Field Ordering Officer: The Ultimate Ethical Test - Essay Example

 Abstract Collapse of internal controls has been cited in many reports by the United States Government Accounting Office (GAO) as a major weakness affecting Government Purchase Card Programs (GPCP). The Field Ordering Officer’s ultimate ethical test came through coercion by unit commander’s influence to make unauthorized purchases. The unit commander’s unwarranted influence on the FOO emerged from GAO’s investigation in to the activities of the commanders’ failure to effectively implement the Government Purchase Card Program (GPCP). Unauthorized practices were identified, including splitting purchases to accomplish the threshold for micro-purchases and fraud. Field Ordering Officer: The ultimate ethical test Field Ordering Officers can sustain military combat power through their operational contracting support but under a Commander’s undue pressure they are subject to ethical dilemmas that threaten their values, the mission, and taxpayer’s funds. The FOO is put in to an ethical dilemma by the unit commander causing him to make illegal purchases. The commander finds it effortless to order supplies from a single source. The commander demands that the purchases be split so as to maintain the required threshold for micro-purchases and hence avoid the limitations for spending. These activities do not meet the standards required of a Government Purchase Agent and the government procurement and financial regulations. They are unethical practices that lead to loss of value for money and also betray public trust in the army. Field Ordering Officer Ethical Dilemma Michelson (2013) defines ethics as well substantiated values of right and wrong that stipulate how humans are expected to behave generally in terms of rights, responsibilities, benefits to humanity, justice or particular virtues. For instance, ethics refers to certain principles that enforce reasonable responsibilities to desist from anti-social behaviours such as killing, rape, theft, fraud and corruption among other actions that that are regarded as vices in the society. Ethical principles also embrace standards that direct the qualities of integrity, kindness, and trustworthiness. These standards are considered to be sufficient as they are reinforced by reliable and justifiable reasons. Ethical dilemma on the other hand is a condition that generates mental conflict as a person deliberates on ethical imperatives whereby acting upon one results in breaking the rules of the other. The field ordering officer is faced with an ethical dilemma when he finds himself in a situation whereby he has to make a decision regarding the right plan of action in the face of two demanding and equally ethical choices. For this reason, it is important for the field ordering officers to undertake appropriate training (Reivich et al. 2011). Effective operational contracting support necessitates understanding of every field ordering officer’s role in the process and familiarity with the particular regulations and procedures necessary for successful accomplishment of their duties and obligations, which include safekeeping and appropriate utilization of government resources delegated to them. The field ordering officers play an essential role of helping the unit commanders to undertake over-the-counter procurements for amounts not exceeding the threshold for micro-purchases as stipulated by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 213.301(2) and Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5113.270-90. The field ordering officer facilitates the unit commanders to accomplish their mission as they are able to make quick and direct local purchases. For this reason, unit commanders tend to pick individuals with commendable capabilities to work as field ordering officers and ensure that they are not assigned other duties that may conflict or hinder their core functions (Pay Agent (PA) Operations, 2013). The Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) Part 5113 must be adhered to in the recruitment and selection of field ordering officers (FOOs). The unit commanders who nominate the FOOs have to be in the administrative chain of command of the government purchasing cardholder. The FOO is offered an appointment letter that comprises a printed approval indicating the micro-purchase thresholds limits, responsibilities, and appropriate credit limitations. The printed approval has to quote obligatory conformity aligned to the AFARS Subpart 5113.2 and the Army Government Purchase Card Operating Procedures (AR 715-xx). Ethical Lenses The three ethical lenses to be considered in this case are rules, virtue and outcome. The lens of rules comprises the government regulation and laws that have been established by the army to act as checks and balances in line with the Army Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS), and AR 715-xx. The unit commanders and field ordering officers are obligated to follow these rules that establish the terms and conditions for FOOs to follow in conducting government business. To equip the FOOs with the desired competences, the following courses are offered for them; ethics training, local developed GPC training, web-based training, Department of Defense (DoD) GPC training, U.S. Bank Access Online training, and Defense Acquisition University (DAU) online training course Purchase Card Online System (PCOLS) prior to making any purchases (AR 715-xx, 2007). The FOOs are required to sign a statement of training declaring that they have received and understood all training, and that they clearly aware of the punishment associated with non-adherence to the procurement regulations (United States Department of Defence, 2011). The virtue lens depicts a situation whereby FOOs are compelled to make a decision between orders from unit commanders regarding a particular purchase that is illegal according to government purchase regulations that the FOO is expected to observe at all times. The FOO has put his trust in and is loyal to the unit commander, which influence him to commit such unauthorized purchase. It is not right for the FOO to commit to unlawful purchase through ambiguous direction by the commander. The FOO might allow such procurement irregularities to proceed due to the loyalty towards the commander. Nevertheless, the FOO is bound to these purchases by virtue of his knowledge and experience (United States Department of Defence, 2011). Every action undertaken by the FOO regardless of whether it is through the influence of his loyalty to the commander has an outcome. The outcome lens embodies the fraud committed and the impact to the Army. The flawed decisions made by the FOO put him at risk of being ensnared in a difficult situation, prioritizing his trust and loyalty to the unit commander over adherence to the stipulated government procurement procedures. When such procedures are not followed, illegal procurements are made by the FOO under the directions of the commander. Furthermore, the FOO does not certify that the products are in good order and condition as somebody else receives and signs the deliveries. The commander is in control and the FOO therefore does not mind anything sinister happening due to his trust he has for his boss. However, there is an apparent collapse of internal controls that are supposed to guide authorisation of procurement, inspection and receipt of the delivered goods. This leads to fraudulent procurement that is supported by the unit commander’s failure to oversee adherence to the pertinent laws and regulations governing government procurement by the FOO (Pay Agent (PA) Operations, 2013). Impact to the Army The Army Inspector General’s office has a responsibility of auditing all the government procurement transactions to ensure that the laws and regulations outlined the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 213.301(2) and Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5113.270-90. These regulations are not adhered to when a number of transactions are split to lower the amounts in order to remain within the micro-purchase threshold that limits one-time procurement of not more than $3,000. Such unlawful purchases led to the inappropriate spending of over $30,000 in 25 fraudulent deals with different vendors. Some other 10 transactions led to the improper spending of over $1million. In some cases, the items purchased cannot be substantiated yet they were received and payments made (Government Accounting Office (GAO)-08-333, 2008). Continuous violation of government procurement procedures through improper guidance by field commanders makes the army to lose value for money spent, which would otherwise have been used effectively to support the resource base of the army. For this reason, the army continues to suffer in the efforts to accomplish its mission. The fraudulent procurement not only hinders its financial capabilities but also betrays the trust of tax payers. The army’s strength continues to diminish as a result the FOOs’ ethical dilemma and hence there is need for a change in the manner that the relationship between the FOOs and the unit commanders is established (United States Department of Defence, 2011). Recommendations A strategic shift in the manner that government procurement procedures are undertaken is necessary to ensure that the shortcomings identified are dealt with. It requires enhanced monitoring systems and effective oversight measures to curtail the ethical dilemma situations that hinder the successful performance of field ordering officers. The unit commanders have emerged as the major sources of negative influence on the experienced FOOs causing them to ignore the government purchase regulations that they are well aware of. The standards of practice in terms of adherence to the procurement rules and regulations need to be emphasized through development of a value chain comprising different levels that will be monitored by different government entities. For example, the FOO should not be tasked with all the activities involved in the procurement process. Rather, there should be other personnel charged with checking compliance and receiving the goods, processing the payment should be the last level of the value chain, which should be the responsibility of the FOO. The unit commanders will only be required to raise the need for a particular purchase and wait for the procurement procedure to be followed effectively without coercion or conflict of interest. Unit commanders should oversee the preparation of individual performance contracts in line with the army service charter, which will help to expedite the procurement process. The time between generation of quotations and payment of the delivered items needs to be stated and observed to avoid delay in the procurement of urgently needed items. Regular training of FOOs needs to be conducted to ensure compliance from an informed perspective. Proper documentation should be mandatory for effective monitoring of transactions. The power to recruit and fire the FOO should not be left at the discretion of the unit commanders to avoid undue loyalty generating a situation of ethical dilemma that leads to irregular procurements. Conclusion Contingency environment during deployment time requires FOOs to expedite procurement of urgently needed items. There are myriad issues related to irregular procurements by FOOs under duress from their unit commanders as put forward by the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Ethical dilemma is a critical issue associated with unlawful purchases that have led the army to lose value for money. Monitoring of procurement procedures needs to be enhanced with more players coming in to ensure adherence to government procurement regulations and to mitigate the impact of ethical dilemma. References Army Regulation 715-xx. (2012). Department of the Army Government Purchase Card Operating Procedure. Accessed 29 Mar. 2015 from Michelson, B. M., (2013), “Character Development of U.S. Army Leaders: A Laissez Faire Approach,” Military Review 30-38 Pay Agent (PA) Operations, (2013), ATP 1-06.1. Field Ordering Officer (FOO) and Pay Agent (PA) Operations, Accessed 29 Mar. 2015 from Reivich, K., Seligman, M., & McBride, S. (2011). Master Resilience Training in the U.S. Army. American Psychologist. Accessed Mar. 29, 2015, from United States Department of Defence, (2011), Joint Ethics Regulation (JER), DOD 5500.07R (Change 7), Accessed 29 Mar. 2015 from Read More