« Attleboro police probing dozens of house break-ins | Today | Tonight: Music to put football out of sight, out of mind »

February 4, 2008

Senate attacks Carcieri for Smart Staffing

PROVIDENCE -- A state Senate oversight committee says the Carcieri administration gave a no-bid state contract to a Massachusetts company and then fronted the company's payroll in what it charged amounted to an interest-free loan.

The committee also concluded that required written documentation "is insufficient" to indicate why Smart Staffing was picked over other vendors, "in violation of law."


The Journal reported that the state gave Smart Staffing Service an $11 million contract to supply employees to the state under terms not offered to other potential bidders and agreed to front the company the money to meet each payroll in advance.

The committee, in a press release, said it "can not make a determination as to whether the incompetence was due to ignorance, or arrogant and willful violation of the law. However, the committee is certain that the public deserves better.”

The oversight committee -- eight Democrats and one Republican -- met for six months last year, taking testimony as it probed state government's purchasing practices.

The news release says the committee had "17 areas of concern" and said the Carcieri administration "inhibited" the committee's progress and "violated the spirit" of the state Access to Public Records Act. That undermined the "transparency, accountability and public confidence by not providing the prompt production of requested documents or consistent, responsive testimony.”

-- projo.com staff writer Michael P. McKinney

Other problems the committee's report found:

* Though mandated to do so, the state Properties Committee has failed to issue regulations for acquiring and disposing of state property and for granting permission to use state property.

* The rules and regulations for the State Properties Committee are outdated.

* The chief purchasing officer has neither an active nor supervisory role in relation to the State Properties Committee "and is therefore in violation of state law."

* Also violating law, the Department of Administration has failed to prepare and disseminate training materials to state Properties Committee members. The state Properties Committee has also failed to come up with and put into use a training course for its new members.

* The State Purchase Card Program "may lack controls to ensure purchases are in compliance with the Master Price Agreement and fairly distributed among vendors."

* The Division of Purchasing violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and the state purchasing statutes when attempting to amend its small purchase regulations by memorandum.

* The Division of Purchasing does not supervise agency use of small purchasing authority.

* The Division of Purchasing has violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to set regulations "concerning all current formal and informal proceedings."

* Current records retention violated law by not including all contract documents "such as written determinations and supporting detail" in one contract file.

* The division did not produce written determinations dealing with noncompetitive contracts in a reasonable time, violating its own regulations.

* The division failed to produce statutorily-required reports.

* The expansion of, and changes to, the DataLogic Consulting contract -- the company whose place Smart Staffing took -- "resulted in a substantive change to the service being procured." The lack of documentation and absence of a new bidding process "undermines the basic statutory tenets of competition, accountability and transparency."

Posted by Mike McKinney  at 6:38 PM | Permalink

Comments

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Period.

Ron | February 4, 2008 11:31 PM link

Looks as if someone should run for Governor on a platform of conducting a " B I G - A U D I T " !

.... Oh he's already there? Never mind

Brian | February 5, 2008 7:03 AM link

Seriously, if it isn't this governor giving preferential contracts to this company, then it's a democrat governor with the unions hands in his pockets. . . so of course, the unions, who have the loudest voice and the most money to get their message across (thanks to sweetheart deals from the Assembly), complain about the contract and the governor because they aren't getting their piece of the pie.

Dan | February 5, 2008 12:00 PM link

Post a comment

Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

ADVERTISING



ProJo 7 to 7
Jan « Feb 2008 »
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29  
Archived headlines

Archived
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006