	Background

On April 17, 1995, the President signed the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995, P.L. In addition, the District’s CPO also awarded and administered several Authority contracts on behalf of the Authority. As you specifically requested, we focused on the contracts that were awarded for the Authority’s former CMO and to Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio and Associates. In addition, we reviewed the Authority’s and District’s procurement regulations and procedures, the Authority’s review and approval regulations governing submission by the District for contracts, and interviewed Authority and District officials involved in contract award and contract administration. The Authority Did Not Always Comply With Its Procurement Regulations

Although the Authority’s procurement regulations set forth some basic requirements for contract award, we found that the Authority did not always comply with its procurement regulations or follow sound contracting principles for the nine contracts that we assessed. However, the contract files contained little or no evidence that the Authority (1) documented its basis for contract selection for the three contracts where it is specifically required by the regulations; (2) prepared written justification for one sole source contract award or a series of “modifications” to another contract that, in effect, was a sole source award; or (3) documented its contract negotiations as required by the regulations for the two contracts where the Authority stated that negotiations had occurred. The Authority’s contract files contained evidence indicating that it received the required deliverables for four contracts. This system was not documented in the contract files. Factors Contributing To Procurement Problems

Several factors appear to have contributed to the Authority’s contracting problems. Recommendations to the Chair of the Authority

To improve its contracting operations, we recommend that the Chair of the Authority require the Executive Director to (1) approve and justify all waivers of Authority contracting regulations in writing, (2) only extend contracts in writing and prohibit the Executive Director from extending or modifying expired contracts, and (3) include in contract files a written certification, signed by an appropriate official, stating that the contractor’s performance was or was not satisfactory; direct the Executive Director to (1) fully define the roles and responsibilities of the Authority’s procurement staff; (2) prepare a written plan for contracting that includes methods for ensuring compliance with the procurement regulations; (3) provide guidance to the procurement staff on areas, such as determining best value, developing performance standards for work statements, monitoring and certifying contractors’ performance, preparing written justifications for sole source awards, documenting the basis for contract selection, awarding contracts that are between $100,000 and $500,000, and executing contract modifications, or contract options; hold the Executive Director and other procurement staff accountable for ensuring that they follow the Authority’s procurement regulations; and require the Executive Director to assess whether the Authority’s processes and controls for the review and approval of District contracts prior to award are effective and, if not, make appropriate changes.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the procurement practices of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, focusing on whether: (1) applicable procurement regulations and procedures were followed in awarding and administering selected contracts on behalf of the Authority's former Chief of Management Officer and to Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio and Associates; and (2) the Authority and the District received the goods and services that they contracted and paid for in the contracts that GAO reviewed.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the Authority did not always comply with its procurement regulations and procedures or follow sound contracting principles when it awarded and administered the 9 contracts that GAO assessed; (2) the Authority's contract files for these contracts were incomplete; (3) the files did not generally contain documentation of the key contract award and administration decisions as required by the Authority's procurement regulations; (4) as a result of the incomplete contract files, the Authority could not demonstrate that its objectives of: (a) acquiring goods and services at the lowest price or best value; and (b) treating offerors fairly were achieved for several of the contracts GAO reviewed; (5) the Authority's procurement regulations provide for a preference for competitively awarded contracts and require written justification and approval of sole source contracts; (6) the Authority's contract files contained evidence that it sought competition for 7 of the 9 contracts assessed; (7) however, contrary to regulations, the Authority did not: (a) document its basis for contract selection for 3 contracts; (b) include written justification for 1 sole source contract award or a series of modifications to another contract that, in effect, was a sole source award; or (c) comply with other requirements in several cases; (8) none of the contract files for the 9 contracts assessed contained certification or any other evidence that the contractor performed satisfactorily prior to payment of invoices; (9) for the 2 emergency sole source contracts awarded by the District government, the District's Chief Procurement Officer did not comply with the Authority's contract review and approval regulations governing District contracts or procurement regulations; (10) several factors appeared to contribute to the Authority's failure to comply with its procurement regulations; and (11) according to the Authority's former Executive Director, the magnitude of the tasks and the short timeframe in which the Authority had to complete them contributed to the Authority's procurements not being as "tidy" as the Authority would have liked.