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, February 7, 2013

Determining responsibility - how not to do it

Contracting with Criminals: Where government money is going
The Willis family is having their home renovated in order to accommodate the boys through a Medicaid Waiver Program project – which is paid for with taxpayer money. The contractor was chosen through a bid process.

Jeffrey DeVeau of CNY Custom Carpentry had the lowest bid of three applicants – for $14,400 he said he could complete the work in five to seven days.

He was paid 50 percent up front by the Onondaga County Department of Social Services in August. But six months later, the work remains incomplete.

“There were a variety of excuses, I was told the cabinets that were ordered had not been shipped. That items that were ordered were on back order, that he had something else going on - could he come at a later date,” she said.

When she tried to petition Medicaid for a new contractor, she discovered DeVeau’s criminal history:

In 2005, Jeffrey DeVeau appeared in Federal court to plead guilty for fraud. DeVeau admitted that he participated in a money scheme involving loans for heavy construction equipment. He was sentenced to pay $15 million in restitution and he spent a year in prison.

Willis wanted to know how the county could contract with a convict.

“With any contract should we be looking at it routinely to make sure that we have not made it possible for a vender who might not be on the up and up to participate in our business? Yeah, there's opportunity for that,” said Onondaga County Human Resources Director Ann Rooney.

NewsChannel 9 discovered that the county is only required to do one very simple version of a background check.

The county searches a list of people in New York State who are not allowed to receive money for Medicaid. If they’re on the list, they aren’t permitted to do the project.

If they’re not on the list, they are allowed to do the job.

The list is created by the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General in the State Department of Health.

It's a list of all of the enrolled Medicaid providers who have committed offenses or crimes related to Medicaid or health care.

Contractor Kenneth Skender of the Rochester area is on the list because his company stole $300,000 from Medicaid for home modifications it didn’t complete, according to the Attorney General's office.

DeVeau defrauded companies out of more than $15 million, but because his felonies do not relate to health care, he's not on the list and can bid on public projects.

Monica Hickey-Martin is the director of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit at the Attorney General's office. She says the list could be changed with legislative action, but the vetting process doesn't have to stop with that exclusion list.

“Just because they're not on the exclusion list - with a conviction - doesn't mean the state or the county can't refuse to do business with them. That's always the option,” Hickey-Martin said.

The county can require applicants to pay for fingerprinting or for criminal background checks; or simply search for the contractor using Google or a similar search engine.

“I would recommend anything for program integrity for doing more checks than less. Obviously there's a resource issue and there's only so much a certain individual can do -but simple internet searches,” Hickey-Martin said.
Typically, the award should go to the lowest responsive bid and responsible bidder. The government must fully critique each aspect, not just punch a check list, if it hopes to safeguard the public purse and obtain the goods and services it needs.

See, for instance, Determination of bidder responsibility (Barr v. Town of Holliston)

No comments: