A recent article in The Washington Post states that a medical services company that is under federal investigation after the death of a child in U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) custody, has been selected as a finalist for a $1.5 billion government contract to provide medical services to CBP.
The particular company, which has been the primary medical services provider for CBP since 2020 and has worked on CBP contracts worth around $700 million since 2015, has been accused of failing to staff their facilities with qualified doctors and nurses and has been warned by CBP as recently as August 2023 about less than satisfactory performance. This includes chronic staff shortages, excessive travel expenses, and poor record keeping. Such letters of warning to contractors are usually used to alert them that they are in danger of suspension or termination of the contract.
Most alarming, though, was the death of an 8-year-old child from Panama who died after being held in CBP custody for nine days after she and her family illegally entered the country in May 2023. After being taken into custody, the child became ill, but medical staff of the contractor denied requests from her mother for urgent medical treatment until it was too late, and she died. An investigation showed that staff of the contractor mishandled records showing the child’s pre-existing condition.
Despite this, the company was added to a list of six companies that are finalists under consideration for the five-year contract to provide medical screening and services for migrants detained along the southern border. The company was added to the list by the CBP procurement office which overruled the findings of a CBP advisory board that did not recommend it be considered. One of the arguments put forth is that this particular company is the only one large enough to provide the required services—notwithstanding the fact that it has apparently not been providing those services in a satisfactory manner since 2020.
According to the article, the contract selection process in this situation was structured in such a way that a company’s past performance could not be considered as a factor in the first phase, but it becomes a part in the second phase. As someone who has had federal procurement training and who was involved with procurement for over 20 years, I find this astounding. That a company with a track record of shoddy performance can be considered a finalist makes a mockery of the contracting process. While it appears that this process is being conducted legally, insofar as current established procedures require, the procedures themselves are called into question. Failing to consider past performance of a bidder makes no sense, and makes the process take longer than it should have to take. Procurement officials are often pushed into a corner by the tendency of losing bidders to challenge decisions in court, often for the flakiest of reasons, forcing them to make compromises, or allow less than qualified contractors to compete.
The contracting regulations have been modified many times over the years in response to clear deficiencies. This seems to me yet another deficiency that needs a remedy.
No more children need to die because of inefficient, uncaring bureaucrats who are focused more on the financial bottom line than fulfilling the core mission.
No comments:
Post a Comment