Business Intelligence and Industrial Espionage in Outsourcing
October 9, 2009 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.
Boeing Loses $1 Billion in Transactions as Punishment, Escapes Debarment
Summary.
“Business intelligence” refers to the practice of collecting and analyzing competitive information in the marketplace to assist an enterprise in self analysis and redirection of its resources to maintain and improve competitiveness. “Industrial espionage” refers to the clandestine methods of obtaining competitive information that is not publicly available. As a legal matter, this distinction can have serious consequences. This case study offers some suggestions for staying on the right side of the law not only in business intelligence but also for internal audit controls and business ethics.
Boeing Punished.
In July 2003, the U.S. Air Force hit Boeing Company with the harshest punishment on any major U.S. military contractor in decades. Boeing was found to have stolen thousands of pages of confidential technical documents of its archrival, Lockheed Martin Corp. Boeing reportedly used such industrial secrets in submitting proposals to the Air Force in 1998 to provide satellite launching services. As a result, the Air Force transferred to Lockheed the services of providing seven launches previously awarded to Boeing, and in addition awarded three more launches to Lockheed.
Boeing Escaped Debarment: “Too Big to Punish”?
Many commentators on the Boeing punishment have asserted that Boeing escaped debarment under the Federal Acquisition Regulations simply because it was too big to punish. The losses by other agencies would have been considerable. Instead, the punishment related to the Boeing business segment that had allegedly violated the law, rather than to all other Boeing divisions. This punishment reflects the difficulty of the Government’s use of the debarment process to protect Government interests when the supplier community is highly concentrated and consolidated.
The Economics of Business Intelligence.
Business intelligence serves a valid competitive purpose in the marketplace. Gathering publicly available information:
- sharpens the competition and increases opportunities for consumer and customer choice;
- enables competitors to restructure their offerings of services and goods, often by restructuring key business processes for improved efficiency, reduced cost, better quality, a more attractive suite of services and goods and a broader appeal to a wider range of customers;
- and improves the efficiency of markets, accelerating improvements in customer service and thereby improving the customer’s quality of life, integration of external services with in house services and other external services.
The Law of Business Intelligence.
The law of business intelligence is limited by common law and statutes that protect proprietary rights, privacy rights and intellectual property.
Debarment under the Federal Acquisition Regulations.
Causes of Debarment.
Debarment can occur based on conviction, violation of law or a serious or compelling cause. Debarment is a remedy available to the U.S. Federal Government under the Federal Acquisition Regulations. The purpose is to exclude “ineligible” contracts from new bidding.
Violations. The debarring official may debar a contractor for a conviction of or civil judgment for:
(1) Commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with-
(i) Obtaining;
(ii) Attempting to obtain; or
(iii) Performing a public contract or subcontract.
(2) Violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers;
(3) Commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, or receiving stolen property;
(4) Intentionally affixing a label bearing a “Made in America” inscription (or any inscription having the same meaning) to a product sold in or shipped to the United States or its outlying areas, when the product was not made in the United States or its outlying areas (see Section 202 of the Defense Production Act (Public Law 102-558)); or
(5) Commission of any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects the present responsibility of a Government contractor or subcontractor.
Nonperformance; Violations of Public Policy.
In addition, a debarring officer my debar a contractor, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, for:
(i) Violation of the terms of a Government contract or subcontract so serious as to justify debarment, such as-
(A) Willful failure to perform in accordance with the terms of one or more contracts; or
(B) A history of failure to perform, or of unsatisfactory performance of, one or more contracts.
(ii) Violations of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-690
(iii) Intentionally affixing a label bearing a “Made in America” inscription (or any inscription having the same meaning) to a product sold in or shipped to the United States or its outlying areas, when the product was not made in the United States or its outlying areas (see Section 202 of the Defense Production Act (Public Law 102-558)).
(iv) Commission of an unfair trade practice as defined in 9.403 (see Section 201 of the Defense Production Act (Pub. L. 102-558))
Violation of Immigration Laws.
Additionally, debarment is available as a remedy against a contractor, based on a determination by the Attorney General of the United States, or designee, that the contractor is not in compliance with Immigration and Nationality Act employment provisions (see Executive Order 12989). The Attorney General’s determination is not reviewable in the debarment proceedings.
Lack of Present Responsibility.
Finally, debarment may be imposed against a contractor or subcontractor based on any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects the present responsibility of the contractor or subcontractor. Such a determination is more subjective than other reasons, and may include abuse of confidential information through industrial espionage or as suggested below, failure to maintain internal accounting records and a history of unethical business conduct.
Consequences of Debarment.
Debarment prevents an entity from being an eligible bidder on new contracts but does not terminate existing contracts. Contractors debarred, suspended or proposed for debarment are also excluded from conducting business with the Government as agents or representatives of other contractors, from acting as subcontractors and from acting as individual sureties. Exceptionally, an agency head or a designee determines that there is a compelling reason for contracting with the debarred supplier. This exception leaves open the choice of sanctions for misconduct, and leaves the affected agencies free to decide to ignore the debarment for their own internal purposes. FAR 9.404.
Non-Procurement Common Rule.
Also, under the “non-procurement common rule,” debarred contractors may be ineligible for nonprocurement transactions such as grants, cooperation agreements, scholarships, fellowships, contracts of assistance, subsidies, insurance and other government benefits.
Existing Contracts Not Abrogated.
Notwithstanding the debarment, suspension, or proposed debarment of a contractor, federal agencies may continue contracts or subcontracts in existence at the time the contractor was debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment unless the agency head or a designee directs otherwise. In addition, the Governmental agencies may continue to order goods or services under purchase orders against existing contracts, including indefinite delivery contracts, in the absence of a termination. However, agencies may not renew or otherwise extend the duration of current contracts, or consent to subcontracts, with contractors debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment, unless the agency head or a designee authorized representative states, in writing, the compelling reasons for renewal or extension.
Business Judgment and Evaluation of Factors in the Decision to Debar.
Under the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (Section 9-406(a)), before arriving at any debarment decision, the debarring official should consider a range of business judgment considerations and an assessment of the impact on the government factors. The list includes:
(1) Whether the contractor had effective standards of conduct and internal control systems in place at the time of the activity which constitutes cause for debarment or had adopted such procedures prior to any Government investigation of the activity cited as a cause for debarment.
(2) Whether the contractor brought the activity cited as a cause for debarment to the attention of the appropriate Government agency in a timely manner.
(3) Whether the contractor has fully investigated the circumstances surrounding the cause for debarment and, if so, made the result of the investigation available to the debarring official.
(4) Whether the contractor cooperated fully with Government agencies during the investigation and any court or administrative action.
(5) Whether the contractor has paid or has agreed to pay all criminal, civil, and administrative liability for the improper activity, including any investigative or administrative costs incurred by the Government, and has made or agreed to make full restitution.
(6) Whether the contractor has taken appropriate disciplinary action against the individuals responsible for the activity which constitutes cause for debarment.
(7) Whether the contractor has implemented or agreed to implement remedial measures, including any identified by the Government.
(8) Whether the contractor has instituted or agreed to institute new or revised review and control procedures and ethics training programs.
(9) Whether the contractor has had adequate time to eliminate the circumstances within the contractor’s organization that led to the cause for debarment.
(10) Whether the contractor’s management recognizes and understands the seriousness of the misconduct giving rise to the cause for debarment and has implemented programs to prevent recurrence
Proposed Debarment of MCI WorldCom.
Debarment may also be asserted for lack of adherence to internal controls over accounting and reporting systems and business ethics. This argument was asserted against MCI (formerly WorldCom) on July 31, 2003, subject to administrative determination.
The argument is based on the contractor not being “presently responsible” because in this case, the contractor was alleged to have been previously involved in one of the biggest shareholder frauds in U.S. history and still suffered ten “material weaknesses” in the company’s internal controls. In the case of the General Services Administration’s notification letter to MCI WorldCom assorting the proposed debarment, “A material weakness is a weakness found to be pervasive throughout an encore organization. Each individual weakness is considered to be a significant control deficiency. The acceptable standard is for a company to have no material weaknesses or of one is found for it to be promptly corrected.”
In MCI’s case, the GSA alleged that the company needed to implement “procedures and controls to review, monitor and maintain general ledger accounts. Implementing adequate controls on the general ledger is significant because that is where all of the company’s financial transactions are summarized for all of its accounts.” MCI has promised to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 by June 30, 2004 one year earlier than the statute requires. MCI noted it is aware of the deficiencies and is cooperating with the GSA and investigating agencies.
What a Customer Should Know about an Outsourcer’s Key Personnel.
Concentration of Sellers in an Industry.
Ordinarily an enterprise customer should not have many concerns about the prior employment history of a major outsourcing services provider. After all, the services provider’s business is to maintain the confidentiality of its customers’ confidential data. Without the customer’s trust that its data will be protected, the customer will not engage in outsourcing. If the outsourcing service provider is engaged in a tightly competitive environment with only a few competitors, the customer could become concerned that its confidential information might float around the industry and become known to multiple outsourcing service providers, particularly those who service the customer’s competitors. Thus, the customer should be concerned about the normal employment and privacy protection polices practices and enforcement methods that the external services provider has adopted.
Employment Practices.
Employment practices are probably the most frequently abused methods of collecting competitive information in an illegal or wrongful manner. Hiring an experienced person from a key competitor has long been a method of gathering competitive information. If the person was in a position of trust and confidence, having had access to key competitive policy, strategy and tactical information, the newly hired employee is in a position to damage his or her former employer’s business. Outsourcing customers may properly inquire about a proposed contractor’s hiring process.
Outsourcing Law & Business Journal™: January 2009
January 1, 2009 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C.
OUTSOURCING LAW & BUSINESS JOURNAL (™) : Strategies and rules for adding value and improving legal and regulation compliance through business process management techniques in strategic alliances, joint ventures, shared services and cost-effective, durable and flexible sourcing of services. www.outsourcing-law.com. Visit our blog at http://blog.outsourcing-law.com for commentary on current events.
Insights by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C., Editors. www.biercekenerson.com
Vol. 9, No. 1 (January, 2009)
___________________________
1. Identity Theft in 2009: Compliance by Business Owners and Government Agencies under Draft Federal Data Breach Notification Act.
2. Codes of Conduct in the Outsourcing Environment: Practical Scenarios after Wipro Debarment and Raju / Satyam Fraud.
3. Humor.
4. Conferences.
___________________________
1. Identity Theft in 2009: Compliance by Business Owners and Government Agencies under Draft Federal Data Breach Notification Act. Personally identifiable information is the core to the global economy. All businesses, large and small, rely upon information technology, outsourced to external service providers, to process such information for a wide range of uses, including HR payroll and administration, purchase orders, accounting, finance, credit card payments, debt collection, tax compliance, records management, procurement, engineering, market analytics, business intelligence, e-discovery, legal services, and logistics. All businesses must comply with data breach notification laws. In the U.S.,these laws will likely be extended and federalized in 2009. For more information on pending federal legislation as of January 2009, click here for the full article, and, for a copy of the draft 2009 federal Data Breach Notification Act, click here.
2. Codes of Conduct in the Outsourcing Environment: Practical Scenarios after Wipro Debarment and Raju / Satyam Fraud. Implementing lessons learned from Enron and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, “codes of conduct” have become an integral ongoing concern in supply chain management applicable to employees, suppliers, contractors, consultants, captive affiliates, outsourcers and joint venture partners. When a trusted supplier breaches that code of trust, the enterprise customer needs to identify available remedies and make informed choices about enforcing legal rights and effectively mitigating the risks. This article makes recommendations for best practices in risk management, business continuity planning, disaster recovery, and legal rights and remedies in case of adverse events associated with a breach of a code of conduct or code of ethics due to senior management fraud or innocent “improprieties” that were fully disclosed but not permitted. It takes inspiration from the Raju /Satyam fraud in early 2009 and the debarment of Satyam Computer Servers Ltd., Wipro Technologies and Megasoft Consultants from the World Bank list of eligible contractors for corrupt practices. For the full article, click here.
3. Humor.
Change Control, (n). (1) a majority of voters on election day; (2) lobbyist’s draft legislation to block competitors from changing the rules of the marketplace; (3) Darwinian Evolution of Species, applied to business process transformation; (4) periodic brain dump.
4. Conferences
February 9-10, 2009, 9th Annual e-Services Philippines Conference and Exhibition and Next Wave Cities for Global Sourcing Council’s Multi-National Teleconference in Manila, Philippines and Hoboken, New Jersey. The Global Sourcing Council will join with a session at the 9th Annual eServices Global Sourcing Conference and Exhibition taking place in Manila, The Philippines, to focus on “Next Wave Cities”. In the U.S., this event will take place at the Stevens Institute in Hoboken, New Jersey, beginning at 7PM; refreshments will be served, followed by an international video conference at 8PM. A keynote speaker and panel will be present in each location. The Stevens Institute site will focus on key factors that client companies seek in their sourcing locations. In a bid to be the next e-Services hub, invited cities present their development plans and competitive advantages. Vendors and buyers/influencers will exchange perspectives on current demand and supply requirements; presentations from new eligible locations in the Philippines, Asia and Europe will be given and this conference will provide business matching and lead development opportunities. To register, click here. For more info on the 9th Annual e-Services Philippines Conference and Exhibition, visit their website.
February 10-11, 2009, American Conference Institute (ACI) Reducing Legal Costs, New York, New York. Corporate legal departments are under the gun to reduce costs, and the pressure on them to do so will only mount as the economy struggles. American Conference Institute’s 2nd Annual Corporate Counsel Forum on Reducing Legal Costs has been tailored to provide in-house counsel with the knowledge they need to successfully employ cost-reducing procedures both internally and externally. Don’t miss this unique cross-industry benchmarking forum on keeping legal department costs in check, led by a spectrum of leading companies. For more info, click here.
February 11-13, 2009 NASSCOM Leadership Forum 2009, Mumbai, India. The NASSCOM India Leadership Forum 2009, a milestone event that will mark NASSCOM’s 20th year, will bring under one roof industry leaders, thought gurus, analysts, Government decision makers, academia and IT users from across the world. For the very first time, the global conclave will journey through three key themes-one for each day-to completely transform the experience for delegates. For more info, click here.
February 16-18, 2009 IAOP 2009 Outsourcing World Summit, Carlsbad, California. In its 12th year educating the world’s outsourcing professionals, IAOP™’s 2009 Outsourcing World Summit is a one-of-a-kind opportunity. Come to learn the very latest in how to create competitive advantages for your company through outsourcing. For more info, visit their website.
February 23-24, 2009, American Conference Institute LPO Summit, New York, New York. ACI’s Legal Process Outsourcing Summit is designed for both in-house counsel and law firms who are still evaluating the viability of offshore outsourcing, plus those who already have outsourcing operations in place but who want to stay ahead of the latest industry developments to optimize their business practices. For more info, click here.
February 23-25, 2009, IQPC 6th Annual Procure-to-Pay Summit, Miami, Florida. SSON and IQPC’s Procure-to-Pay series returns with the 6th installment this February! Following the tremendous success of the last events and traction from leaders in the space, the 2-track agenda promises to deliver tools to help bridge purchasing with payables and enable process excellence throughout each and every segment of the P2P cycle, including improving the bottom line, optimizing available resources and managing process change. For more info, click here.
February 26, 2009, Global Services Conference, New York, New York. This year’s theme is “Revisiting Global Sourcing in a Challenging Economy”. The financial crisis and the economic meltdown have put pressure on organizations of all types. In a more globalized world, the dimensions of global engagement have increased and so has the impact. In challenging economic conditions, global sourcing of services throws up new opportunities. The 2009 Global Services Conference will have expert discussions around how customers of business and technology services can revisit their global sourcing strategies to tap into these opportunities. In a jam-packed day filled with thought-leaders, peer discussions, workshops and real-world case studies, the 2009 Global Services Conference breaks new ground in providing content to help executives determine how to establish business value in outsourcing engagements. Global Services will also present the findings of its annual Global Services 100 research study at an awards and cocktail reception. Click here for more info.
March 22-26, 2009, IQPC’s 13th Annual Shared Services Week, Orlando, Florida. SSON’s Shared Services Week™ is the community event for all levels of Shared Services professionals around the globe. With over 900+ past attendees from 22+ countries each year, it is the “Can’t Miss” event for everyone involved with shared services. In it’s 13th year, the event is bigger than ever! We have added additional tracks, more expert speakers, a larger exhibit hall and new content. Experience the most renowned Shared Services conference ever and take away key insights you will learn no where else. Network with experts in the industry and create contacts for life. Receive a 30% discount when you register by using code IUS_OSL_#3. Call 1-800-882-8684 or visit us online.
April 27-29, 2009, IQPC’s 7th Annual e-Discovery Conference, San Francisco, California. Join this year’s conference to learn more about managing the process of electronic discovery files and to explore options that are available for this task. Proactive e-discovery solutions are more critical to legal departments yet the solutions for costs, implementation, and management are still widely unknown. This conference will provide strategies for e-discovery success including proactive strategies for record management; global privacy issues, data security laws, regulations; specific cost control options; judicial perspective; and cutting edge software solutions. For more info, click here.
May 5-6, 2009, 7th Annual HRO World TM Conference & Expo at NY HR Week ™ , New York, New York. Hear from the HR outsourcing industry’s most respected practitioners, analysts and vendors. Register by April 10 with Source code HROL and save $100. Register here online or call 1-800-727-1227.
May 18-20, 2009, 6th Annual HR Shared Services & Outsourcing Summit, Denver, Colorado. The 6th Annual HR Shared Services Summit is the most important event of the year for HR leaders seeking to re-align their services with the strategic requirements of the business. This successful event brings together senior HR leaders in an exciting interactive forum, delivering best practice case studies aimed at optimizing every stage within the HR transformation process. Given historic economic conditions, it’s more important than ever that HR leaders exploit the dramatic economies of scale that are available to them through shared service structures. And for more mature companies – those that have already made the transition to an HR shared service model – there is an urgent need to re-align the kinds of services they offer with increasingly tough business challenges. Click here for more info.
******************************************
FEEDBACK: This newsletter addresses legal issues in sourcing of IT, HR, finance and accounting, procurement, logistics, manufacturing, customer relationship management including outsourcing, shared services, BOT and strategic acquisitions for sourcing. Send us your suggestions for article topics, or report a broken link at: webmaster@outsourcing-law.com The information provided herein does not necessarily constitute the opinion of Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. or any author or its clients. This newsletter is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Reproductions must include our copyright notice. For reprint permission, please contact: publisher@outsourcing-law.com . Edited by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. Copyright (c) 2009, Outsourcing Law Global LLC. All rights reserved. Editor in Chief: William Bierce of Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. located at 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2920, New York, NY 10170, 212-840-0080.