ADP Acquisitions

Immigration and Naturalization Service Should Terminate Its Contract and Recompete Gao ID: IMTEC-86-5 March 20, 1986

GAO reviewed the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) management of automatic data processing (ADP) to evaluate its ongoing, multimillion-dollar computer systems acquisition.

GAO found that INS: (1) violated procurement regulations by conducting additional negotiations with the proposed awardee in late-night meetings, which resulted in the awardee reducing its best and final offer; (2) favorably evaluated the proposed awardee's offer of a decentralized system, while it downgraded the other offerer's proposal for the centralized system it had specifically stated that it required; (3) evaluated equipment price offers on the basis of lease-with-option-to-purchase, then awarded the contract on an installment-purchase basis, even though the other comparable offer was at least $1.8 million lower; and (4) violated the terms of its delegation of procurement authority by accepting changes in the size and configuration of the system that increased contract costs to over $11 million more than authorized. Although the other firm eventually negotiated an out-of-court settlement to perform the contract, it installed the original company's proposed equipment under the same terms and costs as the original contract. INS modified the contract to incorporate the new awardee's fees, which resulted in prices exceeding both the originally awarded and published list prices. The payment of higher-than-list prices contrasted with both commercial and federal practices. Although it was urged to cease ordering equipment against the current contract and recompete its computer needs, INS renewed its agreement for fiscal year (FY) 1986. GAO believes that the continuation of the contract and the absence of documented computer needs is a material control weakness.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.