Whistleblowers enforce procurement ethics

Summit, Jun 2007 by Atwater, Kristin M

Two procurement professionals, Janet A. Garrison and Herb F. Hyman, share similar stories. During the course of their employment with public entities in Florida, they uncovered unethical procurement practices. They then became "whistleblowers," by which an individual reveals wrongdoing within an organization to those in positions of authority or to the public, with hopes of rectifying the situation.

In their jobs as government purchasers [in the US], both Garrison and Hyman believe that they are entrusted by the public to spend taxpayer dollars wisely and fairly. Each individual also notes that codes of ethics govern their membership in professional procurement associations, as well as their certifications: Garrison is a CPPO, FCPM (Florida Certified Purchasing Manager), FCPA (Florida Certified Purchasing Agent), and FCN (Florida Certified Negotiator), while Hyman is a CPPB, FCPM, and FCPA.

Thus, Garrison and Hyman felt it was their public and professional duty to report ethics breaches that clearly violated [US] laws or specific procurement statutes. However, their efforts to "do the right thing" met with unanticipated outcomes, ranging from the mixed reactions of others to a complex maze of ongoing legal proceedings.

Both Garrison and Hyman offer insights to other purchasing professionals faced with similar situations.

Case 1

Reporting on practices at the [Florida] board of Education

Janet A. Garrison's whistle-blowing experience occurred when she worked as a purchasing analyst for the Florida Department of Education (DOE). Back in 2003, she was asked to help develop a solicitation for privatizing about 174 jobs in DOE's Office of Student Financial Assistance.

"One of my major concerns from the beginning was that I was directed to put the invitation to negotiate (ITN) out on an incredibly fast track, with no pre-proposal conference to be held," Garrison says.

The ITN was advertised through the State of Florida's electronic bidding network on March 12,2003, and the deadline for questions from prospective vendors was March 17, 2003 - just five days later. Garrison notes that a time frame for vendor questions should have been closer to several weeks, due to the volume of information in the ITN document.

Other parts of the solicitation process, such as dates for sealed bid responses, departmental reviews, and contract negotiations, were assigned similar deadlines just days or a week apart. The anticipated contract start date was April 21,2003 - roughly 5 and 1/2 weeks after announcing the ITN to vendors.

"For the magnitude of this outsourcing project and the money involved (over a billion dollars in the business portfolio), the time Une for the solicitation was unheard of," Garrison remarks. "My estimate was that it should have taken 90 to 120 days for the total process, which would have included a preproposal conference."

Although Garrison initially submitted a customary time line for the solicitation, her dates were changed to the fast-paced schedule by two in-house DOE attorneys who also worked on the project. When Garrison voiced her concerns to a departmental head, the division's Purchasing and Contracts Director, she was told not to change the attorneys' time frame. In addition, this departmental head swore Garrison and her immediate supervisor to secrecy about the project.

Meanwhile, during the course of developing specifications for the project, Garrison learned that DOE officials were meeting with representatives from Sallie Mae, Inc., a large, nationwide provider of federallyguaranteed loans to college students. Florida law prohibits public agencies from discussing bid specifications with prospective vendors during preliminary phases of the bidding process.

In addition, the same DOE officials who held initial meetings with Sallie Mae were to be part of the evaluation team that selected the vendor. In conjunction with the project's expedited time frame, Garrison believed that the scales were tipped in favor of Sallie Mae, in violation of promoting fair and open competition among vendors.

To further confirm her suspicions, Garrison learned that Sallie Mae had placed advertisements in a local newspaper to recruit 24 new customer-service representatives and 25 data-entry workers. Hire dates of the new employees were very close to the contract award date of DOE's outsourcing project.

Documented problems

In efforts to protect herself from any legal issues surrounding the solicitation, Garrison took action. She asked and received permission from her departmental head to withdraw her name from the original solicitation and substitute the name of DOE's legal counsel representative.

Then, soon after the ITN was announced to vendors, DOE received a protest from an ex-State Attorney General and a public records request from the Tallahassee Democrat, the city's local newspaper. Additionally, written questions and concerns were received from vendors located in Indiana, Massachusetts and Wisconsin, as well as from Sallie Mae.

Immediately after receiving the protests and inquiries about the project, the head of DOE's General Counsel required an addendum to the solicitation, by which a purchaser's name would be reinstated as the contact person, rather than listing DOE's legal counsel.