Copyright © 2004 David Ferguson An interactive storyboard This file uses hyperlinked PowerPoint...

Copyright © 2004 David Ferguson

An interactive storyboard

This file uses hyperlinked PowerPoint pages to illustrate the proposed design for an online course. Even with placeholder graphics and greeked text, it allows a person to interact with the storyboard as a student would interact with the course.

For several stakeholders who were new to online learning, this storyboard vividly showed how their expertise with real-world issues would become credible challenges in the course.

Click arrow to continue


About the design

This storyboard presents the design for one vignette in a series dealing with ethics and procurement. Material in the storyboard is not necessarily complete or accurate; its purpose is to show how someone would work with the online course.

The next screen (not part of the storyboard) shows the high-level design for a vignette.

Some screens include a Design notes box. Like the high-level design, these are not part of the storyboard. Click the box to display comments about the screen.

Click arrow to begin

Make a decision

• Describe setting

• Introduce characters

What do you want to do?

Talk to someone else

Check resources

2. Video clip1. Introduction

4. Initial

decision

High-level design for “interactive storyboard” vignette

3. Learner choice

Replay vignette

A. XxxxB. XxxxC. XxxxD. Xxxx

A. XxxxB. XxxxC. XxxxD. Xxxx

5. Ethics officer

feedback

6. Final

answer?

7. Final feedback

If choice is unacceptable, return to choices.

If choice is acceptable, two options:

• Return to choices (explore other options)

• Conclude vignette

*

*

*

* Note: from any of the “talk to” screens, “resource” screens, or from the initial decision screen, the learner can select any of the main options (talk to, check, or make a decision).

Summary for this vignette

3a

3d

3b

3c

8. Conclusion


continueback


Sensitive information

Mike Dawson is a government contracting employee. Jim Carpenter is an employee of Megafirm, Inc.

Mike and Jim have known each other since grad school. They worked at the same company for five years. Then Mike went to work in government procurement, where he’s been for nearly ten years.

(Select Continue to view the vignette.)

continueback


(the video, scene 1)

(scene one: Mike’s office; Jim drops by)Jim: Hey, Mike – am I interrupting?Mike: Of course not, Jim. What brings you over here? Jim: Oh, I just had a meeting upstairs with one of our project teams. How are things?Mike: You know how it is – too many projects and not enough time.Jim: Oh, yeah, I understand that. (pause) Listen, Mike, can you check something out for me?Mike: Sure, if I can.Jim: Well, one of my guys called me from Phoenix. It seems your office awarded a sole source

contract on some further work on the GRIPS project to Broward Industries.

You know, Mike, my guys always thought we could compete for that contract. And they can't get any sensible explanation for the sole source from your people. They're talking about protesting, but I don't want to muddy this up if your people have a good reason for what they're doing.

Can you find out anything about this for me?

Mike: Let me see what I can dig up and I’ll get back to you.Jim: That’d be great.(fade out)

Estimated duration: 50 seconds

continueback

Designnotes



continueback

(scene one: Mike’s office; Jim drops by)Jim: Hey, Mike – am I interrupting?Mike: Of course not, Jim. What brings you over here? Jim: Oh, I just had a meeting upstairs with one of our project teams. How are things?Mike: You know how it is – too many projects and not enough time.Jim: Oh, yeah, I understand that. (pause) Listen, Mike, can you check something out for me?Mike: Sure, if I can.Jim: Well, one of my guys called me from Phoenix. It seems your office awarded a sole source

contract on some further work on the GRIPS project to Broward Industries.

You know, Mike, my guys always thought we could compete for that contract. And they can't get any sensible explanation for the sole source from your people. They're talking about protesting, but I don't want to muddy this up if your people have a good reason for what they're doing.

Can you find out anything about this for me?

Mike: Let me see what I can dig up and I’ll get back to you.Jim: That’d be great.

Estimated duration: 50 secondsThe actual course would include video. The storyboard simply shows the planned dialogue onto this screen. The graphic in the upper right is a placeholder for the video clip.



(scene two: Mike in Karen’s office; Karen led the team that made the sole-source decision.)

Karen: (handing Mike a document) Here’s the justification for the sole-source decision we made for Broward. It’s not very long, but I think it’s clear.

Mike: (looking at the document) So, what’s the story?

Karen: As you can see, we found there was a very strong case for the sole-source. Broward developed the first-generation version of GRIPS. They know it like no one else does.

Mike: That’s what this “intimately familiar” language is about?

Karen: Exactly.

Mike: (reading) And you go on about “expertise with complex details of the software.”

Karen: We all thought this was straightforward. We’re looking for some major upgrades in a tight timeframe, and we didn’t see any way another company could deliver them.

Mike: Yes, I see this language about “could not reasonably be made by a company that lacked Broward's extensive and long-term familiarity with the product.” (pause)So tell me, Karen – what if another company claimed they could do as good a job as Broward or anyone else? I mean, what if they feel like filing a protest?

Karen: Honestly, Mike, if I were some other outfit, I wouldn't bother to protest. They’d spent a lot of time and effort, but I don’t see how they’d win. Speaking only for myself, I think the program office would take it very personally. They’ve got better things to spend their time on.

Jim: Well, thanks, Karen. I appreciate your finding this out for me.

Karen: No problem. I’m sorry it wasn’t good news.

(close-up of document in Mike’s hands, clearly market “source selection sensitive.” Fade out)

Estimated duration: 1 minute 25 secondscontinueback


If you were in Mike’s place…

What should Mike do now that he knows the reason for the sole-source award?


Check some resources

Make a decision

See the vignette again

Designnotes


If you were in Mike’s place…


See the vignette again

The design allows three paths. The learner can:

• Consult others (as in real life)

• Check certain resources

• Make a decisionEach path allows movement to the other two paths. Eventually the learner must make a decision.


Check some resources

Make a decision

Click your choice.


People Mike can talk to

These are people Mike could talk to

about the situation:

Mike’s Boss Mike’s Wife Joan (coworker)

Check some resources Make a decision

Click someone’s picture to get their opinion.

Or:


Resources

These are resources Mike can consult about Jim’s request for information on the sole-source award to his competitor:

FAR Part 3(improper practices)

5 CFR 2635 OGEStandards of Ethical Conduct

41 USC 243Restrictions on disclosure

Talk to someone else Make a decision

Click your choice.



He can tell Jim what he learned and where it came from. There’s no reason not to. Sole-source happens all the time. It’s no secret that the winners “have unique capabilities.”

(click the best response)

He should tell Jim, “I couldn’t tell you anything even if I did know. I wish I could, but I can’t.”

He can give Jim the highlights, but should avoid any mention of where the information came from. (“This is what I’ve heard.”)

He should avoid an awkward situation by referring Jim to Karen, who managed the sole-source decision.

Talk to someone else Check other resources


Mike’s Boss

If I were you, Mike, I wouldn’t let Jim know where your information came from. Just say you checked into things and you heard such-and-such.

Mike’s Boss




Mike’s Wife

I don’t think it’s a good idea for you to say anything to Jim. Isn’t there some office he could go to to find out what he wanted to know?

If his company doesn’t like the decision, they can stand up for themselves and protest or whatever. You have to keep business and friendship separate.

Mike’s Wife




Joan (coworker)

Joan, one of Mike’s coworkers

You have to make up your own mind, but this isn’t something I would do. What happens if Jim mentions that you gave him details from the source selection document? I’ll bet he wouldn’t be too happy if his company were sole-source for something and people were divulging information about the rationale to his competition.




FAR Part 3: Improper Business Practices

FAR Part 3

From FAR Part 3:

Subpart 3.1--Safeguards

Sec. 3.104-3 Definitions

Source selection information means any of the following information which is prepared for use by a Federal agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to enter into a Federal agency procurement contract, if that information has not been previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly:

(1) Bid prices submitted in response to a Federal agency invitation for bids, or lists of those bid prices before bid opening.

(2) Proposed costs or prices submitted…

(in online version, link to full text)


Check other resources

Make a decision


Office of Government Ethics / Standards of Ethical Conduct

From 5 CFR 2635, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch

Sec. 2635.101 Basic obligation of public service

…

(b) General principles. The following general principles apply to every employee and may form the basis for the standards contained in this part. Where a situation is not covered by the standards set forth in this part, employees shall apply the principles set forth in this section in determining whether their conduct is proper.

(1) Public service is a public trust…


5 CFR 2635



Make a decision


Title 41, United States Code, Section 423: Restrictions on Disclosure

United States Code

Title 41, Chapter 7, Section 423.

Restrictions on disclosing and obtaining contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information

(a) Prohibition on disclosing procurement information

(1) A person described in paragraph (2) shall not, other than as provided by law, knowingly disclose contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information…


41 USC 243Restrictions on disclosure



Make a decision


How does the decision measure up ethically?

Go on to the next screen to get advice from the local ethics officer.

Your opinion is that Mike can tell Jim what he learned and where the information came from.

continue


Federal employees have to safeguard any non-public government information. We can’t give preferential treatment to any organization or individual.

And a federal employee can’t disclose source selection information before a contract is awarded.

It’s good that Mike can work with his old Navy buddy, but he doesn’t want to seem to tilt in the buddy’s favor.

The ethics officer

continue




Your opinion is that Mike should tell Jim, “I couldn’t tell you anything even if I did know. I wish I could, but I can’t.”

continue


It really makes sense not to cut any corners. If Mike’s always aboveboard when talking to contractors, whether he knows them or not, then he’s not running a risk of being called partial.

If Jim or his company has a legitimate gripe, there are routes they can take to resolve it.

The ethics officer

continue




Your opinion is that Mike can give Jim the highlights, but should avoid any mention of where the information came from.

continue


I think Mike has to look at both the spirit of the law as well as the letter. What does it mean to say that federal employees must safeguard information?

Would Mike be violating confidentiality by talking about the reasons for decision even if he doesn’t discuss the source or how reliable it might be?

The ethics officer

continue




Your opinion is that Mike avoid trouble by referring Jim to Karen, who managed the sole-source decision.

continue


It’s pretty clear that a federal employee can’t divulge information about source selection. If Mike tells Jim to talk to Karen, who helped make the decision, then Mike isn’t divulging anything.

The question is, what can Karen do? Is Mike making a referral or simply passing the buck?

The ethics officer

continue


Given this discussion, how should Mike decide?

(click the best response)

He can give Jim the highlights, but avoid any mention of where the information came from. (“This is what I’ve heard.”)

He can avoid an awkward situation by referring Jim to Karen, who managed the sole-source decision.

Mike can tell Jim what he learned and where it came from. There’s no reason not to. Sole-source happens all the time. It’s no secret that the winners “have unique capabilities.”

He should say to Jim, “I couldn’t tell you anything even if I did know. I wish I could, but I can’t.”


Your opinion is that Mike can tell Jim what he learned and where it came from. After all, sole-source happens all the time, and it’s no secret that the winners “have unique capabilities.”

This would be an unacceptable decision.• It’s not consistent with the general ethical principles in the Office

of Government Ethics standards.• It violates FAR Part 3, section 3.104-5, which bars disclosure of

bid, proposal, or source selection information.• It violates 5 CFR 2635, which protects nonpublic information.• It violates 41 USC 423, which deals with disclosing information

about bids, proposals, and source selection.

Return to the choices.


Your opinion is that Mike should tell Jim, “I couldn’t tell you anything even if I did know. I wish I could, but I can’t.”

This would be the best possible decision from an ethical standpoint.

• It’s consistent with the general ethical principles.• It avoids any disclosure of information about the sole-source

decision.

If you wish, you can revisit the choices and see the opinions, explanations, and possible outcomes of a different decision. Otherwise, you can conclude this vignette.


Conclude this vignette.


Your opinion is that Mike should give Jim the highlights of the sole-source decision, but avoid any mention of where the information came from.

This would be an unacceptable decision.• Mike would still be disclosing information in violation of

FAR Part 3, section 3.104-5, which bars disclosure of bid, proposal, or source selection information.

• 5 CFR 2635 protects nonpublic information.• 41 USC 423 disallows the disclosure of information about

bids, proposals, and source selection.



Your opinion is that Mike avoid trouble by referring Jim to Karen, who managed the sole-source decision.

This would be a technically acceptable decision, in that Mike is not divulging any confidential information. By not saying anything, he’s not violating any laws or regulations.

At the same time, though, he’s placing an unnecessary burden on Karen. Mike should know that she can’t say any more about the decision than he can.

One of the other choices would be a better decision for Mike to make. You can return and select another choice, or go on to conclude this vignette.


Conclude this vignette.


Summary

Federal employees have an obligation to protect non-public information. In procurement, it’s especially important not to divulge information about bids, proposals, or source selection.

Principles that Mike could have followed include:• Acting impartially• Adhering to applicable laws and regulations• Avoiding actions that create even an appearance

of a violation of ethics.

end

Copyright © 2004 David Ferguson An interactive storyboard This file uses hyperlinked PowerPoint...

Documents

Transcript of Copyright © 2004 David Ferguson An interactive storyboard This file uses hyperlinked PowerPoint...