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 25, 2012

The rotating door can be difficult to prove

Feds, contractor working to settle Ky. fraud suit
The federal government has sued a former Fort Knox contractor who attorneys say steered hundreds of thousands of military contracting dollars into his own company, saying he misused his military assignment to create a lucrative retirement for himself.

[About 2005] Meredith created and signed a deal creating an energy savings program and sent the request for proposal to Nolin. The Army awarded the $2 million deal to Nolin in October 2007, with Meredith and his company, Meredith & Co., making $200,000 off of the contract he created.

Meredith worked from 1987 through 2007 as the energy program director at Fort Knox, with the job of finding ways for the military post to conserve energy. From 1996 on, Fort Knox worked with Nolin Rural Electric Cooperative on the program. Meredith retired from the U.S. Army in August 2007 and immediately went to work for Nolin, using the same office and computer at Fort Knox he had while serving in the military.

Federal prosecutors say Meredith spent nearly two years negotiating with Nolin before retirement and had been talking with the company about a job when he wrote the contract and took the position he ultimately created.

In a dozen emails sent before his retirement, Meredith contact Nolin for details that would allow him to award the cooperative the contract and place himself in the job of implementing the deal.

On April 12, 2005, Meredith wrote in an email to Nolin, "...Have considered doing it myself...retire (And I can), and come back on Monday as a REM, IN THE SAME CHAIR, probably same office and be off the Government rolls...."

When Nolin advertised the job at Fort Knox in September 2007, only Meredith applied. Nolin's Vice President of Operations, Vince Heuser, told Defense Criminal Investigator Jared Camper that he told Meredith about the advertisement, which had been placed to make the job look legitimate, but didn't notify anyone else. Camper noted that Meredith was the lone applicant for the job.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Louisville seeks to prevent Meredith from spending any more of the money and recover what he had been paid. Court records indicate that federal prosecutors are also interested in settling the dispute. No criminal charges have been filed against Meredith or his company.

No comments: