Labels and Tags

Accountability (71) Adequate documentation (7) ADR in procurement (4) Allocation of risks (6) 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 (14) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (29) Competitive position (3) Compliance (35) Conflict of interest (32) Contract administration (26) Contract disputes (4) Contract extension or modification (9) Contract formation (1) Contract interpretation (1) Contract terms (3) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (2) Contractor responsibility (20) Conviction (4) Cooperative purchasing (3) Corrective action (1) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (37) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (10) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (35) Effective procurement management (5) 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 (12) Governmental functions (27) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (13) Integrity of system (31) 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 (33) Mistakes (4) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Offer & acceptance (1) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (34) Past performance (12) Planning policy (34) Politics of procurement (52) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (95) Principles of procurement (25) Private vs public contract (17) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (79) Procurement ethics (19) Procurement fraud (31) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (17) 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 (11) Recusal (1) Remedies (17) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (4) Responsiveness (14) Restrictive specifications (5) Review procedures (13) RFQ vs RFP (1) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (60) Sole source (48) Sovereign immunity (3) Staffing (8) Standard commercial products (3) 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 (23) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (33) Transparency (63) Uniformity (6) Unsolicited proposals (3)

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Goverrnment not most favored customer of Oracle

The US Federal Government has an expedited procurement scheme for certain commonly acquired products and services. It's like an online warehouse of goods and services offered by various pre-approved contracts and contractors.

It's called the GSA Supply Schedule or the Federal Supply Schedule Program. The online website for the FSSP is here.

The idea behind the program is that GSA (Government Services Agency) negotiates with contractors who apply to offer their goods and services. If approved, prices and terms are agreed, and any government agency (including many non-Federal "agencies") can purchase from any approved contractor without any other formal procurement methodology: the policy of competition is negated by the theory that the government, using its huge bargaining position, can get best available prices under the program without the need of competitive bids.

Key to making that theory effective is the additional requirement that contractors must agree to sell to the government on a "most favored customer" pricing basis.

The following InformationWeek.com article illustrates how the program is meant to work, and sometimes may not.

It also introduces the ancient common law "Qui Tam" remedy, a creature of US procurement law called the False Claims Act , going back to the US Civil War time.

Suit Alleges Oracle Bilked Feds Out Of Millions

The federal government has joined a lawsuit against Oracle that had been filed on its behalf, claiming that the software company bilked it out of "tens of millions of dollars."

The lawsuit, initially filed by former Oracle contract specialist Paul Frascella in May 2007, was under seal until recently, when the United States moved to intervene in the case.

Frascella brought the suit under the False Claims Act, which allows private citizens to sue a company on behalf of the federal government, and he's seeking 25% of all damages.

According to the complaint, federal regulations require that General Services Administration contractors negotiating Multiple Award Schedule contracts, which allow agencies to buy products from the GSA schedule without having to jump through some of the typical government procurement hoops, "obtain the best price given to the most favored customer" in order to decide whether to accept solicitations.

In addition, Frascella's complaint details a number of schemes he says were designed to give commercial customers deeper discounts than the government.

The suit accuses Oracle of using a "scheme to defraud the United States by failing to disclose deep discounts" that it offered to its most favored commercial customers, which, the suit says, ultimately lead to tens of millions of dollars worth of overcharges.


SEE also: Northrop Grumman settles whistleblower case

No comments: