Labels and Tags

Accountability (69) Adequate documentation (6) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (15) Bidder prejudice (11) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (13) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (29) Competitive position (2) Compliance (33) Conflict of interest (31) Contract administration (25) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (2) Contractor responsibility (19) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (34) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (35) Effective procurement management (3) Effective specifications (36) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (22) Fair and equitable treatment (14) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (14) Frivolous protest (1) Good governance (8) Governmental functions (26) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (12) Integrity of system (29) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (7) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (32) Mistakes (4) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (33) Past performance (12) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (48) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (93) Principles of procurement (24) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (78) Procurement ethics (19) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (16) Procurement procedures (30) Procurement reform (63) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (2) Protest - timing (12) Protests - general (37) Purposes and policies of procurement (10) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (4) Responsiveness (13) Restrictive specifications (5) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (47) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (2) Standards of review (2) Standing (6) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (10) The subject matter of procurement (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (60) Uniformity (6) Unsolicited proposals (2)

Thursday, March 25, 2010

A Procurement Insider's view of Best Practices

Procurement Often Pits Bureaucracy Against Best Practice By Liza Lowery Massey
Pressure from elected officials and special interest groups, overwhelming workloads, outdated rules and processes, and a lack of support can stymie the best efforts. Despite these issues, because government requires competitive processes that are open to public scrutiny and feedback, it leads to better practices.

Why are public-sector agencies experiencing procurement problems? First, agencies that stray from or fail to follow their own rules and processes can find trouble. This occurs when resources are stretched too thin from staff reductions or increased procurement workloads without increased staffing resources. It also occurs when experienced employees leave and new hires aren't adequately trained.

Some business units handle their own procurement with little or no oversight. The excuse is that a central procurement authority is too slow. Often the real reason is a lack of planning by the business unit or failure to involve central procurement early in the process. The lack of external oversight makes it easier for intentional misconduct to occur and fosters unintentional problems and mistakes.

Familiarity can lead to complacency among co-workers. Recently a government official partially blamed an agency's procurement scandal on employees trusting what other employees told them. External oversight and formal auditing deter inappropriate actions, or at the very least, uncover problems after that fact to prevent them in the future. Auditing, if used effectively, also can lead to process improvements.

The bottom line is government can do procurement better. Following public-sector best practices and using technology make it possible.

No comments: