Scandal at Inchcape Shipping Service
After being suspended by the Justice Department for obtaining additional government contracts amid allegations of scandals involving the corporation and the Navy, Inchcape Shipping Service was in hot water in 2013. There were claims that the business, which was owned by Dubai, conspired with other subcontractors to massively overcharge the Navy. The company's owner was detained for allegedly buying off Navy officials after inflated bills were submitted. The business was charged with paying commissions to subcontractors eager to offer steep discounts, then keeping the excess money instead of giving it to the Navy (Ivory 2013).
Inadequacy of Federal Acquisition Regulations
The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) was established to formulate uniform policies and procedures for acquisition by all executive members. The body is mandated to satisfy the customers by controlling costs and promoting competition, and to reduce administrative operating expenses, and to conduct business with openness and integrity. These regulations do not offer adequate protection to the people of America; they are inadequate and are ineffectively implemented. For example, one of the reasons why the scandal-ridden Inchcape Shipping Service won more contracts was lack of competition. It the responsibility of FAR to ensure there is sufficient competition when contractors are placing bids for the tenders.
Violation of Contract Clause
The FAR's contract clause allows gratuities in contracts with a cost exceeding the acquisition limit, except for agreements between foreign governments and military departments. Violation of this provision should lead an immediate termination of the contract. Inchcape Shipping Services violated the contract clause by bribing officers with money, trips, and prostitutes in exchange for inflated contract bills. Despite breaking the law, the company still proceeded to win more Federal tenders. Many questions arise from the incidents because of the governing body, the FAR, failed to exercise its power in time to stop more fraudulent activities carried out by the company. Thus, it did not offer sufficient protection to the collective buying power of the American (Keyes 2003).
The Role of the Executive Branch
One of the notable roles of the executive is to implement and enforce laws penned down by the Congress. The head of the executive, the President, has the responsibility of appointing the leaders of the federal agencies. Consider these roles; it is clear that the executive branch is the right body to effect changes that would protect the purchasing power of the United States government. For instance, when flaws are detected in a federal agency such the FAR, the executive has the authority to request for investigations of the affected organ and take necessary measures to avoid further troubles. The executive can also change the laws that are ineffective and obsolete as long as they are within the constitutional boundary and are approved by the Congress. In the case of Inchcape Shipping Services, the executive should have intervened to question the cause of the matter. If it was an issue of inappropriate regulations, substantial steps should have been taken to adjust the rules accordingly (Thai & Drabkin 2007).
Scrutiny of Federal Agencies
In general, most federal agencies have their own guidelines that govern their operations, and some of the activities are independent. Therefore, before external bodies intervene to question the integrity of the agency, they must adhere to the specific rules protecting the organization. However, if an entity fails to deliver the citizens' expectations, its integrity is subject to scrutiny by the relevant authorities.
References
Ivory, C. D. (2013). Scandal Widens Over Contracts for Navy Work. Retrieved October 28, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/us/scandal-widens-over-contracts-for-navy-work.html
Keyes, W. N. (2003). Government Contracts Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation. West Group Publishing.
Thai, K. V., & Drabkin, D. A. (2007). 7 US federal government procurement. Public Procurement: International Cases and Commentary, 89.