WT Business Beat

By Nick Wakeman

Blog archive
Nick Wakeman

Contractors dodge ACORN scandal for now

In another example of the law of unintended consequences, the ACORN scandal this week threatened to wash over government procurement.

The non-profit group receives federal funds and has made headlines recently for, among other things, giving advice on how to set up prostitution ring. ACORN, which previously was involved in voter registration activities, has been a favorite target of conservative groups.

So in a rush to punish the organization, the House passed a bill designed to strip the group of funding. But the law was written so broadly that it could easily apply to government contractors who have been charged, but not convicted of any wrongdoing.

The Project on Government Oversight quickly jumped on the issue and announced that 43 contractors could be impacted by the law.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has sept up a Google spreadsheet asking people to send him company names and evidence of other contractors who should stop receiving government funds under the law.

Industry groups such as TechAmerica and the Professional Services Council have begun sounding the alarm about the bill.

“This [legislation] could put a company out of business without regard to actual guilt,” according to a statement by Phil Bond, president of TechAmerica. “All contractors are asking for is simple due process – the opportunity to defend themselves in court against an allegation that could well be false.”

"Lots of folks were making calls the last two days," said Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel, at PSC.

But the continuing resolution passed Friday by the House has a one-line provision on ACORN that is specific to that group and won't pull contractors into the mix. "The danger has passed," Chvotkin said.

But the pressure to ferret out fraud continues. Agencies have been asked by the Office of Management and Budget to comfirm the status of who is receiving federal funds.

The question is: Is an accusation of wrong-doing enough to yank someone's contract? Chvotkin and others think debating that question should be conducted as part of an open discussion, but jumping behind poorly written legislation isn't the way to do it.


Posted by Nick Wakeman on Sep 25, 2009 at 7:22 PM


Reader Comments

Mon, Sep 28, 2009 Kennon Richmond, VA

Just another example of our legislators rushing to "get something passed quickly." Perhaps we can add performance-based metrics to our bill review process for our senators, congressmen and their collective staff. Given that most of the heavy lifting is usually handed off to the staff, an appropriate penalty of a poor bill: reduced staffing profile. Eventually, we ought to be able to reduce the size of the Government, slow the pace of radical change, and improve/reinvigorate debate.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close

Trending

  • Dive into our Contract Award database

    In an exclusive for WT Insider members, we are collecting all of the contract awards we cover into a database that you can sort by contractor, agency, value and other parameters. You can also download it into a spreadsheet. Our databases track awards back to 2013. Read More

  • Navigating the trends and issues of 2016 Nick Wakeman

    In our latest WT Insider Report, we pull together our best advice, insights and reporting on the trends and issues that will shape the market in 2016 and beyond. Read More

contracts DB

Washington Technology Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.