E-COMMERCE IN THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS

Court Case Summary

     The case is about a former employee of Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia (DSCP), a project of the DLA (Defense Logistics Agency), DOD (Department of Defense). The agency provides a host logistical support to some civilian agencies and the military. DLA defined a policy that sort to award outstanding employee performance. The process of award however follows a special mechanical procedure that seeks to determine that the contribution of the employee is that it sees the realization of optimal performance of the agency. The case presented to The Court of Federal Claims seeking that DLA be held liable to application of the plaintiff’s suggestion. The passing of this statement would again hold DLA liable to pay upto 20,000$ in award money for the suggestion which successfully passed through the correct procedures. In essence, the Plaintiff seeks recognition of the implied contract created once she handed over her suggestion.

The suggestions that are viable for consideration under the DLA program must; be submitted in writing, approved and finally, the mandates exercised by the employee must not be under their job description. Under these terms, the plaintiff can in her every right make a formal complaint against the agency. She claims that her suggestion was accepted and approved in 1999 where she expected the award, this however did not happen.

The defendant agrees to the submission of the suggestion by the plaintiff but does not agree that an approval was issued to the same. DLA claims that the plaintiff’s suggestion was infact under evaluation implementation in form of other unrelated strategies by the agency. In addition, her proposal required massive reengineering of the computer configurations at their facilities. They do not however, dispute the benefits of implementation of her submitted proposal. The plaintiff notes that her proposed scheme should have saved 1.5-7million dollars of the agency; she also claims that her idea was placed under high importance during the evaluation period.

The courts dilemma in solving this and any other related cases is that it cannot clearly define the statute in a manner as to be captured in the Tucker Act. The statute created by the agency in this case like many others cannot be captured as money-mandating, a phrase that would incriminate the agency to fraud. However, the cards change when the case is viewed as an implied contract where the employee and the DLA have entered a contract by default. The claim of an implied contract can only be fouled by utterances which are clearly published in the agency’s Manual. The award is stated as not to be an entitlement, plus the awarding itself is mandated by the management alone.

The complaint is dismissed as a matter of lack of sufficient evidence from the plaintiff. In defense of her claims, the plaintiff provides sketchy information that point only to other employees and supervisors knowledge of the suggestion. Despite the feeling of sympathy towards the plaintiff, professional ethics do not allow for one to take sides, but rather use an unbiased mind to find logical solutions. It is a struggle the plaintiff has carried on for years from the 20^th-21^st century. Conversely, the aim of the hearing was to determine the soundness of the allegations which were found evidently lacking. The decision by the court is therefore, inspired by fairness to all and responsibility to office.