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)

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Criminals are nonresponsible in Louisana, finally

I'm frankly a bit amazed by the news reported in this post.

Amazed because, under the ABA Model Code, and Guam Law, "Standards of Responsibility", any bidder or offeror is non-responsible (or, more technically, should be determined to be non-responsible) if there is an unsatisfactory record of integrity, and I'd always assumed "integrity" included consideration of such matters as being convicted of bribery in connection with procurement.

Gov. Bobby Jindal signs bills on crooked contracting for public works jobs
Two bills designed to crack down on contractors who bribe public officials to win projects has been signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal, his office said Wednesday.

House Bill 1292 by Rep. Walker Hines, D-New Orleans, would permanently bar from public works contracts any individual or company that has been convicted of public bribery, corrupt influencing, extortion or money-laundering, or the equivalent federal crimes.

It also will allow state and local officials to reject the lowest bid submitted if the individual or firm has been convicted of one of the crimes. Hines said that state law otherwise requires a low bidder's proposal to be accepted.

Hines said the bill went into effect Wednesday and can now be used to fight public corruption in the contract-awarding process statewide. He said he filed the bill after a spate of investigations into the contract bidding and awarding process in the New Orleans area in recent months.

The new law also imposes a five-year ban on any individual or firm convicted of theft, identity theft, theft of a business record, false accounting, issuing worthless checks, bank fraud, forgery, misapplication of payments by contractors or malfeasance in office -- or the related federal crimes.

The convictions on the nine offenses must have resulted from crimes related to the seeking or awarding of public contracts.

The new law requires the bidder to submit a form attesting that the individual contractor or a firm seeking the contract has not been convicted of the crimes. If a firm seeks the public work, it must also submit an affidavit that no partner, manager or other principal of the firm with at least a 10 percent ownership interest has not been convicted of any of the crimes.

Hines' legislation allows anyone to come forward with proof to show that the affidavit field [sic: "filed"] by the individual or company is false. If the allegations are correct and the individual or firm has been convicted, the project must be cancelled [sic: "canceled"] and rebid, Hines said. He said that the bidder who filed the false affidavit must also be billed any added costs of the project and the costs of rebidding.


The second new law, Senate Bill 720 by Sen. J.P. Morrell, D-New Orleans, had been on Jindal's desk since June 18. It takes effect Aug. 15 and will nullify any contract between a public agency and an individual or firm "entered into as a result of fraud, bribery, corruption or other criminal acts" for which a final conviction has been obtained.

Morrell's bill says that if the contract is voided, the responsible party will is on the hook for costs, attorneys fees and damages incurred in rebidding the project.
Regarding this second law, it may be an improvement on Guam/ABA law. Under Guam law, the government has the right to affirm or ratify a contract, even if there is fraud, if it finds doing so to be in the best interests of the Territory. This law implies that it is never in the best interests of the state to acquiesce to fraudulent procurement conduct.

No comments: