Question

Your team continues its planning efforts for the Cascada Community Medical Center Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Expansion Project. As is required on projects using public funds, the request for proposal (RFP) documents have been issued, and you have scheduled a pre-bid conference for interested firms. This meeting is mandatory. Only proposals from firms who are represented at the pre-bid conference will be considered during the evaluation process. Your hope is that by answering questions before the bidding process, the proposal submission and evaluations will go more smoothly. Historically, you have heard that contractors have a lot of questions about what they can and cannot do as part of a proposal.

You've also been familiarizing yourself with different types of procurement improprieties that can occur during large projects that rely, even partially, on public funds.

Read: “Upholding the Public Trust"

The day of the pre-bid conference has arrived. Since there are a large number of participants, you elect to hold the meeting at a local hotel meeting room. Before the conference begins, people are chatting and having coffee. You head down a nearby corridor to find a quiet place where you can return a couple of calls on your cell phone. As you start dialing one of the numbers, you overhear a conversation in the hallway around the corner from you.

"Listen, Pete, you know that Cardigan Comprehensive really needs to win part of this bid," a deep male voice begins. "Typically the profit margins on health care related contracts are razor thin. In reading through the RFP, it looks like one of the most expensive parts of the project is supplying and installing the 3D printing equipment. We'd really appreciate it if you'd back away from that part of the project, or at least not be as aggressive with your pricing."

"What about a trade-off?" a second male voice asks. "You bid on only on the 3D printing equipment deliverables and not on the parking lot, landscaping and bridgework. We'll only bid on the parking, landscaping and bridgework deliverables.”

"It's a deal," the first voice replies. "There's no guarantee either of our companies will win these bids, but at least we'll have a fighting chance. Say, we'd better get into the meeting room, so we don't miss any of the discussion."

When you look around the corner, the men have already left. You know one of the speakers works for Cardigan Comprehensive, but you don't know who the other man is. You believe that the two men were talking about colluding during the bid process, but you recognize that you don't have any hard evidence.

Make and Support Your Decision

You must decide what to do about the conversation that you overheard. You decide to:

1. Remain silent about the conversation unless Cardigan Comprehensive wins the bid for the portion of the project to supply and install of the 3D printing equipment.

2. Immediately inform the bid evaluation team about what you heard and recommend that they carefully scrutinize any separate bids for the 3D printing equipment deliverables and the parking, landscaping and bridgework deliverables.

3. Immediately inform the bid evaluation team about what you heard and recommend that Cardigan Comprehensive be eliminated from the bidding process.

What to Submit

Once you've made your selection, write a one page memo to Ainsley Patel, who is head of the bid evaluation team for The Capital Management. Your memo must clearly identify which option you chose, justify your choice, and address reasons why the other options are not the best choice.

Answer 1

Date- 17th April 2020

From

Jaden Smith

Project Team

Cascada Community Medical Center Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Expansion Project.

To

Mr. Ainsley Patel

Head of the bid evaluation team

NEIT Capital Management.

Dear Mr. Patel,

Sub- A question of ethics in bidding for 3D printing.

I am writing to bring to your notice that the pre-bid conference involves ethical issues. As a project team member, it is my sole responsibility to alert you with the ethical issues and select the bidding parties fairly without any bias.

On the day of the pre-bid conference, I overheard a member of the Cardigan making a deal with another party to back away from the bidding of 3D printing equipment deliverables and the other member agreed on the condition that they don’t get involved in bidding for parking lot, landscaping and bridgework. This kind of agreement lessens the chances for other bidding parties who are ethical in their work. As part of the team, I believe that I am accountable to alert this unethical bidding practice to you.

I strongly recommend you to eliminate Cardigan Comprehensive from the bidding process immediately. If I had remained silent about the conversation unless Cardigan Comprehensive wins the bid for the portion of the project to supply and install of the 3D printing equipment, then the main purpose of the rehabilitation expansion project to provide enhanced care to the patients would not have been met. They might have priced their deliverables higher than their fair pricing rate which would have ended up with misusing the public funds.

Additionally, if we carefully scrutinize any separate bids for the 3D printing equipment deliverables and the parking, landscaping and bridgework deliverables, then we are providing space for Cardigan Comprehensive to threaten others to back away or make a deal with them. This would again lead to ethical challenges in choosing the right bidding party for the project.

I therefore suggest that the best option is to eliminate Cardigan Comprehensive from the bidding process to avoid any unfair practices.

Appreciate your immediate decision in this regards.

Thanking you,

Sincerely,

Jaden Smith.

Note- If you like the answer, please provide an up-vote as it would be quite encouraging for me. Thank you.