Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- Building the Hybrid Cloud
- Connected Government: How to Build and Procure Network Services for the Future
- Continuing Diagnostics and Mitigation: Discussion of Progress and Next Steps
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal Tech Talk
- The Future of Government Data Centers
- The Future of IT: How CIOs Can Enable the Service-Oriented Enterprise
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Mitigating Insider Threats in Virtual & Cloud Environments
- Modern Mission Critical Series
- Moving to the Cloud. What's the best approach for me
- Navigating Tough Choices in Government Cloud Computing
- The New Generation of Database
- Satellite Communications: Acquiring SATCOM in Tight Times
- Targeting Advanced Threats: Proven Methods from Detection through Remediation
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- The Truth About IT Opex and Software Defined Networking
- Value of Health IT
- Air Traffic Management Transformation Report
- Cloud First Report
- General Dynamics IT Enterprise Center
- Gov Cloud Minute
- Government in Technology Series
- Homeland Security Cybersecurity Market Report
- National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
- Technology Insights
- The Cyber Security Report
- The Next Generation Cyber Security Experts
Shows & Panels
GSA IG report blasts FAS managers for altering contracts
Tuesday - 6/11/2013, 12:35pm EDT
The penalty could be huge. The IG recommended FAS cancel or re-do two contracts worth a total of half-a-billion dollars.
According to the report, FAS managers handled contracts with Carahsoft, Deloitte and Oracle in 2011.
"In all three cases, there was a disagreement between the contractor and the contracting staff, and the IG had weighed in on this," Joe Petrillo, a procurement attorney with Petrillo and Powell, told the Federal Drive with Tom Temin and Emily Kopp. "The IG had done audits in all three cases or gotten involved in one way or another, and the contracting staff basically supported the IG's position."
In response, all three contractors went over the heads of the contracting officers and appealed to management directly, which ended up relaxing the strictures the IG had put in place.
Joe Petrillo, procurement attorney, Petrillo and Powell
This situation may appear atypical because, in most cases, an IG does not dictate contractual terms in the first place.
"It's a little different at GSA, because the GSA IG does audit renewals and new contracts under the multiple-awards schedule system," Petrillo said. "So, the IG, in a big contract like the ones we have here, it wouldn't be uncommon for the IG to have done that audit and then to be advising the contracting officer. Here, they seem to be going a little farther and actually advocating specific positions."
The report is light on details but does suggest the IG thought management was being too lax in dealing with the contractors.
"On the one hand, you want contracting officers to be independent and exercise business judgment and you want to empower them to do that," Petrillo said. "On the other hand, what do you do when someone is acting in an inappropriate fashion? There are a lot of contracting officers over at GSA and I'm sure many of them are quite excellent, but there are probably some who are maybe new and inexperienced or maybe aren't making good decisions. Do the managers have the ability to override those decisions or influence them? And the IG seems to be saying, 'No, they shouldn't,' which is kind of an unusual position to take in this government."