honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Wednesday, July 18, 2007

ON THE MONEY TRAIL
Security spending revisited

By Jim Dooley
Advertiser Columnist

A previous stop along the Money Trail has been the Homeland Security watering hole. We'll pause there again for another drink.

On the last visit, we learned that Aaron Fujioka, the state's chief procurement officer, had killed the state Defense Department's request to continue buying millions of dollars of Homeland Security equipment via a purchasing system set up by the state of Arkansas.

The Defense Department basically argued that it was easier and cheaper for the state and four counties, which buy Homeland Security equipment and services with federal grant money administered by the state, to use the Arkansas purchasing consortium rather than to shop for the items independently.

But Fujioka said he didn't believe Arkansas' procurement laws were an exact fit with Hawai'i's and he also cast doubt on whether Hawai'i was actually getting the cheapest prices by going the Arkansas route.

He said in a letter last month to Maj. Gen. Robert G.F. Lee, the state's adjutant general, that "Rebecca O'Neal, contract administrator for the Arkansas cooperative contract, advised (me) that the best pricing was not being afforded to Hawai'i."

Arkansas allowed participants to use a variety of vendors, but Hawai'i was just using one, which "raised questions as to whether the pricing received was reasonable," Fujioka wrote.

O'Neal said Hawai'i could achieve "significant cost savings" if it comparison-shopped, Fujioka wrote. He asked Lee for more information but never got a response.

We did get a response from Defense Department spokesman Maj. Chuck Anthony, who said that the vendor Hawai'i has regularly used for equipment purchases, Fisher Scientific, "was the only company that could supply ... our needs on a timely manner."

The state and the counties have spent $6.6 million on Fisher purchases, a savings of $415,000 over list prices," Anthony said. And the state saved "another estimated $697,169 to $1,046,425 for freight and handling charges" that would have been assessed non-Arkansas customers, he added.

Asked why the department never responded to Fujioka's request for more information, Anthony said, "It seemed that (Fujioka's office) had already decided they were not going to extend our department an exception" to the procurement law.

Fujioka said yesterday, "As in any procurement matter, we can only comment or advise based on the information provided (to us)."

If you know that a particular money trail will lead to boondoggle, excessive spending or white elephants, reach Jim Dooley at 535-2447 or jdooley@honoluluadvertiser.com