Ethics and Government Contracts - Research Paper Example

Ethics and government contracts School: Introduction In the past, many government workers have perpetuated ethical failures – intentionally orby association – which amounted to violations of the standards of conduct. Such cases are a major concern to the US government in general, the federal employees who have to counter the effects of the ethical failures and also the tax payers who pay for the irresponsible behaviors of others (Gray, Hellman & Ryterman, 2002). Many of the cases touching on ethical standards relate to criminal statutes, and in that line, this paper will explore three real cases involving contractual dealings where there were ethical failures. Discussion Case involving the abuse of power and position and bribery In one particular case, a military service captain exploited his authority and position as a reservist to secure government contracts for some private sector companies, which he was affiliated to. Additionally, the captain – working as a government official – accepted kickbacks from one of the companies, as compensation for helping it to secure government work contract. Following the discovery of his ethical failure, the officer was required to retire, while still at the grade of a commander, despite the fact he had already been endorsed for promotion to the rank of an admiral. Apart from the withdrawal of the promotion, the officer was debarred for a period of one year. On the other hand, two of the companies that he had facilitated the reception of government contracts signed 3-year administrative agreements with the military services. The misconduct surrounding the unethical incidence evidenced through the case was that of abusing office and accepting bribes (Gray, Hellman & Ryterman, 2002). Thee misconducts are evidenced by the facts that the officer used his office as a reservist to solicit the contractual work assigned to the companies he was affiliated to. The behavior of acting on behalf of the companies – in a case where he should have been impartial and transparent – showed misconduct on his part. The second misconduct is evidenced by the act of receiving a bribe from one of the companies, as compensation for the role of facilitating the reception of the government contract awarded (Gray, Hellman & Ryterman, 2002). The standard policies and the code of ethics related to government contracting is adequate, and is sufficient for the management of the different areas covered by government contracting, including that the ethics philosophy is built around trustworthiness and honestly, which are mediated through successful personal and professional relationships. Further, the areas emphasized include integrity, full and timely disclosure, the elimination of personal interest that can challenge professional interests and the confidentiality of contractual information. From the particular areas breached, which are covered by the code of ethics include the violation of procurement integrity covered under Procurement Integrity Violations 41 U.S.C. 423 caption. The second area of violation is related to bribery and is covered under Bribery and Gratuities – 10 U.S.C. 2207 caption. The violations on the individuals/ groups involved include that competing companies, which were contesting for the same contracts offered inappropriately to the companies were disadvantaged from the allocation of the contracts. The weakness of the oversight organizations, including the military service included that the measures set to ensure that contracts are accorded appropriately was not adhered to (Tendler, 1997). For example, the contract awarding process should have been highly transparent and verifiable, to the extent that it did not allow for the inappropriate allocation of the contracts in question. The consequences felt by the firm included that the captain was debarred for a year, and the military service endorsed administrative agreements with two of the companies in question. Lack of contract awarding integrity The case involved Timbol, who while working as the facilities services officer for the US Tax court facilitated the allocation of contracts to companies inappropriately. The companies offered the contracts included those offering the service of construction and maintenance among other services to the court. During the process of allocating and awarding the contracts, Timbol accepted USD 12,000 from a government contractor, so that he could tamper with the contract awarding of six contracts; the amounts for the contracts were also inflated. The misconduct surrounding the unethical allocation of the contracts included those related to the acceptance of a bribe of USD 12,000, where Timbol acknowledged the collection of the money, so as to facilitate the inappropriate allocation of the contracts to a government contractor. The second misconduct was that of facilitating the inflation of the amounts noted in the contracts and throughout the process of allocation to the preferred contractor. The behaviour amounted to a conspiracy to defraud the courts, and to allocate the contracts inappropriately. The standard policies and procedures cover the allocation of such contracts, including that the procurement integrity clause of the Procurement Integrity Violations 41 U.S.C. 423 prohibits the giving of gratuities, in order to influence the allocation of contractual information. Secondly, the antitrust caption covered under Antitrust Violations – 10 U.S.C. 2305 requires prohibits price fixing, restraining of the competition and collusion in the awarding of contracts. Thirdly, the case is also covered by the bribery and gratuities caption covered under Bribery and Gratuities 10 U.S.C. 2207, requiring that public officials should not collect money or any other items of values from other parties. The violations on the individual included that the other companies seeking the contracts could not get them, because the collusion had restrained the contract awarding process. The case evidences the contract allocation weaknesses of the US Tax court, mainly because its contract allocation process should not have provided the loop holes for the awarding of the contracts to preferred candidates and also the inflation of the contract amounts. The consequences on Timbol included that he received a sentence of 18 months imprisonment and supervised release for three years. The consequences felt by the US tax Court include that the contract awarding process was tightened and made more solid (Menzel, 1996). Bribery-related misconduct A civilian engineer working at the Naval Air Station in Texas, under the assignment of the Public Works Department made a recommendation for a contract worth USD 153,000. Prior to making the recommendation, the company had agreed to pay him USD 5000 for the recommendation, after the civilian engineer requested for the same. After the malpractice was discovered, the civilian engineer was debarred by the Navy for 3 years and was also forced to leave the federal service. The misconduct surrounding the unethical incidences in the awarding of the contract included that the civilian engineer had colluded with the company seeking the contract, seeking preference for the contract in question (Anechiarico & Jacobs, 1996). Secondly, the civilian had received a bribe, in order to endorse and recommend the company, and that had led to the awarding of the contract to the particular company. The standard policies instituted to cover the area are sufficient for government contradicting. In particular, the policies that suit the particular case include those on the bribery clause covered by Bribery and Gratuities – 10 U.S.C. 2207, which prohibits the offering of bribes in whatever form. The same case is also adequately covered by the personal conflict of interest clause covered under Personal Conflict of Interest 18 U.S.C. 201. The violations on the other companies seeking the contract include that they were disadvantaged by the agreement involving collusion, which led to the allocation of the contract to the company in question, inappropriately. The weakness of the Navy Air Station was that it did not engage the contract awarding process adequately, to ensure that there were no preferred candidates and that the awarding process was transparent (Myrdal, 2005). The consequences felt by the firm included that the contract-awarding process and modalities were subjected to scrutiny, which was not favorable for its reputation. The consequences felt by the civilian technician included that he was debarred for 3 years and he also left federal service. Conclusion Government workers have perpetuated ethical failures, many of which have amounted to violations of the standards of conduct. This paper explored three cases related to government contracting, exposing the misconducts, the standard policies related to the cases and the violations involved. From the case involving the abuse of power and bribery, the captain used his position to secure bribes and to facilitate the awarding of the contracts. From the second case, the standard policies involved include the antitrust violation, and in the third case, the consequences felt by the civilian included that they were debarred for three years. References Anechiarico, F., & Jacobs, J. (1996). The Pursuit of Absolute Integrity: How Corruption Control Makes Government Ineffective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gray, C., Hellman, J., & Ryterman, R. (2002). Anticorruption in Transition 2: Corruption in Enterprise-State Interactions in Europe and Central Asia 1999-2002. Washington: The World Bank. Menzel, D. (1996). Ethics Complaint Making and Trustworthy Government. Public Integrity Annual. Kentucky: Lexington. Myrdal, G. (2005). Corruption as a Hindrance to Modernization in South Asia, in A. Heidenheimer and M. Johnston (eds.), Political Corruption: Concepts and Contexts (3rd Ed). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Tendler, J. (1997). Good Government in the Tropics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Read More