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)

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Pay to play "not a good look"

After reading the article below, I was reminded of a litmus test for doing something that you feel, or should feel, perhaps you ought not do: How would you like it if your action was front page news tomorrow?

Sky's the limit for political gifts (Australia)
The Herald today publishes an Australian first, a database that captures federal politicians' disclosures over the past two years, revealing the free trips and gifts they receive from powerful vested interests. The information is not released publicly except in the form of unsearchable handwritten documents.

The Israel lobby, Qantas and mining companies are leading the charge in lavishing federal politicians with all-expenses paid junkets and other gifts, a Herald investigation has found. Billionaires including Gina Rinehart, big drug companies, controversial Chinese technology company Huawei and multinational defence contractors are behind many of the "free" flights and high-level entertainment handed to politicians.

Richard Mulgan, an emeritus professor at the Australian National University who has written extensively on accountability, said there should be a "brick wall" to gifts and hospitality from major defence contractors given the large sums of money at stake.

More generally, he questioned whether politicians accepting gifts from companies had fully considered why companies were paying to take them on trips.
"Obviously people can accept gifts and so on but if there's any suggestion that it can influence a particular decision it's not a good look," he said.
"You would have to ask yourself: why would the company do it? If the company's motives are less than pure you have to ask yourself whether you're contaminating yourself."

Professor John Uhr, the director of the centre for the study of Australian politics at the Australian National University, said there was little policing of politicians' behaviour in accepting gifts and trips. "You really need to lay down certain standards you can honestly expect your representatives to have," he says. "At the moment there is just nothing."

Professor Mulgan said the current handwritten disclosures by politicians compromised transparency as a method of holding politicians accountable. "Transparency means that the public can readily get hold of that information," he says.

Read more at the article link.

D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray Proposes End to Pay-to-Play Politics
Today, Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray is proposing a set of campaign finance and ethics reforms specifically targeting pay-to-play corruption, the all-too-common practice of a business entity making campaign contributions to candidates and public officials with the hope of gaining a lucrative government contract.

Washington, D.C., is embroiled in a series of government contracting scandals that have caused immense harm to the image and credibility of the District government. It is important that District officials make reasonable efforts to assure the public and the business community that campaign contributions are not the gateway to District contracts.

If adopted, the mayor’s pay-to-play reforms would be among the strongest in the nation. Government contractors would be prohibited from making campaign contributions to, or expenditures on behalf of, any District candidate or official who is or could be involved in awarding the contract. Similarly, they cannot give to or spend on behalf of any political committee associated with an individual or nonprofit group controlled by the candidate or official. “Government contractor” is broadly defined to include all senior executives of the company seeking a contract. Even the spouses and dependent children of the executives would be limited to contributions of no more than $300 per election.

By taking the simple step of divorcing campaign contributions from government contracts, this critical pay-to-play reform proposal will help rebuild public confidence in the integrity of the District’s government contracting process. The measures will also provide useful guidance for public officials on how to avoid the political minefield of the appearance of corruption, whether justified or not, that accompanies pay-to-play practices.

No comments: