Perceptions
surrounding a potential conflict of interest and how it was handled
have led the University of Illinois to void a $4.6 million contract with
BLDD Architects, ending a months-long debate about the situation.
Straightforward disclosure? In 2010, BLDD submitted a proposal for the planning phase of the university's $70
million renovation of its historic Natural History Building. As
required, the firm disclosed that one of its principals, Bruce Maxey,
was married to the university's associate director of planning, Jill
Maxey, who had also worked for the firm in the past. Since Jill would
normally be involved in the selection process, she recused herself from
the project early on. University officials have stated that she was
internally isolated from decisions that would affect BLDD.
Further review requirements neglected: The
problem is whether the disclosure and internal controls were enough. The
debate has centered around the issue of whether the potential conflict
of interest meant the contract should have been reviewed by the Illinois
Procurement Policy Board. As it was, the board didn't learn about the
situation until over a year after the initial $368,000 conceptual design contract
was signed, and several months after a $4.3 million contract for architectural and engineering services was added.
The issue of additional review seems to have gotten
lost in the midst of university staffing changes and confusion over the
requirements for board review, which had only recently been mandated by a
newly enacted law.
Previous debate: Shortly after discovering
the issue, the Procurement Policy Board voted in April 2012 to recommend
voiding the contract with BLDD over concerns about the potential
conflict, but that decision was overturned by the Illinois Chief
Procurement Officer, Ben Bagby, who oversees procurement for higher
education in the state.
Bagby maintained that adequate internal controls
were exercised to prevent any misconduct or conflict of interest.
Furthermore, he argued that going through a new selection process for the project would be too
expensive, while negotiating with the second highest-rated firm would
mean using a "stale" proposal from over a year before.
Final decision: Last week the Procurement
Policy Board voted a second time to throw out the contract, referring it to the
university's Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees agreed with the board and voted
on July 19, 2012 to void the contract, which will likely be subject to a new selection process.
Lessons learned: Interestingly, the debate
seems to have sparked no accusations of actual misconduct. Concern seems
to have centered instead on negative appearances and failure to follow proper
procedures. This illustrates how critical perception can be (even if
there is no actual misconduct) and the importance of following
procedures. Small mistakes at the beginning of a project can be
amplified as things go on and later escalate into significant delays,
additional expense, and/or disciplinary action.
Practical tips:
- Remember
appearances: Even if it seems clear that there is no conflict of
interest, consider how the facts might appear to someone unfamiliar with
the situation.
- Follow procedures: The University of Illinois situation illustrates
how easily important requirements can be misinterpreted or overlooked.
If there's any question of whether an issue requires additional
reporting or review, ask agency leadership or legal counsel. As this
incident shows, it's usually better to go the extra mile at the
beginning of a project rather than try to clean up a mistake later.
- Stay current: Keep on top of new legislation and policy changes, coupled with proper training and effective internal controls. These
are important tools to avoid controversies such as the one faced by the University of Illinois.
Additional resources:
Mike Purdy's Public Contracting Blog
© 2012 by Michael E. Purdy Associates, LLC
http://PublicContracting.blogspot.com
Posts
