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)

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Procurement controversies -- New Jersey, US

How do you unfairly steer a contract to a particular vendor? The most common way is to tailor the bid specifications to fit the preferred vendor.

On Guam, using the ABA model code, various procurement law and regulations demand that specifications not be tailored or otherwise unreasonably non-competitive, but laws are useless unless policed. Moreover, mere adherence to the bare minimum strictures of the law without taking guidance from its policy and purpose encourages the tendency toward bespoke specifications.

Evidently, that may be a problem in New Jersey, too, as this report indicates.

Fairness of bid process questioned
Questions have continued over whether the Monmouth County government's bidding process is fair to vendors and efficient for taxpayers, with the freeholder board instructing administrators to begin a second internal review of procedures and Democratic freeholders asking the state Local Finance Board for an investigation.

Freeholder John Curley, one of the majority Republicans, first raised the issue in June, primarily claiming that bid specifications were often not generic and thus limited competition among vendors, he said.

Curley has noted that bid specifications often require that a vendor deliver a new vehicle within 30 days, favoring bidders that have vehicles on hand.

"What this means is that vendors are getting rid of unsold trucks loaded with unnecessary options at county taxpayer expense," D'Amico said.

Administrators conducted a previous review last month. Republican Freeholder Director Lillian Burry said the findings left her "assured that bid specification and procurement procedures utilized by the county have been compliant with the public contract law."

In a memorandum to board members, Purchasing Director Gerri Popkin said, "Please be assured this county has a longtime, good reputation of being fair, open and equitable to all during our bidding processes and for being in compliance with governing rules and statutes, of where there are many."

No comments: