Recklessness Of The Dod During The Reagan Administration

Zakheim and Kadish explain two decades ago, there were more than twenty prime contractors competing for defense contracts while today the government relies on just six contractors to build its defense systems. Zakheim and Kadish state, “The system largely forgoes competition on price, delivery and performance and replaces it with a kind of “design bureau” competition”. The report explains that firms such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin have operated in collaboration on several projects such as the Air Force’s next generation bomber (Zakheim & Kadish, 2008). Collaboration of this nature suggests cooperative equilibrium between the firms to enhance their mutual payoff of outbidding competitors. With the defense market on the downturn pending major budget cuts over the next several years, more collaboration strategies are possible for firms to remain competitive. The existing procurement system encourages bargaining among the government and bidding firms. When budgets are allocated generously, demand is high and firms can set their prices higher. Budget cuts decrease demand and increase bargaining between buyer and seller. Security Industry reports budget deficits subject contracts to greater

During the 2018 Senate budget accountability meeting, Senator Bernie Sanders says, “since 1995 Boeing, Lockheed Martin and United Technologies have paid nearly $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct- $3 billion collectively. Yet those three companies received about $800 billion of defense contracts over the past 18 years” (Senate). All of these companies are private defense companies that design and manufacture weapons for the Department of Defense if the money if followed. These defense companies have paid 0.375 percent in fines for fraud compared to the amount they were given by the Department of Defense over eighteen

This fact is stated plainly and directly even in the FAR itself, where it is written, “Agencies are encouraged to promote early exchange of information about future acquisitions.” Exchanges are beneficial to all parties involved in the acquisition process, and there are a number of reasons why such exchanges are beneficial. As the regulations explain at FAR 15.201(b), some of these benefits include an improved understanding of the Government’s requirements for the potential suppliers, and also an improved understanding of a potential supplier’s capabilities by the Government. Additionally, exchanges between Government and potential suppliers can help the Government firm up or finalize their acquisition plan and source selection strategy for a particular procurement by enabling them to determine things such as, “proposed contract type, terms and conditions, and acquisition planning schedules,” as well as, “the feasibility of the requirement, including performance requirements, statements of work, and data requirements.”

Once I have a clear Statement of work and the previous vendors are interested in bidding; I will compete this procurement to the best practices of government procurement are achieves.

The policy and procedures connected to the DoD definitions of abuse are one of the multiple practices that camouflage prevalence rates. Others include database deficiencies, fatality reviews, oversight framework, chaplain training, commander training, Lautenberg Amendment, and the most egregious the index severity index. All, were deficiencies previously addressed by the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) in their 2006 and 2010 reports; yet they remain outstanding.

Procurement by public entities is guided by primary law principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination, procurement laws sets up an extensive legal framework regarding the procurement of work, supply and service contracts. There are two main reasons for the use of specific procedures i.e. why contracting authorities do not just negotiate or simply buy from the closest supplier. First, it provides for more public accountability and therefore less cases of corruption practices. Additionally, tendering procedures aim to ensure the best value for money by making it necessary for suppliers to act highly competitive. As a result, market mechanisms will help in facilitating the best possible practices. In situations where market mechanisms are not effective, tender procedures might lose their effectiveness as well. If for example there is lack of competition due to certain complexities or as a result of lower bidder interest, negotiations with just one or two suppliers may be the most efficient manner to handle the process. Therefore, we discuss the inherent advantages and disadvantages of sealed bidding and contracting by negotiation as procedural frameworks for tendering.

Highly publicized incidents such as the federal government purchasing at $500 hammer or $2,500 toilet seat continue to capture headlines as examples of a federal procurement process gone awry, but these notorious examples have become few and far between in recent years, due in large part to significant reforms such as the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 that minimized some of these problems. Despite these substantive reforms, the federal government continues to receive criticisms concerning the manner in which it administers the procurement process. In order to gain new insights in this area, this paper provides a review of the relevant literature to describe the legal and administrative framework and socio-economic considerations of the federal procurement process. A summary of the research and important findings are presented in the conclusion.

Federal construction contracting practices, governed by the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR), have a duty to uphold the integrity in the process of selecting sources to perform the requirements of the government through contracts. The duty is to the people of the union and those who pay into the system of government. The FAR and the institution of contract professionals within federal service take this duty very seriously and enact processes that uphold their obligations. Regarding infrastructure projects in the federal government, it is customary to see authorization from congress to a particular department to exhaust funds in support of a particular mission or requirement. Within the Department of Defense these funds are requested

Procurement officers are the pivot of bidding. They publish bidding announcement, preparing the list of approved suppliers, hold meeting and declare the winner. Bidding process is a best place for corruption. No one monitors procurement officers’ performance. They are evaluation by their results and whenever they run a bidding and purchase required products, they were successful. The other point is that government employees are not fired up. When you are hired in a governmental company, no one can fired you up. No one evaluate your performance and you will have income till the end of your life.

Carrie Gallo, Partner and National Public Sector Leader believes that in addition to the issue above, governments may also be looking to reshape and regulate the procurement process. For example, the government's ability to request that a select number of vendors be able to bid on public sector contracts for goods and

As far back as 1775 and most likely before that ethical problems have plagued the military logistics system, to include contracting of logistical support. Throughout our history, whenever there was a mobilization to support a conflict there was a good possibility that there would be some amount of fraud, waste or abuse introduced into the logistical system. (Huston, 1997) This paper will discuss some the different types of fraud, waste or abuse that can occur. It will also cover some recent cases from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where military, contractors or both have worked to defraud the government and will conclude with some things that can be done to fight fraud in the future.

Over the last fifty years, there has been a growing trend in the US public sector to outsource government services at the federal, state, and local levels. This stands in stark contrast to the traditional model of previous generations. In the traditional model, public services were administered by large bureaucracies consisting of government employees working for the public good. Over the last several decades this trend has increased. Today, nearly every government agency and private sector organization adopts contracting to some extent. From acquiring weapon systems, as with the DoD, or providing government services, as with HUD, contracting has become

“Sustainability,” “environmental,” “social,” these are few of the buzz words that are deemed important in discussions of corporate obligations that go beyond the traditional means of doing business. Being in public procurement allows empowerment to influence such obligations not just between a customer and a vendor, but also on how the vendor treats its employees and how things like packaging and dumping of waste can hinder a potential business transaction.

Procurement is the action where external source provides systems, goods, services, etc. for the government itself or organizations that are depending on the government. Procurement by government and for government is the stage where has the potential for corruption to happen. Therefore, we need to pay attention on procurement to prevent corruption. What is most important in procurement is that it must be announced in a public newspaper. E-procurement on the other hand is the use of the internet and information technology by the government to get goods prices in an open and fair competition for every company, whether they are private or not. This means public and citizens can involved in this process as well. This is the first step that e-procurement

Soriede (2002) mentions that, it is important to note that SCM is an integral part of procurement in the public sector. Therefore, it is used as a tool for the management of public procurement practices. However, despite the employment of SCM as a strategic tool, public procurement still faces enormous predicaments. These include, among others lack of proper knowledge, skills and capacity, non-compliance with SCM policy and regulations, inadequate planning and the linking of demand to the budget, accountability, fraud and corruption, inadequate monitoring and evaluation of SCM, unethical behavior, and too much decentralization of the procurement system.