Labels and Tags

Accountability (66) Adequate documentation (4) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) Best interest of government (11) Best practices (19) Best value (14) Bidder prejudice (9) Blanket purchase agreement (1) Bridge contract (2) Bundling (6) Cancellation and rejection (2) Centralized procurement structure (12) Changes during bid process (13) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (28) Competitive position (2) Compliance (32) Conflict of interest (28) Contract administration (24) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (1) Contractor responsibility (18) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (32) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (34) Effective procurement management (3) Effective specifications (35) Emergency procurement (14) eProcurement (5) Equitable tolling (2) Evaluation of submissions (20) Fair and equitable treatment (13) Fair and reasonable value (23) Fiscal effect of procurement (13) Good governance (8) Governmental functions (26) Guam (14) Guam procurement law (12) Improper influence (11) Incumbency (12) Integrity of system (29) Interested party (7) Jurisdiction (1) Justification (1) Life-cycle cost (1) Limits of government contracting (4) Lore vs Law (4) market research (6) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (28) Mistakes (3) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (10) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (31) Past performance (10) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (46) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (88) Principles of procurement (21) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (75) Procurement ethics (17) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (15) Procurement procedures (29) Procurement reform (57) Procurement theory (11) Procurement workforce (2) Procurment philosophy (6) Professionalism (17) Protest - formality (1) Protest - timing (10) Protests - general (35) Purposes and policies of procurement (9) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (3) Responsiveness (11) Restrictive specifications (3) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (46) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (1) Standards of review (2) Standing (5) Stays and injunctions (6) Structure of procurement (1) Substantiation (9) Surety (1) Suspension (6) The procurement record (1) The role of price (8) The subject matter of procurement (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (59) Uniformity (5) Unsolicited proposals (2)

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Of foxes and hen houses

Conflict of interest in $4 billion government minority program
The conflict in the federal Department of Transportation’s program, which is administered by each of the states, occurs because civil rights personnel with an explicit mission to expand the number of minority contractors and the amount of taxpayer dollars awarded to them are the same people tasked with policing and banishing the bad actors.

An audit last month of Minnesota’s program by state investigators illustrates the typical setup.

“One task of the Office of Civil Rights is to monitor the companies in the [Disadvantaged Business Enterprise] pool for those firms who no longer qualify as a DBE company. The other task of this office is to grow the pool and increase participation within the pool. This clearly is a conflict of interest,” the audit said. Companies “eventually earn enough money to be eliminated from the DBE pool.”

“However, it is those companies that aid MnDOT in reaching its participation goal. Audit has found several companies that no longer meet the DBE requirements.”

Further, the minority office’s specialists had neither the “technical knowledge” nor “level of effort” to properly set goals, and they could provide no documentation for the percentage of contracting dollars it said were given to minority firms, or duplicate its calculations. And “our review found little to no monitoring or enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.”

As a Transportation Department inspector general’s report put it last month, states “place more emphasis on getting firms certified as” disadvantaged rather than keeping track of the work they do. The report said the Office of Civil Rights is responsible for certification, appeals and coordination of enforcement.

In Maryland, the same office that oversees federal minority contracts also runs a parallel program with even laxer restrictions to disburse state money to contractors. Last month, the governor's office announced it was raising that percentage from 25 percent to 29 percent, one of the highest in the nation.

Maryland’s minority contracting program differs from comparable programs in that it would rather give a contract to a black businessman from out of state than a taxpaying resident, with no requirement that participants in its preference program be based in the jurisdiction.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/9/conflict-interest-4-billion-government-minority-pr/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2VpbDjdvt Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


No comments: