GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: House GOP eager to strip debarment provision from contracting bill

• 47220
  

  Doesn't go far enough. The U.S. Government has allowed these mega corporations like Boeing to absorb their competitiors thereby reducing available contractors to meet the needs of all sectors of our government. Debaring cheats allows breathing time and opens opportunities for smaller companies to grow and fill these needs. As these Boeings, Lockheed Martins continue to be given a free ride, the less trust the average American will have in their government. When you steal 100 million dollars and are fined 20 million...

  rick Posted March 26, 2008 6:57 AM
• 47138
  

  Oh my God.......what about Halliburton ?How would they ever survive without our taxpayer money ? If you want more of the same, vote for McCain !

  Retired Air Traffic Controller Posted March 25, 2008 9:08 AM
• 47103
  

  Congress could easily reach a compromise on this bill by including a provision that would prevent debarment in cases where the Government cannot prove a criminal conspiracy or cannot convict the company, but still prevent company's from benefiting from the bad acts of their employees.

  Also, let's not forget that part of the culture of corruption that contractor's are accused of is fostered by government employees who are permitted to act in bad faith, permitted to engage in egregious conduct with only "slap on the wrist" consequences, and discouraged from awarding contracts to good contractors because "they've been doing it for too long." When a civil servant receives a warrant to conduct procurements on behalf of the United States, that civil servant needs to be held to a much higher standard of conduct and should be subject to much harsher penalties for any misconduct. In short, the federal government could use some SOX-type compliance measures of its own, which should apply to warranted contracting officers and agency heads just as SOX compliance measures apply to CEOs, board members, and CFOs.

  Rob Bragaw Posted March 24, 2008 4:54 PM
• 47088
  

  Why is this gentlemen concerned about whether Boeing loses access to contracts under misconduct? What is association with Boeing? And, why are we not enforcing the laws that protect the taxpayers from fraud, rather than changing the laws to protect the fraud? Why is it popular to avoid consequence for wrong doing? Is there no honor in the system? The tracking here is more appropriate than ever, as it MIGHT expose damages to programs crucial to our security. If patterns become exposed, enforcement should follow swiftly and without mercy. The offender had the opportunity to perform with honor the same as any other corporation serving this country. There has to be a price to pay for stealing from the very individuals who pay for all these contracts - the taxpayers! The consequences should remain intact, and in fact, should be enforced more strenuously. Anything less is a reward and reinforcement that the behavior is profitable. Large businesses should be scrutinized the most, as they have the greatest potential for 'losing' the incidents in their sheer size and volume of cash flow. Honor code has to be pushed down from the top, and it takes work and attention. If the entire company will suffer financial loss because of one-three humans, the entire company will be more inclined to implement better procedures and training to prevent that loss. The revenue streams rule all decisions. Without touching their pockets, you will not prevent the behavior. Otherwise, we should send up a warning flag to all single mothers struggling to raise and educate their children: Don't worry about teaching your children, our future leaders, any ethics. They aren't necessary later anyway...the revenue reports are more important than protecting the country's future. Again, I ask, why shouldn't it be devastating to Boeing? I see here the word 'numerous...' They obviously haven't been disciplined enough to hurt them. I say start the debarment proceedings. Why are they still in the system? Why do we feel sorry for them? What percentage of the $22b was stolen from the government/single mothers? How are they getting away with this? Follow the money, boys...

  CLGS Posted March 24, 2008 1:19 PM
• 47073
  

  If this was to happen where would the denocrats get their campaign contributions, since they would no longer be able earmark deals. They need to be very carefull of their actions unless they want to relagated to a 3rd party status

  dan ketter Posted March 24, 2008 10:32 AM
• 47066
  

  It is about time that we take action to stop large corporations from pulling the wool over the eyes of the public with their acts of piratcy on the citizens who pay taxes. We expect our government will do the right thing in preventing this type of unethical and outright illegal behavior with more than a slap on the hand. Our Senators and Representatives are taking large amounts money from these corporations and this would "hurt their pocketbooks" so now they want to stop a law that would once and for all bring justice to the forefront.

  Fed up in FL Posted March 24, 2008 9:27 AM
• 47064
  

  There comes a time when contractors must be debarred for unethical business practices. This administration as well as ranking Republicans in Congress has opposed any changes to the contractual and acquisition process attributed to protecting cronies and financial contributors. We must have a process of 'checks/balances' in place to ensure we obtain the best services available from those who work within the standards in place, otherwise, why bother citing the FAR. I, for one, am tired of seeing my tax dollars utilized for corrupt, inept and irresponsible contractors awarded contracts time and time again even though their record pertaining to or characteristic of past events is inundated with illicit business standards. In addition, once debarred, contractors should not be given the opportunity of changing their name in order to submit solicitations and/or proposals for future contracts, which I have seen evidence of in the past.

  CAE Posted March 24, 2008 8:58 AM
• 47058
  

  Much ado about nothing.

  This statute will apply to a conviction of a company, not simply a company's employee, for an offense which can be the basis for debarment. In virtually all cases where the company is convicted, it will not be because of some rogue employee acting on his own, it will be because somebody in corporate management screwed up. Debarment should be considered for each and every such offense, not just for second offenders.

  Even where the problem is caused by a rogue employee, where the problem repeats it calls into question the ability of the company to control the actions of its employees. If we have been screwed twice because the company cannot control its employees, we need to be taking steps to make sure we don't get screwed a third time.

  Also, consider the cases discussed in the article. Does anyone question whether Boeing should have been considered for debarment after the Druyon fiasco? Very high level Boeing officials did very bad things, which reflected on Boeing's responsibility as a contractor. Boeing probably escaped debarment by showing what changes it made to prevent this from happening again. Escaping debarment in this way is authorized by the proposed legislation.

  Finally, how big a problem is this? Just how many companies have had two convictions in three years and have not already been considered for debarment? A debarment official who did not at least ask the company to show cause why it should not be considered for debarment (which can be a preliminary step toward debarment but does not carry the consequenses of actually being proposed for debarment) would be derelect in his duties and should be fired.

  wallyp Posted March 24, 2008 8:01 AM
• 47057
  

  Boo Hoo Hoo. The big contractors want a free pass on unscrupulous activity. I think NOT !!! All contractors, big and small need regulations (FAR) to reward the honest reliable contractor and punish the cheaters. Contractors should have checks and balances to keep their more aggressive employees in check. What kind of signal does that send to honest and ethical employees who want to play by the rules, but see their coworkers get rewarded for unethical actions. The rules are good as they stand.

  Richard Snelling Posted March 24, 2008 7:56 AM
• 47055
  

  It sounds like the old story of "No one wants to claim responsibility for the wrong doing." If an employee is found messing around with illegal behavior, the company has a responsibility to rid themselves of the bad apple. Enough of them losing their job might make any other employee thinking about it to think twice. Besides I don't think that in most cases it is the "lone" employee. I think it is more a culture of "let's get whatever we can from the government for as long as we can" and it has been encouraged by administration members who have a stake in the proceeds. (Can this be true?!!? Cheney, Halliburton, and KBR?)

  disgusted in PA Posted March 24, 2008 7:48 AM