An IGO investigation revealed that an Office of Emergency Management (OEMC) employee,
Employee A, knew or should have known that an OEMC filing to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) by a supervisor was false. The false filing was made to obtain new radio
channels.
Page 10 of 20
During its investigation, the IGO discovered that a firm OEMC hired as a consultant for FCC
issues did not have a contract with the City. Instead OEMC paid the firm by routing payments
through unrelated contracts with other vendors who did have City contracts, effectively serving
as pass-throughs, and charging the City an additional premium for doing so, all in clear violation
of the City’s procurement policies and procedures. The investigation found that Employee B
failed to ensure that the contractual payments OEMC made to the firm were appropriate. In
addition, the firm failed to fully cooperate with the IGO’s investigation.
The IGO recommended that: (i) Employee A be suspended for 30 days, (ii) Employee B be
suspended for 14 days, (iii) the firm be permanently debarred, and (iv) the pass-through contract
vendors be required to return their mark-up premiums to the City.
OEMC suspended Employee A for 30 days as recommended, Employee B for 5 days, less than
recommended, and debarment proceedings against the firm have been initiated. The City did not
seek the return of the mark-up premiums from the pass-through vendors.
Maybe this will keep some people honest around here.
How can the City NOT go after the excessive mark ups by firms doing business with OEMC. We have City employees taking up paid days off an the City does not get money back that the vendors did not EARN
ReplyDeleteThese firms KNEW that they should NOt have process the invoices to OEMC and received the funds for work the firms DID NOT perform.