs a year.

"The Afghan government is just looking for the lowest price," he said, surveying a room piled high with rolls of leather and raw material bought from Taiwan.

"They asked me to sell for $15 a pair, but the leather alone cost me $40. The Chinese boots use fake leather and quickly fall apart, but they are cheap."

NATO-led forces, who have mostly handled purchasing for the Afghan security forces in the decade-long war, have since 2010 operated under "Afghan First" rules requiring them to buy where possible from local companies, boosting the economy and employment while underpinning anti-insurgent strategies.

Contracts for Afghan businesses included 100 percent of Afghan uniforms and boots, textiles, furniture, tents, software and transformers, according to NATO data.

Those contracts spawned 15,000 jobs, while making savings on imports for combat-related spending worth $650 million - still a fraction of the estimated $200 million spent on the war a day.

U.S. military officials say the decision to hand a large slice of procurement to the Afghans was made in March, with responsibility handed over to the Defence and Interior Ministries.

Milli is not the only company to fall foul of the switch to local procurement, with several uniform and equipment suppliers either nervously eyeing soon-to-expire contracts, or having already lost orders to cross-border competitors.

A rival company executive, who asked not to be named because his firm fears retribution from Afghan military buyers, said, like Milli, he had invested millions of dollars into his business, but his supply contracts were now in limbo.

The Afghan First Policy backs anti-insurgency efforts by ensuring that people employed locally with better jobs and incomes aren't tempted to join the estimated 25,000 Afghan Taliban fighters in the country, often called the '$10-a-day Talib', referring to the payment offered to would-be fighters.

Workers at the factory earned between $400 and $900 a month, well over the average wage in a country where up to a third of the 30 million population live under the poverty line.

Lieutenant-General Abdul Basir Asafzari, who heads logistics and procurement in the Ministry of Defence, said only 30 percent of supply currently was coming from Afghan companies, and President Hamid Karzai had also ordered the military to choose local firms where possible.

The reason Milli had contracts cancelled was because it was importing low-quality boots from China and other countries and relabeling them, he said.

"Milli boot company did not fulfill its commitments. There were some complaints from soldiers about the quality," Asafzari said.

But Mohammad Akbar Ahmadzai, from the NGO Building Markets, which helps build jobs and investment in developing countries by supporting entrepreneurs, said Milli's boots had been genuine and met U.S.-based quality tests.

Other business experts, who would only comment anonymously, said Milli and others may have fallen foul of Afghanistan's labyrinth of bribe and patronage payments, with better-connected competitors maneuvering to kill them off.

NATO's Kakiel said Milli and others may also have misunderstood complex contract provisions which stipulated only one year of guaranteed sales.

But an audit by the U.S. government's Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, released in January, said the Afghan First Initiative (AFI) had been marred by inadequate contract solicitation and vetting, while data on claimed employment benefits had been limited.

Read more of the story at the link for the article above.

It seems to me that there is an obvious trade-off in recycling dollars back into a local economy, and labor pool, and buying cheaper products elsewhere. Where along the cost benefit graph the lines exactly cross is unclear, but the basic pattern is too simple to dismiss out of hand.

Of course, I'm not an economist. But, as Bob Dylan sang, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Competition in medical equipment is not what the doctor ordered

Competition cuts down Medicare fraud

Medicare has struggled to manage medical equipment costs. Officials say the program often paid more than private insurers for comparable equipment and was vulnerable to fraud by unscrupulous suppliers ordering expensive but unneeded products for unwitting beneficiaries.

A yearlong experiment with competitive bidding for power wheelchairs, diabetic supplies, and other personal medical equipment produced $200 million in savings for Medicare, and government officials said Wednesday they are expanding the pilot program in search of even greater dividends.

The nine-city crackdown targeting waste and fraud has drawn a strong protest from the medical supply industry, which is warning of shortages for people receiving Medicare benefits and economic hardship for small suppliers. But the shift to competitive bidding has led to few complaints from those in Medicare, according to a new government report.

The report found only 151 complaints from a total population of 2.3 million Medicare recipients in the nine metropolitan areas, including Miami, Cincinnati, and Riverside, Calif.

As a result, the program is expanding to include 100 cities next year, along with a national mail order program for diabetes supplies such as blood sugar testing kits. Eventually the whole country will participate.

By shifting to competitive bidding with a limited number of approved suppliers in each area, Medicare will save nearly $26 billion from 2013-2022, the government estimates, and reduce costs for seniors without cutting benefits.

“What we see is that costs are lower and there is no impact on the health status of our beneficiaries,’’ said Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator for Medicare. ’

The home-care supply industry questioned that conclusion.

“With respect to the number of complaints [the report’s] information is downright laughable,’’ said Walt Gorski, a senior lobbyist for the American Association for Homecare. “It defies logic.’’

The industry says hundreds of economists at academic institutions around the country have concluded that Medicare’s competitive bidding model is flawed and could lead to shortages or force beneficiaries to use less desirable cut-rate equipment.

Read more.

The price of Standing is eternal vigilance

Vigilance and action. You don't get standing by standing around.

The facts of this case just feel so wrong. But the courts do not hear matters simply because they are wrong. They hear matters only when parties are wronged. And when you are a party that is late to the party, you aren't wronged.

The case is DIGITALIS EDUCATION SOLUTIONS, INC. v. US, Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2012.

I've provided the description of facts from the lower Court decision because the Court of Appeals, while neatly encapsulating the legal essentials, just does not create the bad taste in the mouth. Indeed, this is an excerpt; the whole recitation is worth the read. There's much more that depicts a rigged and rushed expenditure just to use funds before the end of the fiscal year. In other words, a rort .

For many years, the Department of Defense Educational Activity ("DODEA") schools have used the "Starlab" brand portable planetaria manufactured by one of Digitalis' competitors, Morris & Lee d/b/a Science First ("M&L"). In September of 2009, DODEA conducted an unadvertised, sole-source procurement of 15 Starlab planetaria.

An initial draft of the Justification and Approval ("J&A") for the 2009 sole source procurement noted that Digitalis manufactured a similar but more expensive product. The published J&A, however, made no mention of Digitalis. Rather, it stated that Starlab was the only known product to integrate science with other subject matter and that, because Starlab systems were already used in DODEA schools, lesson plans and curricula for that system were already in place.

A year later, in September of 2010, the agency again began the process of acquiring more Starlab planetaria, a process that eventually culminated in the purchase of approximately 50 digital Starlab systems. The acquisition occurred with astonishing rapidity, with the entire procurement, from conception to contract award, taking place in only 15 days.

The first record of any contemplation of this procurement came on [Friday] September 10, 2010, in an internal DO DEA email suggesting the possibility of ordering Starlab systems should funding become available. A reply email, dated September 13, noted that such purchases must be publicly posted and suggested that, if the purchase was a possibility, a posting could be done "for couple [sic] days, just in case we need to go this route."

In the early afternoon of [Friday] September 17, 2010, DODEA posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website a notice of its intent to award a sole source procurement to M&L. It further stated:

This notice is not a request for competitive proposals. However, any party that believes it is capable of meeting this requirement as stated herein must submit a written capability statement that clearly supports and demonstrates their ability to provide the items by [Wednesday] 22 September 2010, 1200 a.m., Eastern Standard Time.

Two days later, on Sunday, September 19, the notice was modified to delete the estimated price.

The J&A was approved on [Monday] September 20, 2010. Citing 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(1) (2006) and FAR Part 6.302-2—"Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements"—the agency justified the sole source procurement as follows:

STARLAB is the only known portable planetarium system that meets DoDEA's established educational requirements to integrate sciences with teaching of other curricular [sic] such as, English/Language Arts, Cultures (Native American, Greek, African), Geography, History and Math. DoDEA has standardized curricula developed exclusively for the STARLAB portable planetarium. Curriculum standards and specific lessons for the STARLAB components are already in place and there are teacher trainers for this product in all respective areas of operation. It is also emphasized that STARLAB is the only source that provides a planetarium system with all the resources needed to support the instruction required by current curriculum to teach the DoDEA Kindergarten through Grade 12 curricular standards.

... to cancel the curriculum predicated on the STARLAB product would create the necessity for a new curriculum to be selected, developed, procured and implemented, to include, materials, staff development, creations [sic] of standards and rubrics. Lost classroom instruction hours for teachers attending training for a new curriculum would adversely affect DoDEA's all too critical mission to effectively provide a quality education to its students.

[This is an unwarranted focus on the justification for sole source: it assumes a finding of actual need for the acquisition in the first place. See, for instance, FAR Subparts 7 and 11. Was there a need for 50 new pieces of the equipment? Maybe, maybe not, especially if it had plans to review the curriculum. The government should not be allowed to place itself in a perpetual sole source situation, especially where other competitors are known to exist.]

The J&A also describes the agency's ostensibly fruitless "Effort to Obtain Competition":

Multiple searches via the Internet, General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS), trade magazines and catalogs for products by technical and contracting personnel to satisfy the Government's requirement have been conducted; this market research, including attendance by technical personnel at relevant curriculum-based conferences have resulted in no known sources that could satisfy the Government's requirement. This requirement was also advertized last fiscal year as a sources sought notice yielding no other sources in response.

The J&A also states that at the next five-year curriculum review, DODEA would "conduct further market research using the Internet, catalogs, [and] trade magazines, including direct contact with potential sources at both regional and national education conferences in effort to increase competition for this requirement."

Also on that day, Sky-Skan, Inc., another planetaria maker, contacted DODEA in response to the published notice to express interest in bidding on the contract and requested DODEA's specifications and requirements. [This is critical on the issue of the reasonableness of the timing, an issue the Court refrained to decide. It is critical because the Court of Appeal decision characterized this act, not as a expression of interest, but of an actual filing of a statement of capability.]

DODEA promptly contacted M&L, requesting "immediate assistance in providing additional specification to add to the requirement." M&L replied with a lengthy email detailing its hardware, software, accessories, and warranty, highlighting several aspects it claimed to be superior to its competitors' systems.

The next day, September 21, DODEA modified the posted notice, adding the following language:

DoDEA has standardized curricula developed exclusively for the STARLAB portable planetarium. Curriculum standards and specific lessions [sic] for the STARLAB components are alredy [sic] in place and there are teacher trainers for this product in all respective areas of operation.

DODEA's contract specialist noted in this email that "this [procurement] does not fit into my standard sole source template."

On September 23, 2010, DODEA requested M&L to complete a Request For Quotations ("RFQ") and return it by 6:00 a.m. the next morning. M&L responded with a quote later that day. On Saturday, September 25, DODEA awarded a sole source contract for 50 digital planetaria to M&L in the amount of $2,292,498.21. The contract originally called for delivery of the planetaria on November 30, 2010. About a week later, a modification changed the delivery date to February 28, 2011.

On October 11, 2010, after becoming aware of the award to M&L, Digitalis sent a letter to Congressman Norm Dicks objecting to the manner in which the contract was awarded and expressing its interest in the contract. [Bad idea: procurement officials and the Courts bristle at bringing politicians into the game. Use the political process to try to correct future errors; not to try to influence a pending decision-making review process.]

On December 2, 2010, Digitalis submitted a letter directly to the DODEA contracting officer expressing concern over the sole source procurement and describing Digitalis' portable planetaria.

The trial court held,

Although the procurement was subject to multiple errors, ultimately none prevented Digitalis from submitting a capability statement or protesting the procurement in a timely manner. Accordingly, we cannot sustain Digitalis' protest.

The Court of Appeals affirmed:

Digitalis argues that the Court of Federal Claims should have first determined whether the Department was required to conduct a full competition for the contract rather than a sole-source notice. Then, if we find that the Department should have conducted a full competition, Digitalis argues that it is clear that it would have had a substantial chance of prevailing.

Digitalis also argues that its failure to submit a statement of capability is "irrelevant" to the analysis. It contends that the filing of a capability statement would have been futile based on the Department's response to Sky Skan that basically required it to emulate Science First. Further, Digitalis argues that the period for submitting statements of capability was unreasonably short.

The government argues that Digitalis was not an "actual or prospective bidder" because it failed to submit a capability statement. It analogizes to Rex Service where we held that if a party does not bid during the bid period, it does not have standing regardless of any illegalities by the government in the bid process. (citing Rex Serv., 448 F.3d at 1308).

The Court of Federal Claims held that Digitalis could not demonstrate prejudice, a prerequisite for standing, because it did not have a substantial chance of winning the contract. Id. at 93. Because Digitalis failed to review fedbizopps and submit a statement of capability during the prescribed period, the court explained that "[e]ven if the procurement had proceeded flawlessly, Digitalis's chances to get the contract would not have been any different." Id. The court reasoned that a longer response time would have led to the same result because Digitalis did not check fedbizopps for weeks.

In a sole-source award such as this one, the notice of intent issued by the government is analogous to a request for a proposal. Interested parties are invited to submit statements of capability in order to convince the government that it should hold a full competition for the contract rather than sole-source the contract to the proposed contractor. We therefore hold that in order to be an actual or prospective bidder, a party must submit a statement of capability during the prescribed period. Failure to do so also means that a party does not have the requisite direct economic interest because it cannot have a "substantial chance" of convincing the government to hold a formal competition and subsequently bid on the contract. Rex Serv., 448 F.3d at 1308.

It has to be emphasized that this is a POST-AWARD case. In critical contrast, in a PRE-AWARD context, a bidder should protest defects in the solicitation before bid opening and probably not bid. But if it has no notice of the defects, it should bid, because the standing test, in US Federal cases, require participation in the bid process absent some very compelling evidence that, as a potential bidder, it was deceived or misled into not bidding.

Getting back to the unsavory "vibe"* of the case above, the Court of Appeals said

As the Court of Federal Claims noted, "the administrative record lends credence to a number of Digitalis's allegations of hasty and shoddy contracting."

This holding should not be read, however, as foreclosing challenges to the reasonableness of the procurement time period. Digitalis attempts to do this by challenging the five-day period. Digitalis argues that the selected time period is unreasonably short and that therefore Digitalis should be permitted to challenge the procurement despite not having filed a statement of capability within the time period.

The government seemed to argue that a party who fails to submit a statement of capability during the prescribed period may only object to the reasonableness of the time period if it is so short that it was impossible for the contractor to bid. We do not agree.

Determining whether the time period is reasonable is necessarily a fact intensive analysis. In the context of commercial item procurement, regulations require that the government "establish a solicitation response time that will afford potential offerors a reasonable opportunity to respond . . . ." 48 C.F.R. § 5.203(b). Because commercial items are often readily available to the public, a brief time period for soliciting responses may be reasonable. See, e.g., Cal. Indus. Facilities Res., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 633, 635-36 (2008) (holding that a period of six days was reasonable in a solicitation for commercial items).

Contrary to the government's argument, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible for a party to submit a statement of capability during the time period, but whether it is reasonable to expect contractors to see a notice and respond.

Yet at least one potential offeror, Sky Skan, saw the notice and filed a statement of capability, which suggests that the time period was not unreasonably short.

We do not need to decide whether the posting time was unreasonable, however, because Digitalis did not check fedbizopps or otherwise notice the sole-source award to Science First for more than twenty days.

As the Court of Federal Claims held, a twenty-day period would have http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifcertainly been reasonable and Digitalis would still hhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifave failed to file a statement of capability. Because Digitalis did not even discover the procurement posting for more than twenty days, we conclude it was not an interested party.

This comes across as somewhat harsh on the protester, and it must have felt that way to Digitalis. After the all, after chronicling the many misfeasances of the Government, the Court penalized Digitalis for not pulling its Digitalis out.

It has to be remembered, that the Courts' role in procurement review is not to clean up procurement. Its standard of review very clearly is limited to "clearly erroneous" matters, to malfeasances, not misfeasances. Use politicians to help clean up the misfeasances that Courts cannot address.

* See this quote from a classic Australian movie, The Castle:

Dennis Denuto: It's the vibe of the thing, your Honour.

Adding StanHinton.com to other links

Ran across another useful and helpful resource. It is useful because it appears to be a concise and comprehensive research tool for procurement students and practitioners, including links to other resources. It is helpful because, unlike some others, it is free.

See the Government Contracts Resources home page of Stan Hinton. Its concise utility is illustrated by its page of "Recent Court of Federal Claims Bid Protests", which makes a neat and relevant and short statement of the case.

Compare, for instance, its description of this case:

Virgin Islands Paving, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-687 C (Jan. 31, 2012) (successful protest; after having initially analyzed bids and concluding there were no mistakes in eventual awardee's bid, agency lacked rational basis, after award, to reverse its position)

with the description of the same case on this fee-based site:

VIRGIN ISLANDS PAVING, INC. v. THE UNITED STATES, COFC No. 11-687C, January 31, 2012. Post-award bid protest of a sealed bid FAR Part 14 Federal Highway Administration(“FHA”) contract for road construction in the Virgin Islands. FHA did the procurement under a Memorandum of Agreement(“MOA ”) with the Virgin Islands Department of Public Works (“VIDPW”). The MOA required FHA was to “request written comments and/or concurrence“ of the VIDPW. Protestor was the low bidder. FHA sent a concurrence letter to VIDPW recommending the contract be awarded to VIP. “[A] a member of the VIDPW Commissioner’s staff advised the FHWA that the VIDPW still was ‘concerned’ that VIP ‘ha[d] not been performing on other VI DPW projects’ and was ‘getting political pressure’ not to concur in the award. Nevertheless, [latter that same day], the VIDPW Commissioner concurred in the award to VIP.” An hour after concurring, VIDPW requested a conference call to express concerns about award to protestor. FWA requested protestor to verify its bid, which it did the next day. On the next day, FWA made award to the other bidder relying on FAR 14.407-3(g)(5) to make award to the second bidder.
Judge Braden permanently enjoins the award. She finds that FHA’s decision was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. She notes “In addition, the Administrative Record does not evidence why the FHWA began to question whether VIP made a mistake. The only written account is of a September 20, 2011 meeting, where the agency was planning to reverse its decision, because ‘the VI Governor want[ed] assurance that [VIP] would complete the work.’ The idea that VIP’s bid was rejected as a mistake, pursuant to FAR 14.407-3(g)(5), and that conclusion was not supported by any written analysis from agency engineers, accountants, or the Contracting Officer, but from agency counsel who suggested it as ‘a way [FHWA] could award to other offer [sic] besides using responsibility/performance’ (AR 645 (emphasis added)), ipso facto was not rational. See Savantage Fin. Servs., 595 F.3d at 1286-87 (requiring the agency to provide a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion). Moreover, nothing in the Administrative Record evidences that any agency official qualified to opine on VIP’s pricing changed his mind at the September 20, 2011 meeting or discussed any particular mistakes that VIP might have made that directly justified the agency’s ultimate decision.”

Though, it must be said, the latter site does seem to freely offer access to its page of US Court of Federal Claims, too.

What happens in Las Vegas -- sometimes is a scandal

Schram: A costly GSA convention at Las Vegas resort

Washington’s newest scandal erupted with a clash of symbols. In this case, the General Services Administration’s new, eyes-alert mantra of “If You See Something, Say Something” clashed with the old play-and-party wink-wink of “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.”

Some 300 GSA bureaucrats apparently celebrated with the sound of silence rather than boasting about the good times that rolled at taxpayer expense at their October 2010 GSA Western Regions Conference. It was held at the M Resort and Casino, not far from the Las Vegas Strip.

So they didn’t noise around the fun they had with the clown and the mind reader the federal government hired. (Note to readers: Yes, really. But make up your own joke; I’m on deadline.) Nor the frolic the GSA employees enjoyed as our guests at the $31,208 reception.

All of that required extensive planning, of course. That must be why the government paid $130,000 for six trips so planners could eyeball things and make sure the setting in Henderson, Nev., just south of Las Vegas, would not become a site for sore eyes? Or the $2,000 party in the suite of GSA’s Public Buildings Service chief Robert A. Peck.

Apparently no one said anything -- at least not publicly. But according to The Washington Post, GSA Inspector General Brian D. Miller said that a GSA deputy administrator, Susan Brita, told Miller’s office about the expenditures for the four-day Western Regional conference. That led to the inspector general’s investigation, which culminated in a report issued this week.

“As the agency Congress has entrusted with developing the rules followed by other federal agencies for conferences, GSA has a special responsibility to set an example, and that did not occur here,” The Post quoted Miller as writing in his report. Miller said the GSA “followed neither federal procurement laws nor its own policy on conference spending.”

Cost of federal agency's conference was an unacceptable largesse: An editorial

The agency spent more than $822,000 to organize and hold a conference for about 300 employees in October 2010 at the M Resort Spa Casino. The expenses included $146,000 in food and drinks, including $44 per person breakfasts and cheese displays that cost $19 each.

They also participated in a "team building exercise" in which they assembled bicycles at a total cost of $75,000 -- that's not a typo.

These infuriating examples are only part of the excess, according to an investigation by the GSA's inspector general.

President Barack Obama was reportedly furious, and the White House condemned the conference as "a complete violation of administration rules." GSA administrator Martha Johnson fired her two top deputies Monday and then resigned herself. Ms. Johnson called the conference "a significant misstep" and said "taxpayer dollars were squandered." Resigning is the least she could have done.

Prosecutors also need to examine the GSA inspector general's findings that conference organizers may have violated federal procurement laws. Investigators found that GSA personnel disclosed a competitor's proposal price to a favored contractor. The report said they also promised the resort an extra $41,000 in catering charges "in exchange for the 'concession' " of the hotel honoring the government's limit on lodging. Investigators also said government employees told the team-building contractor its maximum budget and then agreed to pay the contractor that amount.

These are serious allegations that show conference organizers treated taxpayer dollars like Monopoly money. But if they broke any laws, they should not get a Get Out of Jail Free card.

GSA scandal sheds light on small business contracting fraud

Buried in the laundry list of misconduct claims against the General Services Administration is further evidence of what at least one federal official and one trade group call a critical problem for small employers: improper contracting that diverts government spending to large corporations instead of small businesses.

The GSA inspector general’s report, which blasts the agency for excessive spending on clowns, mind readers and lavish parties during a training conference just outside Las Vegas, claims that officials awarded a $58,808 contract to a large audio and visual services firm when federal regulations require contracts of such size be reserved for small businesses.

The inspector general also said the agency violated federal rules by neglecting to publish a solicitation for the contract on the government’s list of Federal Business Opportunities and by providing Royal Productions with a competing bidder’s quote — thus allowing the company to present a winning offer. Subsequently, the agency paid roughly double what the contract outlined for the company’s employees’ hotel rooms, according to the report.

“The diversion of small business contracts to large corporations has gone on for a dozen years and the only thing the government has done in response is remove the transparency,” Lloyd Chapman, president of the American Small Business League, said in an interview, later adding that the procurement review system available to the public has become increasingly difficult to use in recent years.

The federal government has a stated goal of awarding 23 percent of contract dollars every year to small businesses. However, Chapman pointed to his group’s recent analysis of government data that showed that 72 of the 100 companies receiving the highest amount of federal small business contracts in 2011 were firms that exceeded the Small Business Administration’s size standards for small companies.

“Any time you take a sample of what the federal government is doing, and anytime you take a look at small business contracting in almost any federal agency, what you find is money going to the biggest companies in the world,” he said.

Back in October, the SBA’s inspector general published a report acknowledging that small business contracting was the agency’s most serious management and performance challenge. Specifically, the report stated that “procurement flaws allow large firms to obtain small business awards and agencies to count contracts performed by large firms towards their small business goals.”

This reminds me of a tale told to me my an employee of a contractor for one of Guam's "autonomous" executive agencies. He said that his company was obliged by agency management to host a partnering conference to be attended by agency staff -- in Las Vegas. He was eventually removed virtually overnight for not being a "team player". So I was told.

In a similar vein:

DOE settles procurement case

The Guam Department of Education will have to pay $19,324 in attorney's fees as part of a settlement in a procurement case.

Island Business Systems and Supplies filed the lawsuit against the department, its superintendent, chief procurement officer and others, in September 2010, according to John Thos. Brown, general counsel for Island Business Systems.

The lawsuit has been settled and the case will be dismissed, according to Brown.

Remedies under the Enforcement of Proper Government Spending Act allow injunctive relief as well as for the return to the government of Guam of any money that has been wrongfully expended.

Read more.