Lost in the G.S.A. Scandal, Confusion About a Small-Business ContractEssay Preview: Lost in the G.S.A. Scandal, Confusion About a Small-Business ContractReport this essayAbstractAfter conducting a planned conference in Las Vegas in 2010, the Government Services Administration (G.S.A) is now being investigated for overuse of expenditures, and illegal contract solicitation and procurement. It was reveled through an Inspector General investigation that contract office misused the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to target Royal Productions as a small business. It also led to conclusions that the procedures used to solicit the need for audio-visual services for the conference were not in accordance with federal regulations.
On December 16, 2011, the G.S.A. is currently under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission pursuant to the Congressional Financial Analysis Section of Title 19(c) of the Consolidated Statutes of 1970 (Title 19 of the United States Code) for the alleged contract exploitation of federal-contractor firms by the Government Services Administration (G.S.A), Federal Trade Commission.
On Friday, December 19, 2011, the G.S.A. was the subject of an investigation after a Federal judge ordered the agency to delete data from a government database relating to a business event, under the terms of a government order. The Justice Department has charged the G.S.A with conduct that resulted in “direct and substantial misconduct and failure to protect consumers and the private sector, and with violations of trade sanctions, consumer protection laws, and federal asset-purchase regulatory laws.” The complaint in this case was first reported on March 7, 2012, and filed by the Department of Justice a few days after it received a Federal court order that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) take action against the agency for its use of the G.S.A. to conduct contract and procurement solicitation and to influence the trade decision maker, the G.S.A..
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) maintains a confidential, active investigation into the conduct and coordination of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of various State and regional law enforcement agencies. It continues investigating the activities of G.S.A., State contractors, and third parties in relation to the matters alleged to have occurred with the State of Utah, to determine whether they were being used in connection with activities or policies that affected the Federal Government.
Federal officials have long been aware that private companies can and do engage in conduct similar to those of the G.S.A. The G.S.A. is also regularly under scrutiny by the FBI and other organizations for not reporting to Federal law enforcement agencies the number of private contractors that have engaged in direct and substantial misconduct and failure to protect consumers and the private sector.
The fact that the G.S.A. routinely uses the “P” designation on federal contracts does not mean that the agency engages in conduct that is not within the scope of that contract, or that no independent expert has substantiated this practice. In particular, the G.S.A. does not regularly report on any G.T.L. contracts to Federal law enforcement agencies. The G.S.A. also does not routinely provide the full name, address, telephone number, and email of the Contractor with whom a G.S.A. subcontractor negotiated when a U.S. foreign government or corporation uses a designated recipient or business for trade or other purposes, or the date of receipt of the contract.
On December 16, 2011, the G.S.A. is currently under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission pursuant to the Congressional Financial Analysis Section of Title 19(c) of the Consolidated Statutes of 1970 (Title 19 of the United States Code) for the alleged contract exploitation of federal-contractor firms by the Government Services Administration (G.S.A), Federal Trade Commission.
On Friday, December 19, 2011, the G.S.A. was the subject of an investigation after a Federal judge ordered the agency to delete data from a government database relating to a business event, under the terms of a government order. The Justice Department has charged the G.S.A with conduct that resulted in “direct and substantial misconduct and failure to protect consumers and the private sector, and with violations of trade sanctions, consumer protection laws, and federal asset-purchase regulatory laws.” The complaint in this case was first reported on March 7, 2012, and filed by the Department of Justice a few days after it received a Federal court order that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) take action against the agency for its use of the G.S.A. to conduct contract and procurement solicitation and to influence the trade decision maker, the G.S.A..
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) maintains a confidential, active investigation into the conduct and coordination of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of various State and regional law enforcement agencies. It continues investigating the activities of G.S.A., State contractors, and third parties in relation to the matters alleged to have occurred with the State of Utah, to determine whether they were being used in connection with activities or policies that affected the Federal Government.
Federal officials have long been aware that private companies can and do engage in conduct similar to those of the G.S.A. The G.S.A. is also regularly under scrutiny by the FBI and other organizations for not reporting to Federal law enforcement agencies the number of private contractors that have engaged in direct and substantial misconduct and failure to protect consumers and the private sector.
The fact that the G.S.A. routinely uses the “P” designation on federal contracts does not mean that the agency engages in conduct that is not within the scope of that contract, or that no independent expert has substantiated this practice. In particular, the G.S.A. does not regularly report on any G.T.L. contracts to Federal law enforcement agencies. The G.S.A. also does not routinely provide the full name, address, telephone number, and email of the Contractor with whom a G.S.A. subcontractor negotiated when a U.S. foreign government or corporation uses a designated recipient or business for trade or other purposes, or the date of receipt of the contract.
Government markets have a large part in our economic infrastructure stability that offers the opportunity to businesses to provide requested services to them. Although the process is very long and tedious in dealing with winning a contract offered to provide these services to the government, there are also regulations in place that the government must follow when offering these contracts to obtain services. One of these regulations or guidelines is the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
The NAICS is a system that is used by government procurement officers when they write a contract for a vendor. The contract officer identifies one or many of the 1,175 industrial codes within the system that sets guidelines that separate small businesses from large corporations. “Under these size standards, set by the Small Business Administration, a business can be considered small for one sector but not for another” (Mandelbaum, 2012). This is where a recent investigation into the General Services Administration (G.S.A.) outrageous spending, and targeting specific companies to award contracts to came under investigation by the Inspector General (IG).
Suspicion arose in 2010 after a five-day conference at a Las Vegas resort estimated a total of $823,000. One major concern that brought suspicion to the G.S.A IGs office initially was the large expenditures of extravaganzas of luxury hotel suites and over $7,000 worth of sushi purchased. This event led to investigating a specific contract company called Royal Productions (Mandelbaum, 2012).
General government practice for making purchases using contracts is through bids or negotiations. Many companies often are “reluctant to approach [the] government market because of the complicated bidding process,” or lack of understanding the rules of the contract process (Pride & Ferrell, 2012). When a service is needed for the government, “it sends out a detailed description of the products [in services needed] to qualified bidders” to compete among each other for the opportunity to provide those services (Pride & Ferrell, 2012). Royal Productions