Case D

Mission First:
A Case Study in Contracting Ethics and Integrity
Executive Summary
The case was about the ethical practices within a working environment. The
case sets the reader in situation as a contracting officer, newly assigned at a
Defense Agency. The concern in this study is that employees appear not only to be
disregarding requirements for publicizing contract actions but also to be carelessly
using the agencys contract writing system in selecting clauses and preparing the
prospective solicitation and contract documents. It is also suspected they are not
bothering to read the associated pricing memoranda and supporting draft
justifications and approvals.
Introduction
Professional integrity entails doctors being committed to sets of professional
ideals or principles, which may go beyond extant professional norms. Professional
organizations are normatively complex. They will embody a diverse and at times
conflicting range of values and principles. This will be due both to a process of
historical accretion, as the organization is developed and reformed over time, and
from the different interpretations of the organization and its associated professions
that are brought to it by its staff.
The extent to which the employees can influence his or her job is affected not
only by prevailing ideas of ethics but also by those of organizing. A person with
ambitions of integrity wants a larger role than just being an integrated part in the
organizational machine. The integrity perspective will inquire whether the company
can stimulate employees to do more for the company by putting more heart and
mind into the tasks, by giving them more space for individual judgment.
Statement of the Problem
The case is concerned in answering the following questions:

Why is it important for members of the acquisition community to have

a shared sense of professional integrity?

Causes of the Problem

John is normally a pleasant fellow but seems to become easily irritated
whenever a customer calls to complain about the support provided by the
contracting organization. You have been on the job less than a month and have
already overheard John snap at your colleagues on several occasions, saying, I

dont care. Just get it done. Mission first. this is one of the situations that causes
the ignorance of the employees at the contracting agencies; Because of their
manager John Smiley who does not care about the honesty and integrity of the work
they have to do. As long as they accomplish their task according to the scheduled it
has to be done, they consider it as an accomplishment to their company without
considering if they have undergone the proper procedures or whether they are able
t utilize the resources or means of accomplishing their tasks.
Study
You are an experienced contracting officer, newly assigned at a Defense
agency whose contracting organization has experienced a lot of turnover. Your
branch consists of you, two contract specialists who have been with the agency for
several years, a college intern, and TJ, a support contractor who recently retired
from federal service. There are also several vacant positions. Your branch manager,
John Smiley, is one year away from retiring from federal service. His office is
adorned with a large sign that reads, Mission First. John is normally a pleasant
fellow but seems to become easily irritated whenever a customer calls to complain
about the support provided by the contracting organization. You have been on the
job less than a month and have already overheard John snap at your colleagues on
several occasions, saying, I dont care. Just get it done. Mission first.
Youve just set aside the afternoon to process a new award document using
the agencys automated contract writing system. While you focus on the onerous
data entry requirements of the new system, your concentration is broken by the
interns voice: John wants us all in his office in five minutes for a meeting.
At the meeting, John explains that the agencys annual Operations and
Maintenance budget has received a sizable supplemental appropriation to support
ongoing contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The agencys senior
leadership wants this funding obligated as soon as possible. The branch has just
been inundated with quickly-prepared purchase requests, and customers are
demanding prompt action. John hands everyone a pile of purchase requests, and
announces, I want these awarded by the end of next month. Failure is not an
option.
Returning to your desk, you start to review the purchase request folders and
become alarmed at what you see. All are for various service contract requirements
but are lacking well-written Performance Work Statements (PWS). Many seem to
have been specifically written for an incumbent contractor and even have the
contractors name included in the PWS. Several folders contain documents labelled
Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and other documents that appear
to be contractor quotes in the exact same amount as the IGCEs. Other purchase
request folders have a contractors time-and-materials/labor hour quote and a note
from the requesting offices coordinator (the agency does not have a dedicated

Price Analysis department) saying, Looks okay. Almost all the folders include draft
memoranda Justifications and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition,
but almost all are poorly supported and legally insufficient.
As you walk to John Smileys office to discuss your concerns, you note that TJ,
your support contractor, has already begun processing his assigned workload and is
preparing award documents for Johns execution. You glance down and notice that
the first one is made out to the same company that employs TJ. As if reading your
mind, TJ shouts, No worries. Its all good. I dont have execution authority. As you
continue past the contract specialists, you are amazed at the progress they have
already made in preparing award documents. You are concerned that your
colleagues appear not only to be disregarding requirements for publicizing contract
actions but also to be carelessly using the agencys contract writing system in
selecting clauses and preparing the prospective solicitation and contract
documents. You also suspect they are not bothering to read the associated pricing
memoranda and supporting draft justifications and approvals.
In John Smileys office, you express your concerns that these purchase
requests cannot be processed in a timely fashion as received. John listens and then
says, Look, we do not have the luxury of time to cross all the Ts and dot all the Is
here. Our mission is too important. Do the best you can. Just remember, we have
never failed to meet our obligation targets.
Analysis
Integrity refers to the culture, policies, and leadership philosophy at the
corporate level. A culture of integrity has to start at the top and be seen in the
activities of the executives. The leadership of the corporation must develop a
consensus around the shared values.
Placing organizational and personal integrity in the moral context could give
organization a framework for articulating subtle aspects of the company's
organizational life such as culture, routines, and so on. These have direct impact on
profitability and on the company's sustainability. The reason is that in the same way
as individuals possess an identity or character, the company does too. The
organizational culture of a firm is the personality, identity or character of the
company. It is comprised of the assumptions, values, norms and ethical orientation
of organization members, as well as of their behaviours.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The NSPE Code of Ethics states that engineers shall be guided in all their
relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity
In general, an organization always overvalues the differentiation of the
organization culture from the national culture. Different organization from a given

country share many characteristics. They are differing according to the ethical
values focused on and the implementation approaches used. Some companies focus
on the core values of integrity that reflect basic obligations, such as respect for the
rights of others, honesty, fair dealing, and obedience to the law. Other companies
highlight ambitions values that are ethically desirable but not necessarily morally
obligatory such as good service to customers, a commitment to diversity, and
involvement in the community.
As widely defined, integrity is more than ethics. However, the issue arise is
that it is hard for one to be classified as an individual of integrity. This is because
the meaning of integrity itself is ambiguous and confusing, for instance, it is stated
that individual of integrity will be responsible to keep promises. In practice, we are
hardly to judge whether someone are keeping promise based on their responsibility.
For instance, an employee could work overtime because he wants to keep his
promises and responsibility in completing tasks. It may also happen because the
employee intends to earn overtime paid by dragging the given tasks. Unlike ethics,
integrity has no guideline or code to be followed. Integrity is about fair, just and
acceptable. However these elements are hardly to be standardized as it is very
subjective.
Therefore, in this case, for professional integrity, every individual should stick
to every process that needs to be undergone to finish certain tasks. Acquisition
professionals must fully embrace principles of ethical conduct and integrity in
performing their duties. An important teaching point in this case is that ethical
transgressions in the acquisition fieldeven those that do not involve the
transgressor receiving an improper financial benefit or engaging in conduct that
places a financial interest above public duty impact public trust and confidence in
a fair and open system.

Case E
Obligation to Client or Employer?

Executive Summary
This case study focuses on having issues on obligations to former client and
current employer that may result to conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest are
either prohibited outright, require disclosure and consent, or are hard to manage,
avoidance is, all else being equal, the preferred technique for dealing with conflict
of interest. The avoidance of a conflict of interest sometimes means forgoing
personal gain or gain for a client or an employer. The reader is set as the decision

maker of what Joe Engineer must do in accordance with his compliance on his
obligations.
Introduction
For engineering, conflict of interest is a threat to the professions usefulness
as well as to its honor and reputation. For most purposes, the best response to an
actual or potential conflict of interest is to avoid it as soon as one learns of it. In a
few cases, recusal is allowed or required. In others, those cases in which disclosure
allows the public, client, and employer an adequate response and the engineer
cannot be replaced or cannot be replaced at reasonable cost, tolerance of a conflict
of interest is allowable. However, it is only allowable. Even then, there is a risk to all
who rely on the engineers judgment that it will not be as good as it should be. In
this case study a private engineer got stuck between two parties: former client and
present employer.
Statement of the Problem
The case is concerned in answering the following questions:

To what extent is Joe obligated to continue represent the client?

In what ways might this cause conflict with his current
employer?

Causes of the Problem

Joe was assigned to complete a water-rights analysis. There are steps to be
undergone for approval of local courts. Joe worked on the project until step no. 2
until he eventually resigned from the firm and worked for the State. The State was
the one who objects or evaluate every analysis including the analysis done by Joe
on his former client. Now that he is already a part of the State, he does not know he
should do; to represent his former client or to stick with his current employer.
Study
Joe Engineer worked for a private engineering company in the field of water
rights. The firm was hired by a client to complete a water-rights analysis in which
Joe participated. Joe, along with one other employee at the firm, stamped the final
document. These types of analyses quantify water rights and provide terms and
conditions for future use that must be approved by the local courts. Typically, the
court process takes years to complete, and in short, it includes the following steps:
1. Application (proposal)
2. Engineering to support application
3. Objections from the public/other water users

4. Rebuttal of objector's comments

5. Mediation or trial
Joe worked on the project up through step No.2 and resigned from the firm to
work for the State. The State is typically an objector in most cases, and it is an
objector in this specific analysis.
Joe feels that he can and should support the work he performed and which was
included in the stamped report, but he is concerned about the remaining steps in
the court process. In his current employment, he has been isolated from the State's
case in the matter, and his current position does not include opposing this or other
cases.
Analysis
1. Joe Engineer clearly has an ongoing obligation to honor his obligations
both to his former employer and the private client. Joe Engineer cannot
disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with
this proceeding unless he first obtains the permission of his former
private firm employer and also the client. In light of the facts and
circumstances, it is doubtful that such permission would be granted by
either party. By refraining from becoming involved in this matter for the
state, he is not "representing the client" or providing any services to the
client. He is merely remaining silent.
2. Testifying against the state where he is employed looks disloyal even
when it does not raise conflict of interest issues. Joe should therefore
decline--for the sake of both his profession and his own reputation.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The NSPE Code of Ethics makes it clear that Engineers shall not disclose,
without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or
technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on
which they serve. It is also stated that Engineers shall not, without the consent of
all interested parties, participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection
with a specific project or proceeding in which the engineer has gained particular
specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer. Therefore, Joe
Engineer should be assigned other duties by the state and remain isolated from the
States water-rights cases involving Joe Engineers former employer and its client. In
this manner, both his obligations to his former client and the State is given
consideration.