In December of last year, WaPo recorded a quote from General Services Administration head Lurita Doan remarking on the GSA’s Office of Inspector General. She stated, “There are two kinds of terrorism in the U.S.: the external kind and internally, the IGs have terrorized the regional administrators.”
At the time, Doan’s remark comparing the IG’s office to terrorists seemed not only shocking and extreme, but also uncalled for, a little bit left field. Yet hindsight has since revealed that Doan knows a threat when she sees one. The IG has since revealed that Doan herself is the subject of a conflict-of-interest investigation.
Doan’s alleged wrongdoing is a classic example of reverse revolving door corruption. Before joining the GSA, Doan had personal and professional dealings with Public Affairs Group, Inc. President Edie Fraser. After becoming head of GSA, Doan personally awarded a $20,000 no-bid contract to Public Affairs Group for public relations services. After review by GSA contracting officials, it was determined that the contract violated regulations and so it was terminated.
What’s Doan’s justification for her actions? Her comments on procurement rules for a March 12 FCW article sheds some light:
Doan said she doesn’t discount the importance of compliance with contracting rules. At the same time, she added, “we don’t want to spend so much time on being compliant that we don’t get it done.”
Apparently Doan views federal regulations as just one factor to consider when making contracting decisions. Luckily for the public, the IG doesn’t take the issue as lightly. It also looks like a few congressmen don’t either. Just this week, Senators Byron Dorgan and Ron Wyden, responding to the conflict-of-interest charges and also her possible violations of the Hatch Act, called for Doan’s resignation.
-- John Pruett
She also never divested her company which sells to the government. Her husband still runs it.
Posted by: | Apr 30, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Isn't Ms. Doan the person who asked the political briefer how the GSA could assist in the election efforts of the Republican candidates who looked vulnerable?
Posted by: Peter Stinson | Apr 27, 2007 at 02:18 PM