Now You See It, Now You Don’t: HHS Covers Up Flawed IOM Contracting Procedure

In January of this year, I questioned the compliance of the IOM task order with the requirements of the NIH/NAS umbrella contract under which the task order was issued. I had found information on a website of the Office of Science Policy and Analysis—which I linked to in my blog post about the issue—according to which any task order to be awarded under that contract must “[r]esolve all questions about the scope … of the activity.” Yet, one of the first IOM meeting’s agenda items was to “clarify the scope of the charge.” So, it would seem that at least one of the requirements of the umbrella contract wasn’t met with respect to the IOM task order, which would explain the secrecy and manufactured urgency regarding the contracting process.

Imagine my surprise when I clicked on that link [http://ospa.od.nih.gov/nac.html] today and got automatically redirected to a completely unrelated site of the Office of Science Management and Reporting [http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-science-management-and-reporting] that contained no information about the umbrella contract. That information completely disappeared. But guess what! I have a scanned print-out: Office of Science Policy and Analysis_Umbrella_K_RequirementsHere is a screen shot of what you see when you click on the original link now:

Office_Science_Management_Reporting

Is anybody still denying that something fishy is going on with this IOM contract? And is anybody still arguing that there is any way that this over-the-top secrecy is innocent? Why would HHS make the information disappear from the Internet after I pointed out the contracting-process issue? What else are they hiding?

One thing that comes to mind is that the request for proposal, which is also clearly required under the umbrella contract (see requirements in the first image above), seems to have never been prepared. Why else would the statement of work be titled “Statement of Work/Request for Proposal.” Logically and from a proper contract-drafting perspective, the request for proposal has to come before the statement of work by necessity. It is ludicrous to have both sets of terms be in the the same legal document.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Now You See It, Now You Don’t: HHS Covers Up Flawed IOM Contracting Procedure

  1. CC says:

    Methinks they have something behind the curtain! Good screen grab!

  2. Pingback: Does the IOM Task Order Comply with Requirements of NIH/NAS Umbrella Contract? | Thoughts About M.E.

  3. Excellent job, Jeannette. I’m curious about where the info you uncover is sent. I write monthly letters to Pres. Obama, outlining what’s going on, and after 2 letters, I received a “form” letter thanking me for giving him a window into the thoughts of American citizens. It was addressed to me personally, but still a form letter (printed on a small, intimate piece of stationery). I am continuing writing to him.

  4. elsvh says:

    Wow! While this shouln’t be that much of à suprise after what you’ve written up till now, it still blows my mind away that HHS goes this far …
    So so so brilliant of you to take à screenshot!
    They only made your case stronger by changing the content of their webpage. Almost ironic.
    You truly are amazing Jeannette. À-ma-zing!

  5. Ess says:

    Yay on the screen shots!!! Busted . . . more cover-ups. Lies / excuses to come about the change of links. Corruption–agenda, agenda!!

  6. Laurel says:

    I am strongly reminded of a bull in a China shop.

  7. Rivka says:

    Thank you for being a muckraker!

  8. Deborah Waroff says:

    Another Magnum Opus Jeannette

  9. Kathy D. says:

    Wow! You clearly are a stellar investigator and legal mind.
    I’m thinking that the HHS doesn’t have the sharpest legal minds checking all of this or there
    wouldn’t be contradictions in this material. Yes, gathering evidence, including screen shots,
    always helps to fortify our case.
    But what can be done next?

  10. Kathy D. says:

    Well, evidence gathering is critical here, and there is certainly enough of that. I hope there is an impartial arena in which to present all of us so that we are heard and can obtain a fair hearing and a helpful settlement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s