Myth: Vendor Overcharges To Government (Part 4)

Posted on May 2, 2013. Filed under: Journalism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

8th in the series The Manipulators

Today’s proverbLet George Do It

Your words for the day:

  • crowd = three (as in “two’s a couple, three’s a crowd); or, one too many cooks in the kitchen
  • facilitator = a catalyst in the social not chemical sense; or, one too many cooks in the kitchen
  • not my job, man = the universal escape clause — unstated, but inherent — in every assignment of responsibility

The City Auditor (Dangerous Dave) said:

  • …contract pricing did not accompany the invoices,
  • …(and, yet) he also said that product prices were switched from one list to another list…   even though he said that there were no lists to reference.
  • …”US Communities contract” — intoned as though it were a supernatural incantation that should bring good fiscal luck to the intoner.

According to Dangerous Dave, there were no price lists associated with the invoices, yet, somehow, Dave asserts that prices were floated between these phantom lists to get a higher price for the vendor.  If one’s knowledge base is ignorance, how can one’s conclusion be so assertive?

US Communities.  Who are those guys, anyway?  http://www.uscommunities.org  (Look ’em up yourselves for enlightenment)

What I got out of their online advertising was:

  • …they got nothing to do with government.  Their “dot category” is “org” not “gov.”  They claim to be non-profit, but they take a cut of the gate.
  • …their schtick is to get a lot of organizations (private and government) to sign on as customers (membership) of a single “contract” to be serviced by a single contractor, purportedly to get cheaper everything with minimal bureaucrat effort.
  • …the attraction for the membership is to get product a lower price — with minimal bureaucrat effort.
  • …the attraction for the seller would be a large guaranteed customer base which would more than make up for selling at a lower price (the assumption being that large quantities will, in fact, be ordered.)  Win-win for everybody.

And, if they are NON-profit, what is in it for the “dot.org?”

Why, PROFIT…   of course!  Say, a 1% to 2.5% administrative fee, payable by the seller.  It didn’t say “percent of what,” so I’ll go with a cut of the seller’s take.  With the City of Houston thing, 1% of $19.2 million = $192,000; jump that to $480,000 at the 2.5% rate.  Sweet deal, eh?  Is that tax-free ’cause they are non-profit?

What do they actually do for that fee?  They write-up a form contract that says, in essence…   (in case I’m too subtle here, this is the part where I cynically paraphrase my understanding of all this)

  • “I, the party of the First Part (insert name of vendor here) agree to SELL enormous amounts of post-its, pens, pencils, staples and all kinds of paper and other expendables to buyers signed up on US Communities membership list (insert control number of list), which is attached to this contract, at the cheaper bulk rate prices I offer to all my big-order customers all the time, even without a rinky-dink contract.”
  • “I, the party of the Second Part (insert name of buyer — or a whole list of ’em) agree to BUY from (insert name of vendor again) enormous amounts of post-its, pens, pencils, staples and all kinds of paper and other expendables and pay according to the attached price lists (insert price list control number) which I understand is cheaper than buying from the same vendor in little bitty quantities.  I also understand that NONE OF THE EMPLOYEES in our accounting department, PAID BY THE TAX PAYERS TO KEEP TRACK OF TAX MONEY, WILL HAVE TO DO ANYTHING to monitor either the uncontrolled ordering by hundreds of individuals in scads of departments or to cross-check vendor invoices against our understanding of the contract and get all incorrect invoices clarified BEFORE we pay them.  Further, all that those employees need to do henceforth is show up at the office, enjoy coffee and donuts all day, clock out for the evening, and collect a tax-subsidized paycheck for doing nothing.  Free coffee and donuts would be real nice.”
  • “We, the party of the Third Part, US Communities, will (1) match up our standard prepared price lists (which we got from the stated vendor, JUST LIKE THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY COULD HAVE DONE ON-LINE OR BY USING THE TELEPHONE) to the appropriate contract, (2) insert the names of the Buyer and the Seller, and, voila, our contribution to this “Market Place Meeting of Interests” is done…   although, (3) we will diligently listen for future “ka-chings” and check our monthly up-date from the bank of our choice.  Oh, and (4) we might monitor all that stuff we told you about to get you signed up.

This “co-op” thing sounds to me more like a dating service type of operation.  “We are just a facilitator.  We found your match, but marriage relations are up to you two.  Sign on the dotted line, and we are outta here.  Should anything go wrong — or simply not go right — we ain’t got nuthin’ to do with that!  You are on your own.”  US Communities then exits stage left.

Next up:  Myth (Part 5) George didn’t do it.

 

 

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: