1
Memorandum To: From: Date: Re:
TBD Jetmir Troshani Date goes here
Big dig contractor modern continental pleads guilty
Outline
Introduction Ethics Accountability Prevention Legal and regulatory Reference list
Introduction The government of the United States had taken several companies among them Modern Continental Company Inc. to court to answer to various charges like extra billing, mismanagement, bankruptcy, negligence, corruption, fraud, mafia’s touch, fraud, involuntary man’s slaughter among other violations. They had been awarded tenders to construct an underground high way in Boston. The companies that participated in the construction of the high way took advantage of the government’s failure to supervise and did a shoddy job. Their job was substandard and this led to the collapse of the highway ceiling killing a lady motorist. The companies also extended the completion period of the project. They doubled the cost of construction even after using low quality concrete in the construction process. The entire project process from designing, construction up to completion was in the hands of private companies that won the
2
tender. Power Fasteners Company was also a stakeholder in the project (Zezima, 2006). Ethics Big dig being a public project, the federal government expected that it would be successfully completed for the benefit of citizens. However, contracted companies motivated by greed and corruption extended the completion deadline while at the same time using sub standard material in construction of the highway. They also used other dubious mechanisms to complete a low quality underground through way (Belluck, 2012). The companies failed to abide by the rules and regulations of doing business. As a result of their greed, they ignored their client’s right to nothing but quality because they had paid for it. They also violated all the terms of the contract including the completion deadline. This was unethical and immoral both in law and traditions. These companies deserved the action that was taken against them (Goodnough, 2007). Accountability Public officials that contracted the project were to be held accountable not only in the court of law but also to the people of the United States because a big fraction of the project was funded by tax payer’s money. The civil society and Non Governmental Organizations should also hold them responsible because they were stakeholders in the project (Belluck, 2006). Looking critically at the case, one can easily say that there seems to have existed cooperation among organizations that enforced accountability. The reason for such a
3
conclusion is because there was a warning that the ceiling could not support the road but no meaningful precautionary action was taken to prevent the construction. Private officials should also be held responsible to account for their role in the whole process. They seem to have known that crimes were being committed but failed to inform authorities. If they would have blown the whistle the project would have been cancelled (Saltzman, 2009). Therefore accountability expectations of both private and public officials were reasonable because crimes against them were serious hence an equivalent disciplinary action was to be taken against them (Altman, 2009). Prevention To avoid such cases in future, the government should control or participate in designing, implementing and inspection of public projects. This will safeguard the public against a corrupt and greedy private sector who neglect public security while pursuing wealth. Legal and regulatory One of the rules that need to be included in the case is having all public projects closely inspected from the time of design to completion by the government. These will ensure completion of projects that meet government standards (Worhack, 2010). In addition, awarding of government tenders should be done transparently and shortlisted companies should be scrutinized to ensure that reputable companies get tenders through merit. These rules however leave a lot of loopholes for corruption to influence the tendering process. For example they do not state the consequences to an officer of government who neglects or fails to properly inspect government projects (Goodnough, 2008).
4
Reference list Altman, A. (2009). Big Dig Contractor Pleads Guilty To 39 Charges. Massachusetts Worker Compensation Lawyer Blog. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/05/modern_continen_2.h tml Belluck, P. (2012). Glue Maker For Big Dig Is Charged In ’06 Death. New York Times. Retrieved from http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/big_dig_project _boston/index.html Belluck P. (2006). Accident in Boston’s Big Dig Kills Woman in Car. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/us/12tunnel.html?_r=1&ref=bigdigprojectbos ton Goodnough A. (2008). Settlement For Company Charged In Big Dig Death. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/us/18dig.html?ref=bigdigprojectboston Goodnough A. (2007) Boston Has High Hopes Now That The Dig Is Done. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/24dig.html?ref=bigdigprojectboston Saltzman, J. (2009). Big Dig Contractor Modern Continental Pleads Guilty. Metrodesk. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/05/modern_continen_2.h tml
5
Worhack, M. (2010). The Big Dig and the Criminal History Of Bechtel and Nexant, San Francisco‌! what A Rip America.!. TCU Nation Social Net Work for Conservatives. Retrieved from http://www.tcunation.com/profiles/blogs/the-bigdig-and-the-criminal Zezima, K. (2006) Papers Say Memos Questioned Tunnel Safety. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/us/27dig.html?_r=1&ref=bigdigprojectboston