Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
The GrimmFacts (Part 2)
Rick Grimm, NIGPChiefExecutive
The informationreferencedinthisblogpostregardingthe selectionof Per...
Let’sput aside forthe momentthe elephantinthe room – whichisthe apparentconflictof interest
relatingtothe NIGP – Periscope...
that the “competitive”RFIas youcall it was more forshow than anythingelse.Anelaborateeffortto
lendanair of legitimacytoapr...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×
Upcoming SlideShare
Practica 1 v4 luis mario
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

0

Share

Download to read offline

The Grimm Facts (Part 2)

Download to read offline

The following is the second of a 2-Part exchange with NIGP Chief Executive Rick Grimm regarding the growing controversy surrounding possible conflicts of interest at the NIGP through their relationship with Periscope Holdings.

This exchange is from the comment section of the April 6th, 2015 Procurement Insights post titled "NIGP CodeGate’s Deep Throat reveals troubling conflicts of interest at the “non-profit”."

Here is the link to that post: https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/nigp-codegates-deep-throat-reveals-troubling-conflicts-of-interest-at-the-the-non-profit-association-by-jon-hansen/

Follow this story through Twitter using the hashtags #missbid and #CodeGate

  • Be the first to like this

The Grimm Facts (Part 2)

  1. 1. The GrimmFacts (Part 2) Rick Grimm, NIGPChiefExecutive The informationreferencedinthisblogpostregardingthe selectionof Periscope Holdingsasthe firm whichmanagesNIGP’sConsultancyProgramdoesnotappeartobe factuallyaccurate.Please consider the followingfactswhichare containedindocumentsthatare readilyavailable bycontactingme atthe NIGPOffice. • InJune of 2012 the NIGPBoard appointedanindependentConsultancyProgramAssessmentTask Force to assessthe current internal consultancyprogramof NIGPandofferrecommendationsgoing forward.The task force was chairedbya formerCEO of a collaborative non-profitassociationwithno formal tiestoNIGP andincludedbotha businessleaderandseniorpublicprocurementpractitioners. • The task force createda competitive RequestforInformationprocessthatwasdistributedto interestedprovidersonAugust29, 2012. Anopen,competitive processwasutilized. • The task force receivedsix (6) proposalstothe competitive RFI issuedbyNIGP: 1. BravoSolutionsubmittedbyTomPellescki 2. FloridaAtlanticUniversity’sPublicProcurementResearchCentersubmittedbyDr.Cliff McCue 3. IRIS submittedbySanjeevDrego 4. Periscope HoldingssubmittedbyChrisKennedy 5. PurchasingOutSource submittedbyJillKlaskin-PressandTomBlaine 6. RFP SolutionssubmittedbyDevinCrockett • OnDecember18, 2012, the ConsultancyProgramAssessmentTaskForce submitteda recommendationtothe NIGPBoardthat Periscope be the preferredcompanytoengage forthe ConsultancyProgrambasedonthe Task Force’sassessmentof Periscope’scapabilitiesand understandingof the Program.The NIGPBoard approvedthatrecommendationandempoweredthe Chief Executivetonegotiate aconsultancycontractwithPeriscope. • Nocurrent NIGPBoard membersare NIGPConsultants. The facts setforth above shouldmake evidentthatmuchof the informationsetforthinthe blogpostis not accurate.I am alwaysavailable forathoughtful conversationwithanyonewho wishestounderstand the facts inthismatter or inspectthe documents.Ipractice anopen-doorpolicy –whetheritisa query fromNIGP members,stakeholders,orpubliccitizens –todemonstrate accountabilityandtransparency. You can reach me at (800) FOR-NIGPx235. Jon Hansen, ProcurementInsights As alwaysRick,thankyoufor takingthe time to commentonthispost. To start, and forthe sake of clarification,inthe same waythatI sharedDeepThroat 2015’s exchange withme verbatim,Ihave of course postedyourcommentaswritten. The onlyquestionIhave iswhat are you thinking?
  2. 2. Let’sput aside forthe momentthe elephantinthe room – whichisthe apparentconflictof interest relatingtothe NIGP – Periscope relationship. We will alsooverlookyourlawyeringup – despite claimsof opennessandtransparency –to addressmy questionsrelatingtoyourassurancesinthe Gettysburgpostcommentstreamthat (andI quote) “The NIGPCode is available viaequal accessandsupportto all licenseesacrossthe board – includingthe same abilitytoutilize the NIGPcode onan equal costbasis,”andthat “All licenseeshave the same contractual rightswithregard to the NIGPcode” eventhoughthe Periscopeletterof protestregarding the Missouri award contradictsyourassertion. Evenwithsettingaside the above outstandingissues,readingyourmostrecentcommentislike watchingsomeone take apainful tumble downthe stairs. Insteadof addressingthe real issues,youofferinthisas well asthe previouslyreferencedpost’s comments,extraneouselaborationsthatare more semantical andobfuscatingthaninformative and clarifying.Ortoput it anotherway,yousay everythingandreveal nothingof anysubstance. Let’slookat your statementthatDeepThroat2015’s assertionregardingthe selectionof Periscope Holdingshasthe firmwhichmanagesNIGP’sconsultancyprogram“doesnotappearto be factually accurate.” Specificallytheirclaimthat“NIGPawardedthe contract to Periscope withoutcompetitive bidsor Proposals.” You indicate that“The task force createda competitive RequestforInformationprocessthatwas distributedtointerestedprovidersonAugust29, 2012,” andthat “an open,competitiveprocesswas utilized.”Thisiswhatyouwrote Rick. But an RFI – no matterwhat terminologywithwhichyouattempttodressitup,is not a competitivebid. Checkingmultiple sources,here ishowanRFI isdescribed: “A RequestforInformation(RFI) isusedwhenyouthinkyouknow what youwantbut needmore informationfromthe vendors.Itwill typicallybe followedbyanRFQ or RFP.” “An RFIis usedwhenyoudon’tknowexactlywhatyouwantor you don’tknow whatisavailable inthe marketplace.The informationreceivedasa resultof the RFI mayassistin determiningwhetheraformal requestforbidor proposal isnecessary.” “RequestforInformation(RFI):Aninformal documentissuedwhenanagencyisnotaware of the productsavailable inthe marketwhichmaysatisfyitsrequirements.The use of anRFI doesnotrequire a purchase requisition,howeveraRFI may resultinthe developmentof arequisition,orthe issuance of an IFB or RFP afteran agencydeterminesthe typesof productsthatare available whichwillsatisfyits requirements.AnRFIcannotbe made intoan agreement.” In shortRick,you can preface itwiththe word competitive oranyotheradjunctname you wishtouse, the processwiththe NIGPselectionof PeriscopeHoldingsstartedandfinishedwithanRFI. Basedon the above,DeepThroat2015 wouldappearto be correct intheirassertionthatthe “NIGP awardedthe contract to Periscope withoutcompetitive bidsorProposals.”Some mightevensuggest
  3. 3. that the “competitive”RFIas youcall it was more forshow than anythingelse.Anelaborateeffortto lendanair of legitimacytoaprocessin whichthe outcome hadalreadybeendecided. Let’slookat your secondpointof semanticcontention. You state “No currentNIGP BoardMembersare NIGPconsultants.” I presume thatthisisin directresponse toDeepThroat2015’s commentthat “Many current andformer NIGPboard membersservedasNIGPconsultants(emphasisonthe wordservedbyme),andthat“It may be interestingtofindoutif any didso afterthe consultingpractice wastakenoverbyPeriscope.” Nowhere inthe above statementdoIsee any reference to,orsuggestionthat,acurrentNIGP board memberiscurrentlyanNIGPconsultant.Yourstatementtherefore hasnorelevance. Thisbeingsaid,Ihave to wonderwhyyouwouldevenbothertomentionit?Whyrespondtoa statementthatwasn’tevenmade?Eitheryoureaditwrong,or there issomethingmore toit. Perhapsithas somethingtodowiththe fact that JeanClark – the NIGPPast Presidentandthe former ArizonaState PurchasingDirector,isnow employedbyPeriscope? In the endRick,and as previouslystated,everytime youcommentyoumake yoursaswell asthe NIGP’s and Periscope’ssituationlookthatmuchworse.

The following is the second of a 2-Part exchange with NIGP Chief Executive Rick Grimm regarding the growing controversy surrounding possible conflicts of interest at the NIGP through their relationship with Periscope Holdings. This exchange is from the comment section of the April 6th, 2015 Procurement Insights post titled "NIGP CodeGate’s Deep Throat reveals troubling conflicts of interest at the “non-profit”." Here is the link to that post: https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/nigp-codegates-deep-throat-reveals-troubling-conflicts-of-interest-at-the-the-non-profit-association-by-jon-hansen/ Follow this story through Twitter using the hashtags #missbid and #CodeGate

Views

Total views

880

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

37

Actions

Downloads

6

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×