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 (27) 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 (13) 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 (87) Principles of procurement (20) 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 (56) 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 (8) 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 (45) 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)

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

When cooperating isn't as good as competing

An Editorial from the Pennsylvania TribLive:


Tribune-Review | Monday, April 10, 2017, 11:00 p.m.
Costs through the roof: Require competitive bidding
Closer scrutiny of how tax dollars are spent on school roofing jobs could well help taxpayers keep roofs over their own heads.

Pennsylvania is among 23 states participating in the Association of Educational Purchasing Agencies, “which funnels roofing projects through” national contractor Tremco, writes Robert Dziuban, Coalition for Procurement Reform executive director, in a PennLive column. He notes a survey that found Pennsylvania school districts buying roofs through the AEPA “spent $100 million more on the projects from 2005 to 2010 than they would have through public competitive bidding” — and that other studies have shown “the process of overcharging continues.”

Tremco corporate parent RPM International in 2013 paid $65 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department. The lawsuit alleged RPM “defrauded the General Services Administration and other government entities by overcharging on roofing contracts as far back as 2002,” according to Mr. Dziuban.

Cooperative group purchasing works for pencils and computers. “(B)ut construction projects are not commodities,” Dziuban reminds. State Rep. Kerry A. Benninghoff, R-Centre/Mifflin counties, agrees, saying “each school building is unique.”

Mr. Benninghoff is drafting legislation to require competitive, local-level bidding for roofing projects. Enacting such a law is a no-brainer. The sooner that happens, the better for Pennsylvania taxpayers.

No comments: