 |
| The USAID office at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. USAID lifts IRD’s suspension |
The U.S. Agency for International Development has
lifted its suspension of International
Relief and Development, the nonprofit placed under investigation in
January for alleged financial misconduct.
Ben Edwards,
USAID senior adviser and chief spokesman, told Devex that “an issue was raised
when preparing to respond to [IRD’s] lawsuit.” Edwards told Devex USAID plans
to correct the issue and re-conduct the review of IRD’s financial activities
immediately.
The National
Defense Authorization Act of 2013 stipulates that “the suspension and debarment
officer may not report to or be subject to the supervision of the
acquisition office or the Inspector General,” the text of the law says. At the
time of IRD’s suspension, the SDO was head of the Acquisitions Regulation
Office.
USAID has
taken the position that while it was technically compliant with the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2013 at the time of IRD’s suspension, “in an
effort to enhance and elevate the independent authority of the [suspension and
debarment officer],” Edwards told Devex, it has moved the SDO to a different
department and lifted IRD’s suspension.
It’s because
of what legal experts who spoke with Devex describe as a “conflict of
interest,” that USAID will re-conduct the review of IRD’s finances.
“In response
to concerns raised about compliance with the NDAA,” Edwards told Devex, “USAID
has decided to immediately conduct a new review of IRD’s ‘present
responsibility’ to manage taxpayer funds.”
But
having an SDO in acquisitions is not so uncommon, regardless of USAID’s
interpretation of the law, according to Steven Shaw, senior counsel at
Covington and Burling LLC and a former debarment and suspension official for
the Department of the U.S. Air Force.
“If it’s your
job to debar contractors who are not responsible, and it’s also your job to
award contracts, in my view that’s definitely a conflict — but it’s true of a
lot of agencies,” Shaw said.
USAID’s
decision to move the SDO came two full years after the National Defense Authorization
Act came into effect and only days after IRD filed a lawsuit against the
agency. David Robbins, another former debarment official and Government
Contracts Department Chair at Shulman Rogers LLC told Devex he feels confident
that IRD’s actions spurred the agency to change tack.
“I haven’t
heard, in my experience, of an organization filing a suit and actually changing
where the officer sits,” Robbins said, adding that change in an agency
following a complaint or lawsuit from one of its contractors is “extremely
rare.”
“How often do
you have an agency say, ‘We weren’t doing a good job’? It’s dramatic,” Robbins
told Devex. “And if they follow through on it, it’s also very refreshing.”
In a letter
seen by Devex addressed to IRD President and CEO Roger Ervin, USAID acting
Assistant Administrator Clinton White wrote, “Just a few days before filing
suit, IRD submitted additional information attempting to demonstrate present
responsibility. USAID would like to fully review and consider that additional
information. IRD is hereby requested to submit any supplemental information
that it believes relevant to the matter of its present responsibility on or
before June 29, 2015.”
Said Robbins
of the potential likelihood of a second suspension: “Resuspending would be foolish
and I don’t think they could do it again.”
In an email
to Devex, IRD’s Ervin said the nonprofit was “focused on moving forward,
serving beneficiaries and innovating for the future,” expressing his excitement
about “doing more with less” and building a “very, very new business model
previously unseen in the development sector.”
Robbins
suggested that the new investigation would likely take around a month.
No comments:
Post a Comment