VA Negligence and Conspiracy to Discriminate
|
Summary -->
|
The VA response Regarding Computer Based Training
On July 23, 1991 TME Complained to VA about the change in CBT requirements. Clovice Lewis made inquiries at the VA concerning why LISC was able to abandon the requirements for CBT. He was informed that LISC received a waiver for the requirements because they told the VA that TME, as a minority-owned firm, was not capable of developing the CBT software. TME immediately filed a formal objection to this action which was never answered by the VA. (See Document T-0016)
Although TME received return receipt cards from each of the addressees of the July 23, 1991 memorandum, no one ever responded to it. (T-0020-1:12) There was no letter stating the VA CBT requirements, there was no telephone call requesting more information, there was no comment on TME's allegations of mismanagement on the part of LISC . Nothing. At the time, Mary Brown was the acting Head of Training, Claudia Fletcher was Technology Assessment coordinator, and William Stapleton was in charge of NOAVA Program Procurement. It is remarkable that the VA did not feel it was necessary to respond to what amounts to a "False Claims" allegation from a firm which is a recognized subcontractor against the prime contractor on a major government contract.
Although TME received return receipt cards from each of the addressees of the July 23, 1991 memorandum, no one ever responded to it. (T-0020-1:12) There was no letter stating the VA CBT requirements, there was no telephone call requesting more information, there was no comment on TME's allegations of mismanagement on the part of LISC . Nothing. At the time, Mary Brown was the acting Head of Training, Claudia Fletcher was Technology Assessment coordinator, and William Stapleton was in charge of NOAVA Program Procurement. It is remarkable that the VA did not feel it was necessary to respond to what amounts to a "False Claims" allegation from a firm which is a recognized subcontractor against the prime contractor on a major government contract.
The VA Lack of Response Regarding the E-NUM
On August 6, 1992, TME sent another registered and certified mailing to the VA. This mailing was initiated by the news that, after months of delay, LISC and TMS had finally delivered a prototype of the E-NUM for evaluation purposes to the VA. The mailing went to William Stapleton, Director of Technical Procurement for the VA and Larry Flagg, Stapleton's successor in charge of NOAVA Program Procurement. The mailing contained a cover letter and an exhaustively detailed and thoroughly annotated account of the process LISC employed to acquire and produce the E-NUM. (T-0019)
The contents of the cover letter is summarized as follows:
1) TME issued a formal protest to the E-NUM delivered by LISC/TMS,
2) marked the difference between the TME E-NUM that was demonstrated earlier that year and the product that LISC had just delivered,
3) informed the VA that the delays in delivery were due to LISC and not because of any problems with TME,
4) charged LISC with "... arbitrary, biased, unfair, and possibly discriminatory and fraudulent procurement activities which were committed in the name of the Department of Veteran's Affairs",
5) requested a product-to-product comparison if possible, and
6) that in lieu of such a comparison, LISC be required to provide the VA with the TME version of the E-NUM because of the "flawed procurement process it employed".
The contents of the cover letter is summarized as follows:
1) TME issued a formal protest to the E-NUM delivered by LISC/TMS,
2) marked the difference between the TME E-NUM that was demonstrated earlier that year and the product that LISC had just delivered,
3) informed the VA that the delays in delivery were due to LISC and not because of any problems with TME,
4) charged LISC with "... arbitrary, biased, unfair, and possibly discriminatory and fraudulent procurement activities which were committed in the name of the Department of Veteran's Affairs",
5) requested a product-to-product comparison if possible, and
6) that in lieu of such a comparison, LISC be required to provide the VA with the TME version of the E-NUM because of the "flawed procurement process it employed".
When TME did not receive a response from the VA by September, 1992, it issued a tracer through the Postal Service to ascertain the location of the certified mailings. There was no response to the tracer. In October, 1992, after yet another tracer was sent there was still no response from the VA. On November 17, 1992 TME caused the main branch in Fremont to send a mandatory response (PS Form 1510) to the VA. Finally, on December 7, 1992, the VA did respond.
The forms, for both William Stapleton and Larry Flagg, were responded to by William Stapleton in his handwriting, with exactly the same annotation: "Not Received. Without more of a description of the article I can't tell if it was received or not." The Post Office, however, was able to prove that both packages were, in fact, delivered on August 10, 1992, and were received by a person named L. Banks - at the Post Office in the VA facility where both Larry Flagg and William Stapleton work. The fact that the July 23, 1991 memorandum questioning the relationship between LISC and the VA (which was not responded to) at that time raised the possibility that key administrators at the VA were being purposely negligent regarding TME's role as the subcontractor for CBT, or were being unduly influenced by LISC against TME. William Stapleton, a top administrator in the VA, was the recipient of all documentation generated by TME that very seriously challenged the management of the NOAVA program on the part of both the VA and LISC. Stapleton took the extraordinary action of responding negatively for both himself and Larry Flagg many months after the E-NUM was protested by TME (giving TMS enough time to mend any problems with it), while it can be proven that the documents did arrive at the intended VA facility. Because of the fact that the August 6, 1992 documents clearly charge fraud and discrimination, the VA unmistakably implicated itself as a party to the discrimination that LISC engaged in to deny TME and its principals their civil rights on the basis of race.
|
A final caveat ... TME was told that the contract to produce the E-NUM with TMS was abandoned by LISC because:
1) TMS could not create software that is as graphical and easy to use as TME '5 version,
2) TMS did not own the rights to the search engine it employed for the E-NUM and could not make enough changes to it to accommodate LISC's needs, and
3) the cost of creating the E-NUM with TMS was prohibitive.
Neither LISC nor the VA subsequently inquired as to whether or not the TME E-NUM was available for use with the NOAVA program.
1) TMS could not create software that is as graphical and easy to use as TME '5 version,
2) TMS did not own the rights to the search engine it employed for the E-NUM and could not make enough changes to it to accommodate LISC's needs, and
3) the cost of creating the E-NUM with TMS was prohibitive.
Neither LISC nor the VA subsequently inquired as to whether or not the TME E-NUM was available for use with the NOAVA program.
NOTE: Lockheed Martin Corporation does not now own, nor is it associated with, Lockheed Integrated Solutions Company. In all instances "Lockheed" is an abbreviation for Lockheed Integrated Solutions Company. The story presented in this website is for historical and educational purposes only. It is a true account of how systemic racism operated in a corporation in the past, and an exposé of how it operates in the present.