Editor’s Note: Procurement Insights’ European Union Edition Editor Colin Cram – who has more than 30 plus years of public sector experience – raises a number of interesting questions relating to the transfer of the NIGP consultancy arm to Periscope.
Should for example, former NIGP executives or those with active involvement in the past with the NIGP and are now employed by Periscope, be investigated for a possible conflict of interest? Especially if they were active during the time that the NIGP – Periscope consultancy transfer occurred.
Just started following the NIGP #CodeGate story? Use the following link to access the Post Archive; https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/nigp-codegate/
Follow my coverage of this story on Twitter using the hashtags #missbid and #CodeGate
On The Go? You can also listen to the audio version of this post as well as others through @Umano https://umano.me/jhansen
Organisations such as NIGP frequently struggle to exist on membership subscriptions alone. They therefore have to find other sources of income. My interpretation of the issues identified by Jon Hansen is that the need for income may have led the NIGP into what appear to be some shady and unwise deals. In particular, if selling its product and services code puts a company in a position effectively to restrict competition for consultancy business, that would be a serious error of judgement. In addition, outsourcing NIGP’s consultancy arm appears to put Periscope in an extremely powerful position. I wonder if NIGP understood fully the value of what it was selling. Transparency and competition underpin professional procurement. That seems to have been lacking.
It looks to me as if the current chief executive, Grimm, may be attempting to justify the award of contracts – particularly the consulting award to Periscope, by stressing the…
View original post 792 more words