Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

String of infrastructure investments underway hints at big 2019

By

Infrastructure work may be heating up again with whisperings of President Donald Trump’s administration reinitiating the $1 trillion infrastructure plan promised during his 2016 presidential campaign. The administration claims to be willing to increase the federal share of the infrastructure program significantly from the 20% referenced in previous iterations — a move that may draw Democrats back into negotiations.

Whether federal legislation will come to fruition or not in 2019, investments nonetheless are being made in the space. A December Wall Street Journal analysis of state and local revenue collection and spending found that public agencies are increasing their infrastructure investments and making headway on long-delayed projects. Much of that money is tax revenue stemming from increased consumer spending.

Although it’s hard to predict what 2019 may bring, Construction Dive has rounded up some of the biggest infrastructure initiatives already underway across North America as the year begins.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/string-of-infrastructure-investments-underway-hints-at-big-2019/545131/

State, local governments using higher revenues to increase infrastructure spending

By

According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of state and local revenue collection and spending, public agencies are increasing their infrastructure investments and making a dent in projects that have been on back burners for many years.

A strong economy has resulted in an increase in consumer spending, and all that new tax revenue is helping to drive not only infrastructure spending but municipal borrowing as well. In fact, according to October 2018 data, the latest available from the Commerce Department, total state and local construction spending — based on a seasonal adjusted annual rate — was up 9.7% from October 2017 to more than $288 billion. Commercial construction was up the most year over year at 62%, followed by amusement and recreation (30%), water supply (22%), public safety (18%) and transportation infrastructure (15%). Tax revenue, adjusted for inflation, grew by 6% in the second quarter of 2018 from the second quarter of 2017, according to a Tax Policy Center report.

Year-to-date state and local government borrowing through October 2018 was up 19% from the same period in 2017, driven in part by a desire to take advantage of current interest rates in case they continue to increase. The pipeline of publicly funded construction projects, including those much-needed upgrades and repairs that have been shelved due to a previous lack of money, according to the newspaper, could make up for potential industry slowdowns.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/state-local-governments-using-higher-revenues-to-increase-infrastructure-s/544741/

Infrastructure spending: Which state is falling apart the worst?

By

In the Donald Trump era, the United States appears to be more politically divided than it has been in decades. Still, there are matters of public policy that most Americans can agree on — chief among them is investment in infrastructure. According to a recent non-partisan Gallup poll, three out of four Americans support the president’s plan of spending more federal money on infrastructure.

The president proposed a $1 trillion plan to improve aging roads, bridges, and tunnels across the country. While funding the project has proven to be a political challenge, broad public support for the plan is rooted in necessity.

About seven out of every 100 miles of roadway nationwide are in poor condition; 9 percent of bridges nationwide are structurally deficient, meaning that they are in need of some repair; and 17 percent of dams in the country have a high hazard potential — meaning a functional failure would result in the loss of life.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/08/13/infrastructure-spending-states-that-are-falling-apart/37270513/

Want to do business with the State of Georgia? You better know the rules!

By

Click on image above to see Georgia Procurement Manual.

Every unit of government has rules about how it purchases goods and services.  As a vendor, your success in doing business with government agencies is dependent upon your knowledge of those rules.

The federal government follows the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and many federal agencies also issue FAR supplements.  Similarly, each state government has its own purchasing procedures.

In the State of Georgia, the Department of Administrative Services, through its State Purchasing Division (SPD), maintains the Georgia Procurement Manual (GPM).  The GPM governs how state government entities purchase needed goods and supplies.  It also provides information to suppliers about how to conduct business with the State of Georgia.  SPD periodically revises the GPM to incorporate legislative changes, new automated processes and best practices.

In May of this year, the GPM was updated in several important ways, including the supplier protest process as well as internal procedural updates, such as new automated processes for state procurement staff to submit certain reports and requests to SPD.  You can see a summary of the changes here.   A brief overview of the new supplier protest process follows.

What is the supplier protest process?

GPM Section 6.5 defines how suppliers may challenge certain purchasing actions by state entities, such as: solicitations, proposed sole source contracts, proposed purchases through consortia or cooperative purchasing agreements, the results of a Request for Qualified Contractors and the state’s proposed or actual award of a contract.

How has the supplier protest process changed?

SPD has updated the supplier protest process to:

  • Define general principles that govern SPD’s review of supplier protests;
  • Address review of a supplier’s protest that a system error prevented timely submission of an electronic bid or proposal;
  • Identify certain procurements that are exempt from SPD’s protest process;
  • Define how sole source protests will be reviewed, including the option for discussions between the state entity and the protesting supplier prior to SPD issuing a protest decision;
  • Require a supplier to file a protest within 10 calendar days of the date the supplier knows or should have known of the action which is being protested or the other applicable protest filing deadlines, whichever is sooner;
  • Update the submission process to remove the fax number (protests may continue to be either mailed or sent via email to the addresses noted in the GPM); and
  • Provide other clarifications.
When are these changes effective?

Changes became effective May 18, 2018.  You can listen to a recorded webinar on the changes to the Georgia Procurement Manual here: GPM changes.  (Presentation begins at the 9:55 mark.)

State, local governments could spend $275 billion on construction this year: Where the money will go

By

According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau figures on the annual rate of construction spending, the country’s state and local governments are on track to spend more than $275 billion on nonresidential, taxpayer-funded construction initiatives this year, with highway and street ($93.5 billion), education ($72.5 billion) and transportation projects ($31.7 billion) together garnering the lion’s share of funds.

State and local airport spending has ramped up to an annual rate of $14.5 billion from a November 2011 low of $9.16 billion, according to additional data provided by Governing. Construction of corrections facilities declined the most of any other major spending category in the last decade, from an $8 billion peak in November 2008 to its current level of $4.6 billion, although some of that decline is likely related to the trend toward privatization of prisons and jails.

Highway and street spending, currently $93.5 billion, has remained relatively flat with only a small peak of $105 billion in January 2016. Spending on primary and secondary schools, which now stands at $46.7 billion, has never returned to its pre-recession highs.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/state-local-governments-could-spend-275b-on-commercial-construction-this/527585/

Top 10 areas of opportunity for state and local contracting

By

Thanks to technology, government is becoming more efficient, cost effective and user centric. Agencies may not be building all the technology and software internally, but they are certainly procuring them.

In fact, state, local and education, or SLED, governments are increasing the number of bids and requests for proposal at a “historically strong pace over the past year,” according to GovWin+Onvia by Deltek’s “10 Hotspots in Government Contracting for 2018” report. It analyzed more than 4,000 unique industry smart tags to find the areas with the greatest rates of recent growth.

But this progress isn’t happening in every aspect of the marketplace. In fact, a small number of “hotspots” are growing at a faster pace than others, identifying major SLED themes in adopting technology, pursuing efficiency, improving education, enhancing safety, protecting the environment and addressing underfunded pensions.

To see the 10 hotspots, and the growth measured from 2016 to 2017, click here: https://www.governmentciomedia.com/top-10-areas-opportunity-state-and-local-contracting

2018 forecast of state and local contracting released

By

In Onvia’s latest special report, experts Krita Ferrell, Brent Maas and Sean Cavanagh provide insight on the most significant trends expected to impact the state & local government contracting marketplace in 2018.

Readers of this report will learn:

  • How the economy is likely to perform in 2018-19;
  • The new fiscal realities for agencies, revenue, and budgets;
  • Emerging types of technology being increasingly adopted by agencies; and
  • Predictions on how natural disasters impact government purchasing.

Onvia invites you to download this complimentary report today so you can give your business a head start in the coming year.   Download here: https://www.onvia.com/market-research/special-reports/2018-state-local-government-contracting-forecast

A slide in capital spending by states and local governments

By

Capital spending by state and local governments around the U.S. has been on the decline, with jurisdictions pushing off infrastructure costs into future years.

That’s according to a report the credit ratings agency Moody’s Investors Service issued last week. The ratings agency looks at U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis figures and says the information suggests an “ongoing buildup of deferred infrastructure maintenance.”

This comes as costs tied to areas like public employee pensions and education continue to put pressure on many state and local budgets.

If states and localities had maintained 2009 capital investment levels, they would have invested an additional amount of roughly $685 billion in the past seven years, or about 27 percent more than the $2.5 trillion spent during that time, according to Moody’s.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.routefifty.com/finance/2017/10/capital-investment-state-local-infrastructure-moodys/141628/

 

Atlanta contractors get prison time in contract bribery case

By

Two Atlanta contractors were sentenced to prison Tuesday as part of an ongoing federal investigation into a pay-to-play scheme for city contracts.

U.S. District Judge Steve Jones sentenced Elvin R. Mitchell Jr., of Atlanta, to serve five years and pay more than $1.12 million in restitution. Mitchell, 63, pleaded guilty in January to a conspiratorial bribery and money laundering charge.

Jones also sentenced Charles P. Richards Jr., of Tucker, to serve two years and three months in prison and pay $193,000 in restitution. Richards, 65, pleaded guilty in February to a conspiratorial bribery charge.

When imposing the sentences, Jones told each man that their actions had damaged the trust and confidence of the public, cracking the foundation of government.

Keep reading this article at: https://apnews.com/530f2f16f1bc4b8b83b2cede829e2089/Atlanta-contractors-get-prison-time-in-contract-bribery-case

Also see Justice Dept. statement on this case: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/construction-company-owners-sentenced-federal-prison-paying-over-1-million-bribes-city

City purchasing head pleads guilty to conspiracy charge

By

Adam L. Smith, the former Chief Procurement Officer for the City of Atlanta, has pleaded guilty to conspiring to accept more than $30,000 in bribe payments from a vendor who obtained millions of dollars in City contracts.

“Great trust was placed in Smith as Chief Procurement Officer for the City of Atlanta, and he abused his position to serve his own financial interests,” said U.S. Attorney John A. Horn.  “Public corruption offenses, like Smith’s, can erode the confidence that the people have in government.”

“The guilty plea of former City of Atlanta Procurement Officer Adams in federal court [on Sept. 26, 2017], will ensure that he is held accountable for his greed based criminal conduct as he now awaits sentencing. It is hoped that this case serves as notice to others that similar such conduct among public officials will not be condoned and that there are severe consequences should that notice go unheeded,” said David J. LeValley, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Atlanta Field Office.

“Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to obey laws and ethical principles above private gain.  Smith abused his public trust to enrich himself at a cost to the taxpayers,” said James E. Dorsey, Acting Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation. “We will continue to work with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office in making these public corruption investigations a priority.”

According to U.S. Attorney Horn, the charges and other information presented in court, Smith served as the Chief Procurement Officer for the City of Atlanta from 2003 to February 21, 2017, overseeing the City’s purchasing activities and its expenditure of billions of dollars in public money for projects.

The conspiracy charge filed by Horn’s office refers to a “vendor” represented by an executive with a construction firm in Atlanta, but does not identify either the vendor or the executive by name.  During Smith’s tenure as the Chief Procurement Officer for the City, he awarded contracts worth millions of dollars to the vendor’s firm and joint venture projects of which the vendor was a partner.

From at least 2015 to January 2017, Smith met privately with the vendor on multiple occasions, frequently at local restaurants. During these meetings, Smith and the vendor discussed Atlanta procurement projects, bids, and solicitations. Often at the time of these meetings, the vendor was actively seeking contracts, projects, and work with Atlanta.

After most of these meetings, the vendor and Smith met in the restaurant’s bathroom, where the vendor paid Smith approximately $1,000 in cash.  In return for the bribe payments, the vendor expected Smith to use his position and power as Atlanta’s Chief Procurement Officer to assist the vendor with contracting/procurement with Atlanta and to furnish the vendor with future benefits and favors when needed.

Given his position, Smith was required to sign annually a financial disclosure statement certifying that he had not received more than $5,000 in annual income from any corporation, partnership, proprietorship, or other business entity other than Atlanta.  Additionally, under Atlanta’s Procurement Code, Smith also had to “make a written determination as to the existence” of any “personal or organizational conflicts of interest exist” between vendors and Atlanta before awarding a vendor a solicited contract. Similarly, Atlanta’s Procurement Code mandated that Smith “certify to the City Council” that the winning vendors had disclosed to Atlanta any “organizational and personal relationships” and that the “award of the contract [was] appropriate.”

Furthermore, in exchange for those cash payments:

  1. Smith met with the vendor on a regular basis;
  2. Smith provided the vendor with information and counsel regarding Atlanta’s procurement processes (among other information);
  3. When the vendor’s firm or joint venture became the successful bidder on an Atlanta contract or request for proposal, Smith approved and submitted the award of such procurement projects or bids to Atlanta’s mayor and City Council for final authorization;
  4. Smith never disclosed his ongoing financial relationship with the vendor and/or the vendor’s firm on his Financial Disclosure Statements to Atlanta; and
  5. Smith never advised Atlanta’s City Council that the vendor’s firm or joint venture had failed to disclose its organizational and personal relationships with him.

In total, from at least 2015 to January 2017, the vendor paid Smith more than $30,000 in cash.

Adam L. Smith, 53, pleaded guilty to conspiratorial bribery.  Sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 16, 2018, before U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation are investigating this case.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/city-atlanta-s-former-chief-procurement-officer-adam-smith-pleads-guilty-taking-bribes

See federal conspiracy charge here: Conspiracy Charge – Adam Smith – 09.26.2017

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More