National Registry of CPE Sponsors ID Number: 107732 The Association of Inspectors General is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be addressed to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors, 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 700, Nashville, TN, 37219-2417 or by visiting the web site: www.nasba.org Field of Instruction: Specialized Knowledge, Instructional Delivery Method: Group Live, Advance preparation: None, Perquisites: Practical experience in auditing, investigations and or inspection.

The Association of Inspectors General, California Chapter, a non-profit organization, will be hosting its first training seminar at the Glenn M. Anderson Federal Building in Long Beach, CA on September 21 and 22, 2011.  The training will enhance the skills of IG agents as they conduct their investigations and provide auditors with critical information and techniques to support investigations.

Featured Topics (confirmed) include: fundamentals of civil fraud litigation; courtroom testimony; legal updates on Garrity, Kalkine, and Miranda; case presentation per USAO guidelines; investigative interviewing techniques; electronic law and evidence; and fraud auditing and forensic accounting.

Registration: Registration fees are waived for members and $35 for nonmembers.  In addition, a working luncheon will be sponsored by the Association at a cost of $20.  Registration form is available, via AIG CA Chapter website, http://inspectorsgeneral.org/california/ or by emailing the training coordinators.  Please submit the form to the training coordinators, either Sharon Grim at sgrim@uspsoig.gov or (562) 343-9848 or Elizabeth Nguyen-Espinoza at etnguyen@mail.jpl.nasa.gov or (562) 951-5485.

Training Date and Time: September 21 and 22, 2011, starting at 8:30 AM and end at 4:30 PM.

Location: The Glenn M. Anderson Federal Building, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., 3^rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802.

CPE: 15 Hours of CPE will be earned at the completion of the entire training seminar.  Partial attendees will earn the CPE in accordance to the sessions they attend.

Working Luncheon: A working luncheon will be sponsored by the Association at a cost of $20.  One hour of CPE will be earned.  Guest speaker to be determined.

 Cancellations/Refunds: All cancellations and refunds must be requested by August 15, 2011 through Sharon Grim at sgrim@uspsoig.gov or Elizabeth Nguyen-Espinoza at etnguyen@mail.jpl.nasa.gov.

Lodging: AIG did not reserve rooms for out of state attendees.  However, the following are some area hotels where non local participants in the AIG CA Chapter Training Seminar may wish to consider reserving a room:

http://www1.hilton.com/en_US/hi/hotel/LGBLHHF-Hilton-Long-Beach-Executive-Meeting-Center-California/index.do

http://www.westinlongbeachhotel.com/

Please contact Elizabeth Nguyen-Espinoza, seminar training coordinator, for more information.

To register click here:

Training Registration

For the past three and a half years, Valerie has served as the exclusive Legal Advisor to the Los Angeles County Criminal Grand Jury. Under her supervision, the number of investigatory and indictment hearings handled by the grand jury increased by nearly 100% on a yearly basis. This is attributable, in part, to Valerie’s extensive training of fellow deputy district attorneys, members of the California Attorney General’s Office and law enforcement officers in the proper and effective use of the grand jury.

Deputy District Attorney Valerie Aenlle-Rocha, Chief Deputy of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury, provided an insider’s view of the Criminal Grand Jury process: What is it? Can it help my case? How do I do it? DA Aenlle-Rocha discussed who is on the Grand Jury, what the duties are, the burden of proof required for an indictment, provided examples of the documents used, and walked us through the process. The presentation was very enlightening and beneficial to the attendees who received CPE credit for this training.

Effective April 22, 2010, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (“FAR Councils”) amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) to implement the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (“FAPIIS”).  (See provisions at FAR Parts 9.1, 15.407, 42.15, & 52.209)

FAPIIS’s purpose, according to Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, is to “significantly enhance the Government’s ability to evaluate the business ethics and quality of prospective contractors competing for Federal contracts and to protect taxpayers from doing business with contractors that are not responsible sources.”  The rule imposes heavy obligations on both government contractors and the Government by requiring contractors to disclose additional information to the Government and obligating contracting officers to consider all available new information when making responsibility determinations. Thus, “[a]lthough FAPIIS is designed to be a ‘one-stop’ resource,” its existence will “not alter contracting officers’ obligation . . . to possess or obtain information sufficient to determine that a prospective contractor meets the applicable standards for establishing responsibility.” 75 Fed. Reg. 14060 (Mar. 23, 2010).

FAPIIS Logistics

FAPIIS is to be established and maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and is intended both to consolidate information from existing systems such as the Excluded Parties List System (“EPLS”), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (“PPIRS”), and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) and to collect new information from government contractors, including contracting officer non-responsibility determinations, contract terminations for default or cause, agency defective pricing determinations, administrative agreements entered into following a resolution of a suspension or debarment, and contractor self-reporting of criminal convictions, civil liability and adverse administrative proceedings.

Under the new rule, the FAPIIS database will notify the contractor when the government posts new information regarding the contractor’s record of responsibility.  The contractor will then have an opportunity to post a response concerning the information posted by the government.  The contractor’s response will be retained as long as the associated information is retained, i.e., for a total of six years, although “only government personnel and authorized users performing business on behalf of the government will be able to view the contractor’s record on the system.” 75 Fed. Reg. 14067 (March 23, 2010).

Reporting Requirements

Agencies must insert FAR clause 52.209-7, “Information Regarding Responsibility Matters,” in all solicitations issued after April 22, 2010. The clause requires vendors who are submitting proposals for government contracts with an expected value of over $500,000 and having more than $10 million in active contracts and grants at the time of proposal submission to report information relating civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings.  The information is to be entered through the Central Contractor Registration (“CCR”) system. Id. FAPIIS contains no exemption for commercial item or commercial off-the-shelf (“COTS”) acquisitions.

Government contractors must report and maintain accurate information on FAPIIS concerning occurrences “within the last five years” relating to the following categories:

• Criminal Convictions: An offeror must provide information concerning whether the offeror and/or its principals has, in connection with the award or performance of a federal contract or grant, been subject to a federal or state criminal proceeding that resulted in a criminal conviction. The clause also requires the contractor to write a narrative description for all reported actions. 75 Fed. Reg. 14067 (Mar. 23, 2010).
• Civil Proceedings: An offeror must provide information concerning whether the offeror and/or its principals has, in connection with the award or performance of a federal contract or grant, been subject to a federal or state civil proceeding that resulted in a finding of fault and liability and required the payment of a monetary fine or penalty, reimbursement, restitution or damages of $5000 or more. Id.
• Administrative Proceedings: The new rule defines an “administrative proceeding” as a “non-judicial process that is adjudicatory in nature in order to make a determination of fault or liability.” Id. The rule provides the following examples of what is considered an administrative proceeding: (1) Securities and Exchange Commission proceedings; (2) Civilian Board of Contract Appeals proceedings; and (3) Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals proceedings. The rule also states that the definition does not include agency actions such as contract audits, site visits, correction plans, or inspection of deliverables. Id.

Under the new rule, an offeror must provide information concerning whether the offeror and/or its principals has, in connection with the award or performance of a federal contract or grant, been subject to a state or federal administrative proceeding that resulted in a finding of fault and liability that required the payment of a monetary fine or penalty of $5,000 or more, or the payment for any reimbursement, restitution, or damages in excess of $100,000. Id.

Settlements: An offeror also must provide information relating to the award or performance of a government contract or grant where a federal or state administrative proceeding was disposed of by consent or settlement with an acknowledgment of fault by the contractor. Id.

Contractor Certification

Additionally, a government contractor must certify that the information provided is “current, accurate, and complete as of the date of the submission.” Id. Therefore, in order to ensure that the information provided is “current, accurate, and complete,” many contractors will find it necessary to amend their internal procedures and processes because the information required goes above and beyond the pre-FAPIIS requirements set forth in FAR 52.209-5, “Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters.” The increased reporting obligation is readily apparent from a comparison of the existing requirements of FAR 52.209-5 with the additional requirements of FAR 52.209-7, “Information Regarding Responsibility Matters.” Examples include:

• FAR 52.209-5 only requires the government contractor to check a box if a contractor has or has not been criminally convicted. In contrast, FAR 52.209-7, requires the contractor to draft a narrative commenting on the activity;
• FAR 52.209-5 requires offerors to look back three years while the new FAR 52.209-7 requires a five year look-back.

Semi-Annual Reporting Requirements

The new rule also imposes a requirement that certain contractors update their FAPIIS disclosures. The new clause set forth at FAR 52.209-8, “Updates of Information Regarding Responsibility Matters,” must be incorporated into (1) all solicitations where the expected value exceeds $500,000 and (2) contracts where the contractor has more than $10 million in active contracts and grants as of the time for proposal submission. Pursuant to the new clause, contractors must update the information in FAPIIS relating to the criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings discussed above on a semi-annual basis for the entire life of the contract. 75 Fed. Reg. 14060 (Mar. 23, 2010).

The Contracting Officer’s Role

Contracting officers will also have additional obligations under the new rule in that they will be required to:

• Review the information in FAPIIS in connection with contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold for the purpose of making a responsibility determination;
• Document the contract file to explain how the information in FAPIIS was considered in any responsibility determination (as well as the action that was taken as a result of the information); and
• Prior to proceeding with award, notify the agency official responsible for initiating debarment or suspension if information is identified in FAPIIS that appears appropriate for that official’s consideration.    <http://www.governmentcontractslawblog.com/2010/06/articles/far/fapiis-the-new-integrity-database-for-government-contractors/#_ftn1>

Most importantly, contracting officers must give offerors the opportunity to provide additional information that demonstrates their responsibility before the contracting officer makes a non-responsibility determination if the information concerns:

• Criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings in connection with the award of a Government contract;
• Terminations for default or cause; or
• Determinations of non-responsibility because the contractor does not have a satisfactory performance record or a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics, or comparable information relating to a grant.

75 Fed. Reg. 14059 (Mar. 23, 2010).

The Federal Acquisition Institute has developed a tutorial detailing the purpose of FAPIIS and the types of data it will include. The site is available at http://www.fai.gov/FAPIIS/trailer/module.htm.

One of Gov.-elect Jerry Brown‘s first official acts will be eliminating the state Office of Inspector General, a position held by former L.A. City Controller Laura Chick, who has been responsible for overseeing more than $50 billion in federal stimulus money.

Brown’s office said in a statement Monday that he is closing the operation, whose function mimics those of other state agencies, to save money.

“Ending this redundancy will save the state’s General Fund over $700,000 in fiscal year 2010-11,” the statement said. Brown has promised to cut 25% of the governor’s office budget.

California Inspector General Laura Chick

Chick, who achieved a measure of celebrity in Los Angeles for her public criticism of government waste, is not going quietly.

After announcing that Brown was closing her doors, Chick said the Capitol needs more oversight, not less. She complained that her efforts to shine a light on wasteful spending in Sacramento have been stymied by entrenched bureaucrats more interested in preserving their power than in ensuring public accountability.

“The state is not run by elected officials; it’s run by very powerful, very knowledgeable civil servants,” Chick said, adding: “Things don’t change unless they want them to.”

Brown’s statement Monday said six audits that Chick’s office is still working on will be finished by some of the bureaucrats she referred to, including those at the Bureau of State Audits and the Office of Audit and Evaluations in the Department of Finance.

When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Chick in April 2009 to watch over the billions of federal stimulus dollars flowing from Washington, he said California was the first state in the nation to create such an office.

Schwarzenegger praised Chick’s “impressive track record,” telling the Sacramento establishment that the outspoken grandmother was “uniquely qualified” to ensure that stimulus money went where it was meant to go.

Accustomed to issuing blockbuster reports in Los Angeles, where she entered the city controller’s office armed with subpoena power and years of experience on the City Council, Chick struggled to make her presence felt in Sacramento.

In her new job, she lacked the power of the subpoena, which allows investigators to compel testimony and the release of records. For the first year of her 21-month tenure she had a skeleton staff, Chick said. But neither of those obstacles was as daunting as the culture shock.

“It is a challenge here in Sacramento to know exactly what needs fixing and how to go about it, because of the embedded culture of ‘we don’t air our dirty laundry,’ ” Chick wrote in a letter to Brown and Schwarzenegger on Monday.

When Schwarzenegger proposed making audits of state agencies public on the Internet, officials offered “all kinds of excuses to avoid complying,” Chick wrote. Some departments claimed it would take years to scan and post the reports.

Chick, a Democrat, said the state would have been better off if Brown had chosen to expand her powers, but she understands that he has a mandate to reduce spending wherever possible.

“The Governor-elect faces an extremely difficult job in grappling with the severity of the state budget crisis,” Chick wrote. “I wish him the very best during the months ahead.”

This year, Schwarzenegger proposed making Chick’s office permanent, with a $2.8-million budget, but legislators rejected the plan. Instead, they put the money into the governor’s office budget.

Some Republicans, who have generally supported budget cuts of any kind, criticized Brown’s move.

“Abolishing this office sends a signal to those who would abuse taxpayer funds that the state will not be overly concerned watching over how taxpayer money is spent going forward,” said a statement from California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring.

Chick entered public office in 1993, unseating an incumbent city councilwoman to represent a district in the San Fernando Valley. Eight years later, she was elected controller, turning that office into a political powerhouse that criticized the contracting decisions of then-Mayor James K. Hahn. One of her last audits in that post exposed a backlog of untested DNA rape kits at the Los Angeles Police Department.