Labels and Tags

Accountability (69) Adequate documentation (6) ADR in procurement (3) Allocation of risks (5) 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 (13) Clarifications vs Discussions (1) Competence (9) Competition vs Efficiency (29) Competitive position (2) Compliance (33) Conflict of interest (31) Contract administration (25) Contract disputes (1) Contract extension or modification (8) Contract terms (2) Contract types (6) Contract vs solicitation dispute (2) Contractor responsibility (19) Conviction (3) Cooperative purchasing (3) Cost and pricing (13) Debarment (4) Determinations (8) Determining responsibility (34) Disclosure requirements (7) Discussions during solicitation (9) Disposal of surplus property (3) Effective enforcement requirement (35) Effective procurement management (3) 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 (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 (5) Lore vs Law (4) market research (7) Materiality (3) Methods of source selection (32) Mistakes (4) Models of Procurement (1) Needs assessment (11) No harm no foul? (8) Other procurement links (14) Outsourcing (33) Past performance (12) Planning policy (33) Politics of procurement (48) PPPs (6) Prequalification (1) Principle of competition (93) Principles of procurement (24) Private vs public contract (15) Procurement authority (5) Procurement controversies series (78) Procurement ethics (19) Procurement fraud (27) Procurement lifecycle (9) Procurement philosophy (16) 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 (10) Recusal (1) Remedies (16) Requirement for new procurement (4) Resolution of protests (4) Responsiveness (13) Restrictive specifications (5) Review procedures (12) Scope of contract (16) Settlement (2) Social preference provisions (59) Sole source (47) Sovereign immunity (2) Staffing (7) Standard commercial products (2) 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 (22) Trade agreements vs procurement (1) Training (32) Transparency (60) Uniformity (6) Unsolicited proposals (2)

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Banned contractor wants its subsidiaries and related companies to get more government contracts

The stories throughout years, probably decades, of large government contractors continuing to get work in spite of poor performance, questionable billing practices and other contracting disgraces are legend. Small contractors  get the "non-responsible" book thrown at them all the time, preventing any further government work. Large contractors are too big to flail. But is that right?

So finally, a large contractor with a dismal display of irresponsible work and coverup gets the boot, and what does it want to do? Continue getting work through its subsidiaries. And it is suing to do so.

BP sues U.S. government over contract suspensions after oil spill

Last November the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sprung the ban on BP (BP.L), citing BP's "lack of business integrity" after the Deepwater Horizon blowout that killed 11 workers and gushed millions of barrels of oil into coastal waters. The company is currently paying out millions of dollars to settle damage claims from Gulf residents in a contentious process that BP says is being mismanaged by the administrator, Louisiana lawyer Patrick Juneau. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in southern Texas, claims keeping the ban in place risks causing the company "irreparable harm."

BP Sues EPA to Get New Contracts
BP says it has lost out on billions of dollars of potential contracts, such as supplying fuel to the U.S. military, because the EPA refuses to lift the prohibition on new contracts first put in place in November 2012. That was when BP said it would pay $4.5 billion in fines and plead guilty to criminal charges including obstruction of justice, involuntary manslaughter and a misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act.

At the time, BP said it believed the suspension would be brief and that it was working with the EPA on an agreement that would effectively end the suspension. But according to the court filing, which was reported earlier by the Houston Chronicle, the EPA refused to lift the ban even after the company entered its formal pleas and the criminal case was closed.
BP sues US government over federal contracts ban
BP is one of the biggest suppliers of fuel to the US government.

No comments: