Jump to content

Scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs


Guest Vern Edwards

Recommended Posts

None of it surprises me. And I am very familiar with the high level contractor interference and influence peddling, including that of retired generals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when FedBid came back in 2009. There was an SES, along with FedBid staff, that came to teach the contracting office on how to use FedBid under the guise of influencing staff to use FedBid for supply purchases. FedBid was heralded as the next generation of contracting, with these illusions of millions saved and a streamlined award methodology. For a few months after that training, we would received informal reminders to use FedBid for certain purchases, but there was never any written procedural regulations.

During that "training course," FedBid tried to obfuscate was the 3-percent fee you had to pay for every transaction. Keep in mind, this fee is on top of the vehicle access fee (for example, 0.75-percent IFF for the GSA FSS). With most supply purchases having razor-thin margins, 3-percent was huge. It did not take much business savvy to determine that the only one benefiting from using FedBid was Fedbid. Even worse, there were no restrictions for what company could respond in FedBid. If you requested quotations from GSA FSS Vendors, you would get open market responses from Vendors pretending to have a GSA FSS. The "streamlined award" methodology was marred by having to spend extra effort to determine whether the Vendor actually complied with the terms of your solicitation.

I think that this story with the VA is the beginning of the end for FedBid. Good riddance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rhetoric by FedBid reminds me of the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. (There was a "Susan" and a "Taylor" in that film.) Here is a quote from page 38 (39):

We know this is just the beginning of a larger effort to bring transparency and accountability to the health care arena in both federal and commercial procurement, but we have won this round – and done so decisively. [emphasis added]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

My question was about the report, not FedBid. FedBid figures in the report, but the report is about the conduct of a government official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I skimmed thru the 82 page report and I like the writer, wow, it must have been a challenge to record the ongoings and he/she did an exceptional job of recording the events of the investigation and I like reading silly human stories and watching movies. The report was not written on a professional lawyer level and quotes are hard to establish but overall I enjoyed reading the report.

One charge submited to Justice didn't stick, the wine declaration seems to be over-reaching which belies their credibility, the Contract Specialist was fairly dumb in his price evaluation and so what.

The story even revealed marital transgressions, wow, a good read in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before more posters conclude that an IG report is conclusive of guilt, on p. 74 of this list of e-mails, the IG writes:

"The VAAR states that any individual may submit a recommendation to debar a contractor to the Deputy Senior Procurement Executive (DSPE) and that the DPSE will refer the matter to the VA Debarment and Suspension Committee. We referred FedBid, Mr. Saadat, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Tupponce, Mr. Dobrzykowski, and Ms. Taylor to VA’s Suspension and Debarment Committee for possible action in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.4 and VAAR Subpart 809.406."

There are procedures to be followed in the VAAR, before any action.

Also, in the recommendations, the IG states "We recommend that the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Health (PDUSH) confer with the Offices of Human Resources (OHR) and General Counsel (OGC) to determine the appropriate administrative action to take, if any,"

Note, the words "if any." As far as I know, there have not been any administrative actions concluded.

I'm troubled by the issuance of such an administrative report to the public. Instead of alleging, it concludes guilt before there are any administrative actions completed.

The same day I added this report to the home page of Wifcon.com, I added a Department of Justice press release that states a former high ranking GSA employee was "indicted"--remember that GSA conference.

I will delete any posts from this discussion that conclude guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question was about the report, not FedBid. FedBid figures in the report, but the report is about the conduct of a government official.

In regards to the report, I thought it could have been much shorter. It seemed to re-iterate the same alleged facts under different headings in a redundant and confusing way. Also, the public airing of private "laundry" seemed completely unnecessary. If this was to go to trial, I don't see how the jury would not be prejudiced ahead of time by this report with all its various alleged facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

Based on what you know about the rules, do you think the VA official in question did anything to merit termination or demotion? Leave the "love" affair out of it for the moment. Do you think IG described conduct that struck you as criminal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last reliable word I'd read was that Ms. Taylor has a new job elsewhere in federal government:

"I am pleased to announce the selection of Ms. Susan Taylor to the career Senior Executive Service (SES) position of Director, Office of Procurement Planning, effective October 5, 2014.

<snip>

Thomas Johnson, Jr.

Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Acquisition and Project Management

Office of Environmental Management

U.S. Department of Energy"

Rumor is that job has been rescinded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VHA policy on FedBid was nearly mandatory, as not using FedBed required a document in the file explaining why not. That didn't make any sense, as FedBid's task order was not a requirements contract.

I'll be very curious to see how this affects the VHA HCA, Mr. Norb Doyle. He is/was Ms. Taylor's direct supervisor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the alleged facts disclosed by the IG indicate potentially false claims made by FedBid about the cost of its service. What do you think?

I agree.

The vendors quoting via FedBid are willing to sell at a particular price, to which FedBid adds their 3% and presents to the government. While the government doesn't 'see' the added price, as all we see it the bottom line price, the simple fact the vendors were willing to sell at a lower price that is hidden from the government constitutes a serious problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vern:

I'm going to close this discussion. Your efforts represent a worthwhile exercise for members of the Wifcon.com community. However, the Chairmen of a House Committee and Subcommittee have already concluded that at least one party is guilty and deserves punishment. I don't want any member of our community to come into conflict with these individuals. Just call me overly protective.

As I've pointed out, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been asked by the IG to determine if any action should be taken against any person. As far as I know, those reviews have not been completed. Whether the Chairmen realize it or not, the laws that Congress passes provide for these processes that they now view as getting in their way. In fact, a suspension or debarment proceeding provides a contractor with an opportunity to present its own evidence before any conclusion is reached.

If there is any administrative or legal action taken against any person, I hope to find it and post it to the home page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...