Logosm.gif (1927 bytes)
navlinks.gif (4688 bytes)
Hruler04.gif (5511 bytes)

Back to Inspector General’s main page

Investigation into Allegations that a District Employee Improperly Procured the Services of Two Contractors
IG 13-22
August 5, 1999

Home

Bibliography

Calendar

Columns
Dorothy Brizill
Bonnie Cain
Jim Dougherty
Gary Imhoff
Phil Mendelson
Mark David Richards
Sandra Seegars

DCPSWatch

DCWatch Archives
Council Period 12
Council Period 13
Council Period 14

Election 1998
Election 2000
Election 2002

Elections
Election 2004
Election 2006

Government and People
ANC's
Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
Auditor
Boards and Com
BusRegRefCom
Campaign Finance
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Management Officer
City Council
Congress
Control Board
Corporation Counsel
Courts
DC2000
DC Agenda
Elections and Ethics
Fire Department
FOI Officers
Inspector General
Health
Housing and Community Dev.
Human Services
Legislation
Mayor's Office
Mental Health
Motor Vehicles
Neighborhood Action
National Capital Revitalization Corp.
Planning and Econ. Dev.
Planning, Office of
Police Department
Property Management
Public Advocate
Public Libraries
Public Schools
Public Service Commission
Public Works
Regional Mobility Panel
Sports and Entertainment Com.
Taxi Commission
Telephone Directory
University of DC
Water and Sewer Administration
Youth Rehabilitation Services
Zoning Commission

Issues in DC Politics

Budget issues
DC Flag
DC General, PBC
Gun issues
Health issues
Housing initiatives
Mayor’s mansion
Public Benefit Corporation
Regional Mobility
Reservation 13
Tax Rev Comm
Term limits repeal
Voting rights, statehood
Williams’s Fundraising Scandals

Links

Organizations
Appleseed Center
Cardozo Shaw Neigh.Assoc.
Committee of 100
Fed of Citizens Assocs
League of Women Voters
Parents United
Shaw Coalition

Photos

Search

What Is DCWatch?

themail archives

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
717 14TH STREET, N.W., 5TH FL.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
(202) 727-2540

Executive Summary

Concerning the Results of Office of the Inspector General

Investigation 99-0485

On June 8, 1999, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) received a compliant alleging that a District employee had improperly procured the services of two contractors. It was specifically alleged that during the period, January through June 1999, this employee had procured services from Contractor A in the amount of $5,500.00 and Contractor B in the amount of $14,000.00 without a valid contract. During the initial stages of the investigation, it was further alleged that this employee gave preferential treatment to Contractor A by attempting to issue a sole source contract to this firm in the amount of $48,528.74.

Based on the information received, the OIG accepted for investigation, the following issues:

1. Did the District employee violate District regulations by procuring services, on behalf of a District agency, from Contractor A, without a valid contract?

The investigation established that the employee contacted and arranged numerous meetings with Contractor A. During these meetings, all aspects of an impending information technology (IT) project were discussed in detail. At the request of the employee, the contractor performed services for a District agency on two separate occasions. The cost of these services was $2,500.00 and $3,000.00 respectively. Based on the evidence developed during this investigation, this Office found the actions of the employee to be in violation of DCPM, Chapter 18, §1803.1 (e), "making a government decision outside officials channels." Accordingly, this allegation was SUBSTANTIATED.

2. Did the District employee violate District regulations by providing or otherwise sharing confidential information with Contractor A?

The investigation determined that the employee, during discussions with contractor A, provided verbal and written materials outlining the current and future IT needs of a District agency. On at least one occasion, the contractor was allowed to review numerous purchase orders for IT equipment and made specific recommendations to the employee as to which items should or should not be purchased. This Office concluded that the detailed information provided by the employee, gave contractor A substantial inside knowledge of the goals, objectives and technical requirements for the IT project being planned by the District agency. It was further determined that contractor A, subsequently submitted a bid on the contract for this IT project when it was let for bids. The actions of the employee in providing this information to contractor A constitute a violation of DCPM, Chapter 18, §1803.1 (f). This section prohibits certain activities by District employees, including "divulging any official government information to any unauthorized person or in advance of the time prescribed for its authorized issuance, or otherwise making use of or permitting others to make use of information not available to the general public." Accordingly, this allegation was SUBSTANTIATED.

3. Did the employee violate District regulations by procuring services on behalf of a District agency from Contractor B without a valid contract?

The investigation determined that the employee, in June 1999, procured services from contractor B in the amount of $16,000 without a valid contract. It was determined that the employee failed to follow District contracting procedures and in taking unilateral action, violated DCPM, Chapter 18, §1803.1 (e), "making a government decision outside officials channels". Accordingly, this allegation was SUBSTANTIATED.

4. Did the employee violate District regulations by giving preferential treatment to Contractor A?

The investigation determined that the employee had a close working relationship with contractor A prior to the contractor's involvement in the IT project of a District agency. Further, the employee met on 15 to 20 different occasions with contractor A. During these meetings, the employee discussed the scope and magnitude of the pending IT project and shared confidential information with the contractor that was not available to other potential bidders. Therefore, contractor A was provided an unfair competitive advantage over other bidders on this project. In addition, the investigation determined that the employee attempted improperly to sole source the IT contract to contractor A. This Office concluded that the actions of the employee constitute preferential treatment towards contractor A, in violation of DCPM, Chapter 18, §1803.1(b). Accordingly, this allegation was SUBSTANTIATED.

As a result of this investigation, the Inspector General recommended that:

  • Solicitation number DRP-99SPG-0002-HMS be declared null and void and that the District agency issue a new RFP and solicitation for this contract;
  • The Office of Personnel implement a training program for all employees whose official duties require frequent contact with District contractors. The program should be held annually and focus on topics related to D.C. Personnel Regulation 1803, "Responsibilities of Employees."
  • Program managers be provided specific guidance on the advance time needed to have a contract for services/supplies processed and approved, and that managers who fail properly to forecast their contracting needs have appropriate disciplinary action taken against them.
  • The District agency consider appropriate administrative action against the employee for violations of District Personnel Regulations; and,
  • The District agency Director consider whether two contractors that possessed inside knowledge/information of the previous District agency solicitation, should be allowed to bid on a new solicitation for the same project.

Back to top of page


Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)