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)

Monday, July 5, 2010

Of give and take

This is not a story about negotiation.

It is a story with a moral somewhat like paying the piper and calling the tune, and echos back to a prior post about the University of South Carolina.

Navy criticizes close relationship between Academy and donor
An anonymous donor whose close relationship with the U.S. Naval Academy caused problems for the school's finance chief is connected to a Texas company that is a defense contractor, Navy investigators concluded in a report.

The donor was known to insiders at the academy as a generous alumnus who once provided nearly $100,000 so "fine wines" could be served during receptions at the superintendent's house, the report said. He maintained such a close relationship with Robert Parsons, the academy's deputy for finance, that he kept a sport utility vehicle at Parsons' home for use when the Texas donor was in Annapolis.

The donor's role became public last week when the Navy released a report into financial irregularities at the academy.

Parsons noted that the donor often bought items from the academy's store, doing "a lot of buying and giving, most of it for his own company." That company is identified in the report as the Richardson Trident Company in Richardson, Texas.

Richardson Trident owner Thomas Bentley is a 1954 academy graduate.

The donor was known for spending up to $50,000 at a time at the Midshipman Store at the academy.

"When you go to his plant and you go to his ranch, everybody that works in his plant is wearing Navy stuff because he gives it to them," Parsons told investigators.

Investigators said one of the principal problems with the relationship was that it caused Parsons to commit multiple regulatory violations relating to the acceptance of gifts. The Navy concluded that Parsons didn't do due diligence because he failed to determine the donor's "status as a defense contractor and prohibited source."

"He's a benefactor, a donor, but he's getting special treatment and handling because of his eccentricities and the relationship that you have established with him over time," a Navy investigator said to Parsons during an interview transcribed in a 110-page report.

The report found Parsons improperly solicited gifts to the Naval Academy when he used his relationship with the donor to influence him. The gifts, including watches, sunglasses, coats and purses, went to football coaches and their families as part of a strategy to retain the coaching staff.

In the report, an investigator questions Parsons about the donor's desire to be anonymous, pointing out donors can't be anonymous because donations "might be something we want to reject."

No comments: