Pentagon mental health contract may have been written by vendors

Pentagon mental health contract may have been written by vendors

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/1003/103003h1.htm

An effort to provide mental health services to military service members is under fire due to concerns that the companies awarded the contract to deliver the services may have written significant portions of the contract.

In August, the General Services Administration, on behalf of the Defense Department, chose Titan Corp. to provide Employee Assistance Program (EAP) services for the military. The program is funded under supplemental appropriations for ongoing operations in Iraq.

<snip>

A draft copy of the request for proposals for this work, detailing the specific requirements contractors must meet, appears to have been at least partially written by a Ceridian employee. The file properties of the Microsoft Word electronic document, obtained by Government Executive, list as the author a person whose name matches that of a senior official in Ceridian's public sector division.

Other details in the electronic document indicate it was sent via e-mail to at least one other Ceridian employee with a subject line stating it was a draft request for proposals. But the document begins with a formal heading indicating it is being issued by GSA's Federal Technology Service (FTS), a fee-for-service unit that runs information technology procurements on behalf of other agencies. The document also features an order numbering system routinely used by GSA when putting work up for bid.

Letting a potential contractor write contract requirements could violate federal law, several procurement experts said. While it's not uncommon for an agency to ask multiple offerors to submit draft requirements, it would be inappropriate to only let one firm do so and to use its suggestions as the basis for a competition, they said.

"It raises a red flag," said Steven Kelman, the head of federal procurement policy in the Clinton administration. "It urges the idea of a second look."

<more>

I'm sure that's unrelated however. </sarcasm>

I usually check opensecrets.org to find out who is really benefitting, but failed to in this case.

Thanks for checking.

WOW