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)

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Another lesson for Guam from New York

With Guam under the gun to spend millions if not billions of dollars of Federal funds, from both ARRA and other stimulus measures as well as the "military build up", and with legislation introduced to repeal the laws making the now elected Attorney General appointed again, this Daily Politics blog post from the NY Daily News, below, jumped out at me. Read it and see if you see the parallels, too.

The posted item begins with a quote from a candidate running for the job of NY's Attorney General:

GOP Attorney General Hopeful Dan Donovan Jumps Into Fray Over No-Bid Contract

“The disclosure that a health insurance company employing the Governor’s wife received a $297 million tax-payer funded, no-bid state contract is at best, disturbing, and at worst, illegal. The State Legislature - a body with its own challenges, ethical and otherwise - is looking into the matter, but this investigation should be led by an independent Attorney General’s office. Unfortunately, the AG has no jurisdiction to look into the matter unless the Governor refers it for investigation - which given the circumstances, seems highly unlikely.

“There are some real questions that need to be answered. That’s why I’ve proposed that the Attorney General’s Office have original jurisdiction over all public corruption cases, anywhere and everywhere in our state. We need an AG who’s not hamstrung by limitations of the office, who can pursue corruption, wherever it exists. If we rely on Albany to police itself, we know all too well the result...."
The post then repeats another news item from Newsday:
Group Health Inc., a nonprofit insurer, was designated this month to administer $297 million in federal funds for medical coverage for about 15,000 New Yorkers with pre-existing conditions. The insurer is expected to receive about $30 million to cover its costs, though officials conceded Monday it may lose money on the deal.

The state's decision must be approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which would negotiate a contract with GHI for the 3 1/2-year program, part of federal health care reform.

Paige Paterson, wife of Gov. David A. Paterson, is director of integrative wellness for GHI's parent, EmblemHealth Inc. Monday, the governor responded to a claim of impropriety, saying the couple only learned of GHI's designation from a New York Post story published hours earlier. "My wife doesn't even work in the area," he said.

Paterson explained GHI's selection stemmed from rules requiring the federal program be run by a nonprofit group. GHI is the only such entity with a statewide network, he said.

The normal procurement process was bypassed because of short notice from federal authorities and fears the state would lose funding if the program wasn't running by fall, said Insurance Department spokesman David Neustadt. For-profit insurers showed no interest in the initiative because of its temporary status, small size and likely high cost. "There's nothing to protect them from losing money, which may very well happen," he said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/07/gop-attorney-general-hopeful-d.html#ixzz0tcJBKEqd

No comments: