ETHICS IN THE MILITARY CONTRACT AWARD PROCESS Ethics Final - - PDF document

ETHICS IN THE MILITARY CONTRACT AWARD PROCESS Ethics Final Presentation Com 563 Ethics for Professionals Michelle K. Robinson WSU Summer 2015

• 1. Summary of the Ethics Dilemma

 In June 2015, a story broke regarding a high ranking military officer. This officer, the actor, was severely reprimanded and is facing punishment for unethical communications and behaviors occurring during a military contract award process in which the military was

• utsourcing a job to a civilian contractor and was seeking potential companies.

 This all began in 2011 on Fort Bliss, TX when the military was outsourcing work to a civilian contractor and was accepting applications for the contract.  The actor was intimately involved in the process and it became apparent to the actor that

• ne of the companies was operated by two prior classmates.

 The actor met privately with the prior classmates just before the contract meeting.  The actor provided the company operated by prior classmates with a “non-public” information sheet that contained protected information regarding the contract project. This sheet was meant for high ranking military personnel involved in the contract process, not for any of the competing companies.  Objections were voiced about the lack of competitive bids for the project. The actor

• verrode any objections made and the company operated by prior classmates was awarded

the contract.  The actor also intervened during the payment process, which should not have involved the actor in that manner.  A whistle-blower came forward and voiced serious concerns regarding the ethical standards,

• r lack thereof, possible abuse of authority by the actor surrounding the contract award

process.  As a result of the concern expressed, a three year investigation directed towards the actor and the company awarded the contract commenced.

• The investigation was conducted by the Army Inspector General, the Criminal

Investigation Command, and the FBI  The investigation has concluded with the following findings

• One of the classmates has been convicted of wire fraud relating to a contract

between the company in question and Fort Bliss.

• The actor has been reprimanded, is being retired, and is facing punishment that

would strip the actor of rank and alter retirement benefits.  The actor has made comments regarding the allegations and the investigators findings

• The actor states that a measure of risk was invited into the contracting process. The

actor felt this was an acceptable risk since speeding up the contracting process would benefit the military force.

• The actor has repeatedly stated the actions were in the best interest of the army,

that the actions were done for the greater good.

• 2. Application of Ethical Principles

 Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that is teleological in nature. The basis

• f its standards focus on the consequences of a chosen action and/or decision with the

ultimate goal being to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness. So as long as an action and/or decision creates a maximum amount of happiness, is better for the greater good, it will be considered ethically acceptable (Johannesen, et al., 2008, p. 87).

In the ethical dilemma described in the section above, the actor makes statements that supports a Utilitarian ethical viewpoint. The actor states that there was complete awareness in the decisions made by the actor during the contracting process, but that it was acceptable since it benefited the military force. In other words the actor did what was described because it was in the best interest of the military post and all of the force supporting it. So the actor made the decision to commit the various acts based on what was viewed as the greater good. By speeding up the process, it would create the greatest amount of happiness by providing the necessary support provided by the contract in a more expedient manner. It could be surmised the only unhappiness created would be from the companies who were not awarded the contract and those subordinate workers uncomfortable with the situation, thus minimizing it since the rest

• f the military post would benefit from the expediency of the process as a result of the

actions by the actor.  Kantianism: Kantianism is an ethical theory that is deontological in nature, that is, it is a duty-bound ethical theory. The actions and/or decisions are deemed either ethical, regardless of the consequences of said actions and/or decisions. A key component of Kantianism is the Categorical Imperative. Although there are more than one version, all with the same basic meaning, the initial Categorical Imperative is as follows: “Act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Rachels and Rachels, 2015, p. 130).” This rule basically says, before you decide something, or commit a specific action, consider if you’d be willing to have the action and/or decision be a universal law. If the answer is yes, then your action and/or decision is acceptable and ethical. If you answer no, then your action and/or decision is not acceptable and/or ethical. In the preceding ethical dilemma described above, we can apply the Categorical Imperative. Would our actor want their actions to become universal law? Would our actor want every contract reward process to go down such as the one in the dilemma? While the actor has not answered that question, it is likely the answer would be no. Had the actor stopped and pondered if the actions would be a suitable universal law, the actor would have realized that the actions about to be taken were in fact unsuitable as universal laws. This would render the actions that were ultimately taken as unethical. Using Kantianism as a basis for the actor’s decision, the actor would not have partaken in the actions described in the ethical dilemma. This would have created a process in which each potential contractor would have had an equal chance at receiving the contract, although the process itself would have been somewhat lengthened.  Ethics of Care/Care Ethics: In care ethics, the focus is on the relationships between people in determining if an action/decision is considered ethical. Relationships, along with the needs, affection, trust and loyalty that accompany the relationships are paramount in ethical decisions (Johannesen, et al., 2008, p. 208). Looking at the

dilemma put forth by our actor, we could initially say that the actor utilized care ethics in the situation. The relationship between the contractors and the actor was a basis for the decision made. What wasn’t considered by the actor was the relationships with the actor held with coworkers, subordinates working under the actor within the same process, and the other contractors. By not considering the other relationships, the needs, trust, and loyalty within those other relationships was irreparably damaged. If the actor had applied care ethics to the dilemma, the company ran by the schoolmates may or may not have gotten the contract, but all relationships would have been considered.

• 3. Exploration of Actor’s Choice

 The initial reaction to the choices made by the actor was that the actor acted

• unethically. After studying the actions of the actor in relation to the various ethical

theories, the idea that the actor acted in an unethical manner remains. The actor states the choices were made for the greater good of the military. In reality, if the contract award process had been allowed to proceed in an ethical manner, the military population would have still received benefits. This invalidates the reasoning of the

• actor. The best choice for the actor would have been to follow proper procedures in

regards to the contract award process. These procedures have been created to ensure that the contract award process proceeds in an ethical manner, and by circumventing these procedures, the actor created an unethical situation that destroyed relationships, tarnished the reputation of the company and actor, and ultimately undermined the entire contract award process.

• 4. Discussion Prompts

 Under certain ethical theories, it could be said the actor behaved ethically. Do you believe the actor conducted themselves in an ethical manner? Please provide reasoning behind your choice using the appropriate ethical theory.  If you believe the actor created an unethical situation, how do we decide where the blame falls? How much is the actor at fault versus the contractor?

Works Cited/Consulted Johannesen, R.L., Valde, K.S., and Whedbee, K..E. (2008). Ethics in Communication (6th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Lilley, K. (2015, June 22). 2-Star General to Retire After Reprimand in Bliss Deal. Army Times. Retrieved from http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/06/22/dana-pittard-army-central-west- point/29125415/. Rachels, J. (2015). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (8th ed.). S. Rachels (Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw- Hill Education. Whitlock, Craig. (2015, June 21). Key Army Commander Accused of Steering a Contract to Ex-Classmates. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/key-us-commander-leaves-middle-east-after-reprimand- formisconduct/2015/06/21/7c3e8d7a-155a-11e5-9518- f9e0a8959f32_story.html Images under Creative Commons License allow for modifications and commercial use (all have borders softened and transparency adjusted). Bleil, M. (2009, December 27). Immanuel Kant. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/12463666@N03/16837349419/in/photolist-rDRPnV-df4vu5- fpd7mC-6Ls3S9-rXpEhC-dQDBZc-4z6Phw-cY9RJY-bEzTE5-s7nTBP-c1BW2-d7NnwY-e6ptdo- 24Fua-shADvN-ehey84-2EtAcn-61jgJP-9BBizJ-68qMra-iK3sNq-j2GgWU-8dKTLs-9rvj9o-uLsK1n- mqEtwi-42itdc-j3Fdth-69ae3g-8NWQD1-9yoJpk-ujSAKy-ujSFk5-vgmYvf-ujRHKY-6SeKd9-cFC9XS- awbcfP-9iosDy-dbCpYQ-9ks8om-4D51pm-nqsJWs-5EFLdG-iK1xdx-8i1yrJ-8tGpkT- qXjjWe- 4wbXB9-8RQ5s2 Carter, A. (2014, February 19). 140219-D-NI589-022. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/secdef/12643446695/in/photolist-kgfYdg-9yCDMQ-bz6j3T- bz6F3K-j2rXS6-j2w4TN- kggCag-s9AjPB-abCJBb-bVFahS-qHYUz4-bDLLdG-rMiTjJ-dV6iAJ-aS2m2V- njrTZW-oCxKVV-9wyZpZ-e4qK5E-sJ6SxW-5ogAia-e43nok-sJ7Kt3-maj5Ke-6Mk4hm-ssTWSF-

• UWzpJ-a3DMWJ-rMPNKm-bNhvDV-pu5bcs-rxhTwc-vK2exb-95uTUu-o54gg6-8KgkPa-r8epZF-

hUqZEA-nAGMEC-fUJtcm-ogMTtJ-kK1o5W-kJY8kv-8DQE1n-6zpLTt-pzpyFF-7ZikFw-dMf4cX- 8UeWLA-mHjn4g. Miller, B. (2015, April 3). Hope for Balance. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/12463666@N03/16837349419/in/photolist-rDRPnV-df4vu5- fpd7mC-6Ls3S9-rXpEhC-dQDBZc-4z6Phw-cY9RJY-bEzTE5-s7nTBP-c1BW2-d7NnwY-e6ptdo- 24Fua-shADvN-ehey84-2EtAcn-61jgJP-9BBizJ-68qMra-iK3sNq-j2GgWU-8dKTLs-9rvj9o-uLsK1n- mqEtwi-42itdc-j 3Fdth-69ae3g-8NWQD1-9yoJpk-ujSAKy-ujSFk5-vgmYvf-ujRHKY-6SeKd9-cFC9XS- awbcfP-9iosDy-dbCpYQ-9ks8om-4D51pm-nqsJWs-5EFLdG-iK1xdx-8i1yrJ-8tGpkT-qXjjWe- 4wbXB9-8RQ5s2. Rubensson, F. (2014, April 21). Trip to Liberty Island. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/froderik/14821203267/in/photolist-ozGxnn-PCAp1-6RS3Py- 9Km1pP-9ZS9Xn-quLZY6-b15uK-fQhPQV-quLXJB-79vGUg-cL63j1-ohTuK9-85xEFR-6mjqaU- acAXV3-2hUr78-8rkr9y-6AXHv9-5xnEKq-bociCB-4r7hdp-6qSDmW-caWWV9-iWUPBT-vay2kF-

8HAV8m-64Tsc2-5QxDSn-crpUM9-6cQwZo-mg4YK2-ehLBfA-86nTPG-5Tf5Sh-5QBVYm-6R38r1- tsgAcX-mg6WWN-6cLoZk-tscswP-nPVDU1-5227sm-6cQwyG-6HTpmh- bMKMq2-nfoD9R- 6cLp7i-iWRX2j-6cQwc1-rGAq2d.