The Federal government’s purchasing processes in the United States are governed by strict procurement laws, protocols, and regulations that specify the correct procedures to be adhered to. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is one of the essential rules. FAR is a complex collection of regulations that governs the federal administration and executive branch departments’ purchasing processes (Ladi & Tsarouhas, 2017). The policies aim to guarantee that all procurement processes are uniform and accurate and directed objectively and neutrally.
The rules were put in place to remove the complications that come with government contracting procedures. Besides, the FAR was created to provide guiding principles for the federal procurement system. Overall, FAR has proven to be effective in protecting the purchasing power of the American public. Small companies, for instance, are given lucrative opportunities to do business with the state under FAR. They benefit from receiving at least 3% of all federal government contracts and subcontracts (Ladi & Tsarouhas, 2017). The American public and their local firms will benefit from the $500 billion the United States is spending on acquisitions if they observe the different regulatory requirements for doing business with the state. According to reports, the world’s biggest customer of supplies and facilities is the U.S. Federal government.
Federal Government Procurement Scandals
Contract management corruption and fraud incidents have been on the rise in various areas, such as Africa, Asia, and the middle east. In recent times, it has occurred that even the world’s top free-market system, the United States, is not exempt from this issue. Different government procurement contracts have been affected by several improprieties, bribery, and controversies by improper public procurement that funnel state payments to large corporations rather than local firms (Ferrer, 2019). The U.S. Navy is allegedly an indication of a national executive branch that appears to be involved in illegal procurement contracts. Over the years, vast amounts of money invested by the U.S. army have generated various frauds, scandals, and improprieties. Most of these revelations include many corruption charges, payoffs, and bribery (Hall, 2019). In both cases, the U.S. Navy’s senior management accepted vast amounts of money and other incentives from wealthy individuals to secure attractive Navy contracts involving hundreds of millions in sales and overpayment of military hardware.
In this fiasco, the U.S. Navy, one of the national government’s main administrative branches, is potentially the proper executive branch to make changes that will include oversight for the contracting in the U.S. Navy. Clearing a lousy image and avoiding the recurrence of similar incidents is possible but daunting due to the difficulties faced in detecting the presence of corrupt officials. Too often, the individuals concerned are hesitant to make any disclosures. Moreover, even if the subjects are known, it calls for strenuous efforts to determine the bribe-takers motivations in such scandals. While it can take time to achieve corruption-free U.S. Navy procurement procedures, incorporating transparency will make the process more effective (Ferrer, 2019). Accountability will encourage the exposure of evidence and avoid the proliferation of conspiracies and lead to eliminating potential breeding grounds for unethical military procurement activities.
References
Ferrer, S. (2019). Responsibility attribution for corruption scandals. Local Government Studies, 46(1), 22-43.
Hall, G. (2019). Defense procurement and public utility regulation. Defense Procurement and Public Policy Regulation, (90).
done in as little as 1 hour
Ladi, S., & Tsarouhas, D. (2017). International diffusion of regulatory governance: E.U. actorness in public procurement. Regulation & Governance, 11(4), 388-403.