Archive: February, 2006
Apparently 75% of US companies can’t find 90% of their contracts. Gone. Missing. Lost. This is one of the more sensational stats to be found in a recent article on post-contract management at SupplyManagement.com. It’s an interesting look at who’s doing what when it comes to managing contracts once the ink is dry.
At last… the missing contracts
According to a report in today’s Australian Financial Review (In breach but in with a shot, 24/2/2006, p12) sometimes it’s OK for a vendor to employ a serving Defence Force employee to assist with a tender for a multi-million dollar defence contract. It might be a breach of departmental regulations, and presumably the conditions of tender, but according to the Inspector-General of Defence, it’s only a “technical” breach. Apparently they’re OK.
Since the officer had no connection to or involvement in the project for which tenders were called, the vendor received no improper or unfair advantage.
So, what did the vendor get for its $48,000 fee? Two months help with the bid. That’s all.
Talk about over-used and abused. SOX compliance is one of those buzz words that just about eveyone has a “solution” for. Google “Sarbanes-Oxley” and you get over 27 million hits. Google “SOX compliance” and you get just under 5 million hits. That’s a lot of hits. But what does it mean for your contracts? Or more specifically, what does it mean for your purchasing contracts?
Have I got an Act for you…
A recent article from SAP INFO got me thinking about these questions. Time to get a handle on what the Sarbanes-Oxley Act means for those who create and manage contracts on a daily basis.