, , ,

Musk to address US government spending – what fun awaits!

In the legendary Philip Green review of 2010, the new UK Prime Minister David Cameron asked the retail entrepreneur to take a look at government procurement. Some years later, the rumour spread that Cameron actually wanted the Philip Green who was CEO of United Utilities (and later chairman of Carillion when it went under) to carry out the work – but his staff asked the wrong Philip Green!

Anyway, the TopShop leader looked at government procurement and came up with stunning recommendations – data was poor, buyers paid different prices and government should centralise more. All the usual stuff. He also invited some senior civil servants to his private suite at a 5-star hotel in order to complain to them that some government staff were spending £100 a night on hotel rooms in London…

The other rumour was that his final report was so unprofessional, another bunch of civil servants had to rush off and convert it into something presentable at the last minute before his presentation to Cameron. You can still see it now here, and it is pretty shoddy work. This sort of thing: “We found the following variations in price for laptops: Highest price: £2,000 Lowest price: £353 Differential: 82%.”

So might they have been different laptops, I wonder?  There was no mention of specifications here.  His solution was “government should buy direct from a multinational manufacturer’. Well, yes, that should do it.  And London hotel costs varied from £77 a night to £117.  Shocking!  He suggested mandating video conferencing.

To be fair, Crown Commercial Services and others in government procurement have got better at looking at markets and choosing the best procurement option and of course Green was correct to point out some failings.

But all this came to mind on reading that Elon Musk has been appointed to lead a new ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ in the US.  This will be the immovable object of US government procurement process and regulation against the unstoppable force of Elon Musk’s ego and self-regard. It has the potential to be hilarious (if you’re not too close to it, anyway).

Trump said in a statement that Musk and co-leader Vivek Ramaswamy (another entrepreneur and previous Presidential candidate who has some VERY odd views) “will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.”  The new body won’t be a government agency but will ‘create an entrepreneurial approach to government never seen before’. Their appointment is only until July 2026, which is also interesting, as it means everyone knows they only have to resist the duo for 18 months and they will be gone …

How will this play out for Musk and his mate? To begin with, lots of people are no doubt pouring over the detail of every contract he has ever signed with government, in SpaceX or elsewhere, looking for ‘inefficiencies’.  They will find that ‘waste and fraud’ exists but is much harder to root out than they think.

In the procurement space, then they will come up against all the usual barriers to saving money quickly, including long-term contracts that can’t just be re-negotiated, the need to run lengthy competitive processes or get sued by annoyed potential suppliers, lack of skills and resource in government procurement… and if he brings in external support to help (the Department has no staff currently), he’ll get castigated for ‘wasting money’ on consultants.  

So for instance he could reduce the ‘bureaucracy’ of procurement by getting rid of all the rules and processes around supporting smaller or minority-owned firms. But the biggest group that benefits from that in the US is probably military veterans, so presumably that wouldn’t go down well with Trump supporters.

He could cut through the regulations and give buyers more discretion, or even allow more non-competitive procurement processes. But for every supplier that benefits from a direct-award type contract, there are usually several who don’t like it. Watch out for a boom in legal challenges if this is a route he takes.

He might genuinely save money by simply stopping spend in certain areas. No new laptops or  consultancy contracts for the next 12 months, that sort of thing. That works, until another Trump favourite complains to the President that they can’t implement their new policies because they can’t engage McKinsey to help. Or buy a laptop.

Anyway, maybe I’ll be surprised and the two of them will turn out to be thoughtful, innovative and effective reformers of US government spending / acquisition / procurement. It’s going to be ‘fun’ watching from afar, anyway.

/by
, ,

HOW MUCH for a soap dispenser??

Stories about apparently grotesque over-payment by public bodies for mundane items is always good for a headline or two. We saw that back in the days of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the UK, with reports that schools or hospitals were having to pay hundreds of pounds to get their maintenance provider to carry out minor tasks. During the National Audit Office’s 2011 investigation into PFI it was revealed one school paid £333 to have a lightbulb changed.  That was often down to very badly constructed contracts, with suppliers expecting to make most of their money from ongoing service charges of that nature rather than from the initial financing and construction. 

In the USA, it often seemed to be military spend where costs were dis-proportionate; the famous ‘$435 hammer’ back in the 1980s, for instance. Now there is another example hitting the media this week. A new report from the Defense Department inspector general accuses aerospace and military giant Boeing of massive overcharging.  The contract with the US Air Force allows Boeing to buy the required spare parts for the C‑17 military transport aircraft, and the Air Force reimburses Boeing for those purchases, according to the report. About 220 C-17s are used by the Air Force, Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve Command. 

But overcharging accusations covered around a dozen spare parts (which does not seem many, to be honest). The much-quoted example was soap dispensers used in the bathrooms of C-17 military aircraft, where the overcharge was estimated at 7,943%. So the dispensers were charged at some 80 times the price of similar commercially available products.

“The Air Force needs to establish and implement more effective internal controls to help prevent overpaying for spare parts for the remainder of this contract, which continues through 2031,” said Defense Department Inspector General Robert Storch in a statement. 

Boeing has issued a holding response, saying they are reviewing the report, “which appears to be based on an inapt comparison of the prices paid for parts that meet aircraft and contract specifications and designs versus basic commercial items that would not be qualified or approved for use on the C-17″.

This is often the truth behind these stories. The specification for special ‘military’ items turns out to be significantly different to the apparent equivalents we might pick up in Walmart or on Amazon. However, that often means that it is a different type of Bad Buying that is taking place. It may not be a rip-off by the supplier, combined with poor scrutiny and contract management by the buyer. It may actually point to a poor specification.

So why exactly would a basic commercial soap dispenser not be fine for a cargo plane? Its not as if they fly at the speed of sound or anything.  In fact, do you really need a dispenser that needs to be cleaned, refilled and so on, at all? Why not a simple bar of soap?  The military and indeed some other public bodies do have a history of over-specifying, sometimes without realising just how much that can add to the costs.

It’s worth remembering that an industry-standard specification, or something that is readily available, perhaps even an item sold to consumer buyers, is almost always a lot better value than something we design and specify ourselves. If the most fundamental way of saving money is just  by saying “don’t buy it”, the next best and most basic route is to say, “buy something simple”.

/1 Comment/by
, ,

Manipulating the specification for procurement fraud

One of the more creative ways of committing procurement-related fraud is by the manipulation of specifications. It requires a little more skill than simply bribing a decision maker to choose your firm  or over-invoicing a client and hoping no-one notices, but it can be very effective.  The basic approach is that during the process to select a supplier or suppliers, a key person or people in the buying organisation make sure the specification favours strongly one particular supplier that they want to win the contract.

It is by definition a fraud that requires internal involvement, although often the supplier that wins the contract will be aware of it. Indeed, usually the supplier will be paying some sort of bribe or ‘thankyou’ to their internal accomplice(s). But sometimes, the supplier who benefits is not aware of what is going on, and sometimes the internal protagonist might not even get anything personally out of it. They may even feel they are doing the right thing for the organisation – “I know that Smith and Co are the best firm to do this consulting work, so I just want to make sure nothing goes wrong in the procurement process and they do win it”.

But I would argue this is still corruption if the specification is maniplated away from what would be the ‘best’ for the buying organistion, even if that is ‘just’ corruption of the process rather than corruption for personal gain. Bidding firms often spot this. They will read a specification and think “that has been written to favour our main competitor”.  Often they don’t bid on that basis, and the level of competition is reduced.  There have been many allegations of this practice in the defence sector for example over the years, and this is from the Bad Buying book.

‘One case where corruption was allegedly involved is the long-running saga of the Indian government helicopter contract with AgustaWestland, worth some $466 million. India terminated the contract after accusations that the firm – owned by Finmeccanica of Italy – bribed officials. The Indian government said in 2014 they “terminated with immediate effect the agreement that was signed with AgustaWestland International Ltd (AWIL) on 8 February 2010 for the supply of 12 VVIP/VIP helicopters on grounds of breach of the pre-contract integrity pact and the agreement by AWIL.”

The allegations surrounded manipulation of the specifications, with suggestions that the company had used middle-men to bribe Indian officials to win the 2010 contract. The allegation was that a defence ministry specification insisting its new helicopters should be capable of flying at 6,000 metres altitude was cut to benefit AgustaWestland’.

Actually one of the worst examples I saw of this was when a consultant was repeatedly used by local authorities to help develop the specification for a particular fairly specialist service – he often worked on the procurement as well. Oddly enough, his specifications always seemed to favour one particular supplier, the same one that the consultant regularly worked for in the periods between his work on the buy-side! All the other suppliers knew this and generally didn’t bother bidding if they saw he was involved with the procurement.

Another interesting example popped up recently. The State of Oklahoma in the USA decided to give all its schoolkids a copy of the Bible. But rather oddly, the specification included the requirement that the bible must also include certain US historical documents, such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Funnily enough, the only version of the Bible that has these additions is what is known as the “God bless the USA bible”, produced with the endorsement of Donald Trump for which he gets a cut of the revenue. It’s a luxury item, bound in leather and sells for the ridiculous amount of $60. A standard bible can be acquired for a fraction of that.

Critics alleged that Oklahoma leaders are keen Trump supporters and deliberately manipulated the specification. However, whether or not that was true, there was good news this week. The state amended its request for 55,000 school Bibles, so other versions can be state approved. The request was altered, removing some of those onerous requirements, a victory for “good buying”!  

So remember how important a good and fair specification is, and if you want a strong competition, try and make sure it isn’t too obviously tilted in favour of one bidder. Unless you want it to be, of course …

(Footnote – you might expect me as a Humanist to be against forcing kids to read the Bible. But actually, I cannot think of anything more likely to make young people feel negative about religion and maybe help them make up their own minds about their beliefs and how they want to live their lives!)

/by
, , ,

What Happened to Ethics, we ask “Professional” Services Providers!

Bad buying obviously covers every potentially sector and category, but I have had a long interest in professional services spend and procurement for many years, including as co-author of “Buying Professional Services”, my first published book.

A couple of recent stories highlighted that although most of the people working in that sector are highly educated and intelligent, they can still behave just as badly and even illegally as any petty criminal.

The first story was about a survey of lawyers run by the “rolllonfriday” website, anonymous of course given that 35.5% of the respondents admitted that at some point they have been guilty of adding time that hadn’t been incurred to their time sheets (which then means the invoices to clients are also inappropriately inflated). As the report said,

Thirteen percent admitted they did it regularly, 12.6% confessed to being “occasionally” culpable, while around 10% said it was something they had done, albeit “rarely”. 

Well, that probably won’t come as any surprise to most of us, but it was interesting to see our suspicions as cynical buyers confirmed. It reinforces the view that whenever possible, engaging professional service providers on some sort of fixed fee, outcome, output or success based basis is better than a simple “time and materials “ hourly or daily rate.

However, it can be difficult in the world of law, because we often don’t know just how much work will arise from a particular assignment, particularly if other parties are involved (litigation for instance). So it is hard for the parties to arrive at a sensible view of risk, which you need in order to agree a fair fixed price.

You should always look for where you can define some sort of clear work package and agree a price for that, but one thing buyers can also do is challenge their provider if bills look “padded”.  Many people feel nervous about actually digging into a statement and saying to their lawyer, “so did you really spend 30 minutes on that two-line email”?

Now they are unlikely to immediately back down and reduce that bill, but next time, they might just think “perhaps I’ll just put 20 minutes for this email” because they know you will challenge. So don’t be scared to be a nuisance and analyse billing carefully.

The second piece of news was even more shocking. Consulting and auditing firm KPMG was fined  in  the Netherlands for endemic cheating around professional examinations taken by their staff. As the Times reported, “The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States found that between 2017 and 2022 hundreds of KPMG workers in the Netherlands, including senior partners and managers, had shared questions and answers with one another. This included for exams that they had to sit to test their understanding of professional ethics”.

Cheating on an ethics test! You have to laugh really. But I don’t understand why it is the US regulator doing the fining though rather than the Dutch equivalent.  

To make it worse, KPMG lied to the investigators, saying they knew nothing at senior levels about the answer sharing – but it turned out two board members had indulged in these activities themselves! A $150,000 fine was also imposed on Marc Hogeboom, who used to run KPMG’s Dutch audit division, and he was banned for life from working for any firm that audits American public companies.

These people are auditing public companies and giving investors confidence (or otherwise) in those businesses – so having the right skills and training is critical beyond just KPMG’s own operations. The cheating means there may be incompetent people doing important work, which is not a good thought, and of course it means buyers have paid for people whose qualifications (which largely determine the level of fee paid) were bogus. Maybe some big clients should sue the firm now.

It seems that it isn’t the first time this has happened and KPMG is not the only firm that has transgressed. Last week the American regulator also fined Deloitte’s businesses in the Philippines and Indonesia $1 million each for answer-sharing on professional tests. And two years ago EY was fined $100 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, because a “significant number” of its American auditors cheated on the ethics component of their Certified Public Accountant exams.

The lack of ethics and morals of those involved is quite shocking for supposed “professionals”. Whilst the latest fine was substantial, it does not seem to be enough really to reflect the seriousness of the crime. I think it would have been appropriate to ban KPMG from all audit work in the Netherlands for a few years. I also think maybe a few jail sentences for the most senior people involved might have made others sit up and take notice.

So the advice to procurement people is this. As with the lawyers, don’t necessarily believe everything your consultants or auditors tell you, or everything they put on the invoice, just because you think they are ethical and trustworthy professionals. Not all seem to fit that description.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

US Government Takes Down Procurement Fraudster

This story from the Homeland Security Today website dates from a couple of months ago, but it is an interesting procurement fraud case, as it does not involve any internal participants – it is a purely supplier-based fraud. Whilst that is certainly far from unique, it is probably not as common as those driven by internal staff or through collusion between internal and external players.

In this case, Cory Collin Fitzgerald Sanders, age 39, of Hagerstown, Maryland, was sentenced to 45 months in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release, for wire fraud, false claims, and making and using a false document in connection with his companies’ performance on federal contracts. He also had to pay around $200,000 in fines and restitution.

The offences related to his two telecoms firms between 2015 and 2020.  The charges were pretty wide ranging but generally related to contracts with federal agencies that required his firms, Sandtech or Cycorp Technologies, to provide new telecommunications equipment which was still under manufacturers’ warranty. 

He contracted to supply new equipment, but then actually provided second hand, or non-warranted equipment instead. He claimed to have accreditation from the OEMs (original manufacturers) that would protect his customers when in fact he didn’t. He also was not authorized to provide certain IT services to the federal government, but represented to government officials that he was. It sounds like he invoiced in a fraudulent manner too, getting the agencies to pay for “deficient or non-existent performance”.

“Mr. Sanders deserves to be held fully accountable for his actions to defraud the U.S. Government by routinely providing telecommunications equipment that did not meet contract specifications and submitting false documentation in an attempt to cover up his scheme,” said Special Agent in Charge Greg Gross. 

The US government does seem pretty hot on prosecuting dodgy suppliers, more so than I’ve seen generally in the UK, for instance. In this case, a prison sentence of 45 months again feels more severe than “white collar criminals” tend to get in the UK. That’s a good disincentive for others who might be tempted to commit fraud, of course.

So what can procurement people and others do to protect their organisations against this sort of fraud? There are a few potential risk mitigation steps.  Firstly, checking out the credentials of any new supplier (and their directors) is important. And take up references wherever possible. Maybe that would not have stopped Sanders – but it certainly makes it harder to create new firms for fraudulent purposes.

Another obvious point is that goods delivered, whatever they are, should be checked to make sure they align with what was contracted for. And don’t assume that any accreditations and certifications are genuine – documents and emails can be forged. It is better to go back to the source if you can  – you could go back down the supply chain and check with the OEM that a distributor really is properly accredited, for instance.

So the usual safeguards against procurement fraud come into play again – and you can get the full list of mitigating actions and plenty of good advice on avoiding fraud and corruption in the Bad Buying book of course!

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

Babylon’s Burning… the Story of the Failed “AI” Health App

The Sunday Times has really got into its investigations recently, and after its excellent expose of the UK’s HS2 rail programme, last week it looked at another issue with a definite “Bad Buying” angle.

Babylon Health, set up in 2013, was going to revolutionise healthcare. Ali Parsa, the founder, is a serial entrepreneur whose previous venture, Circle Holdings, also had some issues (he stepped down from Circle before he set up Babylon). Circle ran Hinchingbrooke Hospital in England, the first fully outsourced hospital. Initially, it seemed to go well, and Parsa was a highly visible cheerleader for the operation, but after a couple of years, Circle pulled out leaving the NHS to pick up the pieces.

But with Babylon, Parsa seemed to have a real product that could benefit everybody. It was an AI powered diagnostic platform that could tell you what health problem you had after a short online consultation. The “app” scored better than doctors on medical tests, Parsa claimed, and could provide excellent diagnosis and care at a fraction of the current cost. For the permanently hard up health services in the UK and US, it seemed too good to be true – and of course it was. However, Parsa used political connections to win business, as the Times reported. Between 2015 and 2022, the company had 22 meetings with government ministers.

“Babylon’s deals with the NHS, which saw it receive at least £22 million over the past three years alone and helped it to woo investors, were in part due its links with the Conservative Party and the backing of Hancock, the health secretary from 2018 to 2021. The Tories received more than £250,000 in donations from individuals and companies with stakes in Babylon Healthcare, including Hancock, whose failed Tory leadership bid in 2019 received £10,000.”

However, the newspaper’s investigation found high-pressure sales techniques and some claims for the product that were simply false. For example, at the Royal College of Physicians in 2018, Parsa showed how Babylon’s AI used a phone’s camera to analyse the facial expression of a female patient to pick up subtle cues that a doctor might miss. This is how the Times describes it.

“This is a real consultation,” Parsa said on stage. “This is what we have built. None of this is a show.”

It was a show. The facial-analysis tool, a prop for a demo, never made it to market. The “patient” in the video was an executive assistant at Babylon… This sleight of hand was a small example of a culture fixated on form over substance, a trait common in Silicon Valley but dangerous in healthcare.” 

Indeed, the much vaunted AI was little more than a decision tree written in Excel based on doctors’ knowledge. Soon, sceptics began testing it and found that it could easily mistake a heart attack for a less serious panic attack, or an ingrowing toenail for gout. I remember various people on Twitter talking about how dangerous it was and calling out Babylon as a con.

But the firm managed to raise $1.2 billion from investors between 2013 and a stock market float in 2021, and at one point Babylon was valued at some $4.2 billion. But after that float, some badly judged deals started affecting the firm’s finances, just as more expert voices also pointed out the technical failings. For instance, the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust signed a ten-year deal for a digital-first GP service that would allow patients to use Babylon’s digital tools. But Babylon cancelled the contract in 2022, saying it just could not afford to invest in the service.

Finally in August this year, the firm collapsed into administration and the remnants were picked up by a couple of trade buyers. Parsa has pretty much disappeared, as has most of his own fortune.

It all reminds me a little of the Theranos scandal – the fake blood testing equipment launched by Elizbeth Holmes (who is now in a US jail). Babylon was not as fake as that, and Parsa is not accused of wrongdoing, but the principal of something that everyone wanted to work, but really was built on sand, is the same. And there is also FOMO – the “fear of missing out”. This is an extract from the Bad Buying book section on Theranos.

“Buying failure come into this because retailer Walgreen’s spent $140 million with Theranos over seven years, hosting around 40 blood-testing centres in their stores. They got very little benefit from that and recovered some $30 million after a lawsuit and settlement following the eventual disclosure of the issues.  Amazingly, as Bad Blood reports, Walgreens’s own laboratory consultant, Kevin Hunter, had seen early on that something wasn’t right with Theranos. But the executive in charge of the programme at Walgreen’s said that the firm should pursue the pilot because of the risk that CVS, their big competitor, would beat them to a Theranos deal.

Again, buyers wanted to believe that something was real, even in the face of mounting evidence that it wasn’t. This relates back to comments around believing the supplier … it is easy for a naïve or gullible buyer to be sucked into believing what the supplier wants them to believe.

Suppliers will take advantage of this tendency – whether it is the relatively innocent “yes, we can install this new IT system in six months” or the more dangerous “this equipment will find hidden bombs”.  And FOMO – the fear of missing out to the competition – is something else suppliers will use, and that can lead to bad decisions.  It’s not just physical goods either. The top consulting firm selling its latest “strategy toolkit” will mention that the potential client’s biggest rival is also very interested”.

One day, there is little doubt that a real AI-powered system will be really useful in the world of medical diagnoses. So maybe Parsa was just ahead of his time?  But that is two of his “innovative” businesses that have cost health services time and money without much benefit in return. So I’d be very careful next time he announces he has a great idea…

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Always Check Those Invoices!

The US Government Department of Justice recently issued a news release.  

“Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation has agreed to pay the United States $377,453,150 to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by improperly billing commercial and international costs to its government contracts. Booz Allen, which is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, provides a range of management, consulting, and engineering services to the Government, as well as commercial and international customers”.

I do love the precision of the final $150 on that number! Couldn’t they have rounded it slightly?

The accusation was that between 2011 and 2021, the consulting firm charged costs to its government contracts and subcontracts that should instead have been billed to its commercial and international contracts. That particularly applied to some indirect costs. So the government was allegedly paying for activities and services that had nothing to do with the work the firm was actually doing for government organisations.

Now allocating overheads can be a tricky issue, as many of us know. And Booz Allen issued a statement, as you might expect.

“Booz Allen has always believed it acted lawfully and responsibly. It decided to settle this civil inquiry for pragmatic business reasons to avoid the delay, uncertainty, and expense of protracted litigation. The company did not want to engage in what likely would have been a years-long court fight with its largest client, the U.S. government, on an immensely complex matter. The company fully cooperated with the government and is pleased to move forward.”

So there is no admitting liability or guilt here. I can understand why the firm does not want a long, expensive fight – on the other hand, if you were 100% sure of your position, many firms would choose to take it further rather than handing over quite such a large amount of cash.

The most amazing element of this story is this. The investigation was sparked by a whistleblower, a former Booz Allen employee, Sarah Feinberg, who tipped off the authorities about the alleged misconduct from 2011 to 2021. And now she will receive no less than $69,828,832 as a thanks (it’s that precision again…)  

$69.8 million!  Good grief, I’m going to have a good think now about every firm I’ve ever worked for and whether they might have done anything “naughty” in their dealings with the US government …  

The moral of thee story is simple. Check your billing from professional service firms. I once took on a senior interim commercial/procurement role in government with an organisation that had around 100 consultants from one firm working on its major programme. That was £500K A WEEK we were paying this firm (it better be nameless…)  

I took a look at the invoices – incredibly there was no contract manager for this contract – and found that amongst other things, we were being billed for the senior partner’s assistant. The partner was only working about a day a week on our project, but we appeared to be paying a grand a day, every day, for his PA. We were also billed for the whole day for the whole team when I knew they had stopped work at lunchtime for their office Christmas Party! “An unfortunate error” I was told.  I saved £50K with one phone call there…

Of course, if you can structure any professional services assignment on a fixed price basis, most of these issues are avoided. That approach is usually – although not always – better for the buyer and actually arguably for the provider too. That is another question in this Booz Allen example. Why was so much government work being done on what sounds like a pretty loose “time and materials” basis?

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Support to Disadvantaged Suppliers Attracts Fraudsters

Programmes to support minority owned businesses, smaller firms, social enterprises and the like via public sector procurement have become increasingly popular over recent years in many countries. The Social Value Act in the UK in 2012 made this sort of action more prevalent in the UK, but the USA is probably where such schemes are longest established.

However, the irony is that the more successful such programmes are in terms of actually directing spend towards such suppliers, the greater the temptation for fraud and corruption to spring up. Genuine firms that need support might lose out to unscrupulous criminals and conmen/women.

One mechanism for that is basically using what we might call “non-value for money” evaluation criteria to award contracts to a supplier that doesn’t really deserve them. That can lead to distortion in the selection of winning bidders. “This firm’s bid wasn’t the cheapest but they are a small firm / owned by a women / promise to employ lots of disabled local people. That gave them lots of marks for “social value” in the bid evaluation”.  What isn’t made public is that the firm is also owned by the budget holder or decision maker’s sister-in-law.

The other quite common fraud is where a firm is apparently owned by a person or people who qualify as a “minority” but in fact, control rests with non-minority owners. We have seen that a lot in the USA and also in countries such as South Africa which have had schemes to give preference to black-owned businesses in public procurement.  I gave several examples of this in the Bad Buying book from both of those countries.

But this is still going on – a recent report in the Chicago Tribune highlighted a current case. It is not clear yet which of those two mechanisms is suspected here; is it disguised ownership or the use of minority programmes to favour a firm for improper reasons?  But federal prosecutors are “investigating possible minority-contracting fraud involving a series of Chicago government contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, including many with ties to a clout-heavy trucking and recycling company owner, according to sources and documents obtained by the Tribune”.

James Bracken and his wide Kelly own several companies engaged in construction, waste management and transportation. Investigators have asked city agencies for copies of bid documents and more relating to several contracts and for information relating to the city’s women and minority owned “set aside” programmes.

The programmes started in 1990 with the aim of awarding at least 25% of the total value of all city contracts to minority businesses and 5% to women-owned operations. But there have been accusations of fraud from the beginning. Company owners, chasing multimillion-dollar contracts, have put up phony “frontpeople” to get certified as minority or women-owned. Another route is to claim that a high percentage of work will got to minority subcontractors. In my experience, that is the sort of claim that rarely gets checked once a contract is operational!

A lot of this comes down to procurement carrying out the appropriate due diligence and checking out firms at the bidding stage, managing contracts well once they are operational, and of course keeping an eye out for conflicts of interest and other potential drivers of corruption. It is a constant battle between the forces of good (procurement, usually) and evil (certain dodgy potential suppliers and general low-life scum!)

/0 Comments/by
, ,

An Interesting Fraud – – Maybe Bad Supplying Rather then Bad Buying?

There are a number of very common procurement frauds; well covered of course in the Bad Buying book.  “Inside jobs” based around a corrupt employee take a number of forms but often consist of someone internal diverting spend to fake companies that they control or have a stake in, or to companies that are paying them a bribe. Fraud from outsiders often means submission of fake invoices, or diverting invoice payments away from genuine suppliers to the fraudster.  However, most frauds could be prevented by some sensible and standard policies and processes.   

So having collected examples of fraud and corruption in a fairly serious manner for over a decade now, it is rare for me to see a new variant. But a recent case in the US was quite unusual, in that it was based on buyer impersonation, which we don’t see very often. I’m sure it has happened before, but this was certainly not a common or garden case. Indeed, it was quite impressive in a way, with the fraudster showing impressive attention to detail, and a good understanding of how procurement works. And the failing was not actually with procurement policy or people; it was the suppliers who were conned and whose processes let them down.

Fatade Idowu Olamilekan,  a citizen of Nigeria, was extradited from Nigeria to the US (with good cooperation between the authorities in each county) and recently sentenced to five years in prison in the US in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain and attempt to obtain millions of dollars.

From 2018 to 2020 he obtained details of various procurement executives in the US government sector. In particular, during the pandemic, he impersonated the Chief Procurement Officer of New York State to fraudulently obtain medical equipment, including defibrillators.  He set up email addresses that were as close as possible to the correct ones for the relevant people and organisations. He then contacted suppliers, principally those already working with New York, and said he was looking for quotes for items.

After they submitted quotes, he told the suppliers that they had been successful and won the contract, and issued them with fake purchase orders (POs). The goods were to be delivered to warehouses that he nominated, and from there he shipped them to locations in the UK, Australia and Nigeria.  The payment terms on the POs was 30 days, which is pretty standard, so didn’t raise any alarms. But of course that gave him 30 days to move the goods somewhere else once they were delivered, before the supplier started looking for their money. Presumably, when their cash didn’t arrive, the supplying firm eventually got through to the real buyer, who would then explain that they knew nothing about this order.

All very clever, although getting goods rather than direct cash via a fraud leaves you with the problem of disposing of the stolen goods. Criminals rarely get anything like the real value of their ill-gotten gains (so the bloke in the pub trying to flog me a laptop said).  So that’s a downside of this type of activity. 

Whilst this wasn’t really a very hi-tech fraud, it does raise some interesting questions as we move into the AI world.  A single phone call from the supplier and conversation with a real procurement manager from New York would have put an end to this within minutes.  So as transactions and even sourcing processes become more and more automated, you can imagine a situation where a clever fraudster uses a fake AI bot to place orders, which will then be processed by the suppliers’ AI powered bots. How long would it be before the supplier bot realises it has been conned?

This is not something I’ve thought about too much, but as we enter the ChatGPT era, there’s going to be a whole new world of Bad Buying fraud and corruption to think about and look out for!

/0 Comments/by
, ,

What’s Wrong with the Auditing Market?

The consultancy group PwC was hit recently with a £7.5m fine over a string of errors while auditing the engineering company Babcock’s accounts, including creating a false record of documents for a sensitive government contract.

In one case, there was no evidence that PwC’s audit team had actually bothered to review a 30-year-contract worth up to £3bn, and in another, the team (none of whom spoke French) had failed to check a €640m (£570m) contract written entirely in French.  There was no evidence PwC tried to translate the documents to confirm the terms of the deal.  PwC’s auditors were also found to have “created a false record” of the audit evidence they had actually gathered in relation to a sensitive government contract.

Yet profit per partner for PWC last year was £920K  Are audit partners in the big firms really worth best part of a million a year? They are not entrepreneurs who have built a business, or indeed CEOs running a major organisation. And it’s not just PWC – KPMG was fined £14.4 million last year for its failings in the audit of Carillion, the construction firm that went bust in 2017. Second-tier firm Grant Thornton messed up over the Patisserie Valerie audit, after the firm collapsed because of alleged internal fraud in 2019.

Meanwhile in the US, Ernst & Young LLP (EY) EY got a massive $100 million fine from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and agreed to various measures to address ethical issues. The firm was charged for “cheating by its audit professionals on exams required to obtain and maintain Certified Public Accountant (CPA) licenses, and for withholding evidence of this misconduct from the SEC’s Enforcement Division during the Division’s investigation of the matter.”

What is wrong with auditors?  You would think in a well-functioning market, firms that behaved like this would fail and be replaced by better players.   But this is an oligopoly, and the barriers to entry are huge, and perhaps insurmountable. Ironically, the more rules and governance imposed by governments on auditors, then the harder it is for new market entrants to break in – we haven’t seen a significant new player really during my entire working life. The “switching costs” are high for clients too, and the big firms build very close relationships with senior corporate executives which helps to reduce the chance of competition.

The end result is that clients are paying too much, and often not getting good work in return. Although professional procurement involvement in buying these services has increased somewhat in recent years, frankly that does not seem to have had much impact. 

Close to home for me, the Surrey Heath Council accounts for 2019/20 are still in draft form and have not been signed off by the auditor, BDO.  In an election leaflet pushed through our door the other day, the ruling Conservatives say this – “FACT: Our accounts are ready but our auditors BDO continue to miss deadlines (including for Lib Dem councils). We are working hard to find new auditors and increase transparency”.

At least the draft accounts report is available for public inspection, which reveals that the author does not know how to use apostrophes  (“the Council has managed to deliver substantial saving’s on interest payable …)

But if this delay is down to the auditors, surely this is gross incompetence and mismanagement from BDO?  Is this not worthy of a wider barring of the firm from public sector work?  Or (I know this is hard to believe), might a political party be publishing misleading information? I honestly don’t know the answer to that question – but seriously, if auditors are incapable of getting a council’s accounts signed off three years after the end of the year in question, then they shouldn’t be doing this sort of work at all.

/0 Comments/by