The United States has been in the forefront of fighting corruption in public procurement in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD countries). Domestically, it seems to me that procurement in public construction in the United States has been relatively free of corruption over the course of my career for the past 25 years.
It has not always been so.
We can't take the progress that has been made for granted, of course. This morning, there is a little tidbit in my hometown paper related to Governor Christie's troubles to serve as a reminder:
The inspector general at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will audit how New Jersey spent $25 million of Sandy aid funds, according to the office of Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., a New Jersey Democrat who asked the inspector general to look into the issue in August.
At issue in the new probe are funds from a disaster recovery block grant. New Jersey had received permission to spend funds on a marketing campaign to encourage tourism to the Jersey Shore.
But Pallone's office says the contract to develop the marketing plan was awarded to a firm that charged $4.7 million. The next lowest bidder proposed only $2.5 million. The winning bid proposed including Christie in the ads, Pallone said in the letter asking for an audit. The lower cost proposal did not include a Christie ad. Pallone's office said Monday that the inspector general's office had found enough evidence to justify a "full-scale audit."The merits of this are to be determined. I don't know if these proposals are apple to apple comparisons (aside from the Christie ad). Perhaps it's different scopes, perhaps there are are other good and valid reasons for awarding a contract to the highest bidder. Also, this is not construction.
Still, as we continue the move away from low bid procurement models in public construction, it's important to keep working to maintain integrity in the selection process. It's good to be reminded periodically.
No comments:
Post a Comment