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: 
Here is a screen shot of what you see when you click on the original link now:
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.
Thoughts About M.E. 
Methinks they have something behind the curtain! Good screen grab!
the moral of the story: ALWAYS take screen shots. ALWAYS!
Pingback: Does the IOM Task Order Comply with Requirements of NIH/NAS Umbrella Contract? | Thoughts About M.E.
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.
Good. Keep bugging him 😉
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!
Yeah. Sort of implied admission of guilt.
Yay on the screen shots!!! Busted . . . more cover-ups. Lies / excuses to come about the change of links. Corruption–agenda, agenda!!
I am strongly reminded of a bull in a China shop.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130601104340/http://ospa.od.nih.gov/nac.html
Ha!
Love it! I was thinking the same thing. You can’t hide from the Wayback Machine. 🙂
Hi Jeannette, This is the replacement page for the one you previously saw. http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-science-management-and-reporting/nih-coordination-and-management/nihs-contract-national-academies
Not really, Erica. But even if this site had the same info (which it does not!), why not redirect the original link to it???
Thank you for being a muckraker!
Another Magnum Opus Jeannette
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?
We are building a case, Karhy. It requires patience. But yes, we are dealing with arrogant and incompetent. A lawyer’s dream.
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.