This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In conducting research for this article, I found many definitions of ‘Ethics’. Vendors would not trust the Director; fellow procurement professionals would treat the Director differently and there would be a possibility of being sued by the disgruntled compliant bidders. On a global perspective, ethics may be different.
Some of DRCF’s findings in the AI procurement report are astonishing, and should attract significant attention. The report is not specifically about public procurement of AI, but its content is relevant to assessing the conditions surrounding the acquisition of AI by the public sector. This is extremely worrying.
There is also a strong focus on contract exit provisions. Buyers must have appropriate plans in place to ensure that the activities outsourced can feasibly be moved to another provider or brought back into the core business if necessary, including in situations where time is short. .
It is estimated that less than one percent of the $10 trillion spent annually on global public procurement is awarded to women-owned businesses. [1] 1] There are different restrictions that explain this low participation of women-led companies in the awarding of public procurementcontracts. 2) Definition of requirements.
4 The Court rejected the government’s contention that because OTs are not procurementcontracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), they are necessarily removed from the Court’s bid protest jurisdiction. Examining the text and legislative history of the OT statutes at issue (i.e.,
program requirements proposed at 32 CFR part 170; Add definitions for controlled unclassified information (CUI) and DoD unique identifier (DoD UID) to the subpart; Establish a solicitation provision and prescription; and Revise the existing clause language and prescription. Ultimately, the Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content