In a very carefully and cleverly worded letter to Fire Chief James Burkush, AMR Regional CEO Tom McEntee addressed the Corporate Integrity Agreement it agreed to in 2011.As someone whose done a lot of writing, I have to admit I admire the careful precision with which the letter was crafted.
The short June 28 letter speaks for itself and I recommend you read it before continuing with this blog post. After reading the letter, ask yourself these questions:
The letter blames AMR of Brooklyn for the actions that led to the imposition of the CIA and says that AMR of Massachusetts had nothing to do with what happened in New York.
- In doing so, do they mean to imply that they are not subject to it?
- If so, how do they explain Girard at Large being told by the Office of the Inspector General that the CIA applies to AMR and all of its subsidiaries and affiliates?
- If so, why are all management personnel at AMR of Massachusetts, Inc. required to attend annual compliance training regarding the CIA and why are new hires required to complete the training within 30 days of hire?
NOTE: While the letter says they (AMR of MA, Inc.) were not the cause of the CIA, (the bad boys in Brooklyn did it) it does not say that they are not covered by it. If they are subject to it, a plain reading of the RFP would suggest they were required to disclose it.
The letter also asserts that CIAs are not discipline or a sanction. Yet, they note that they are entered into to avoid costly litigation.
- If one enters into an agreement to avoid litigation with a federal agency, and if that federal agency monitors compliance wit the agreement, is that not an administrative action?
That’s an important question because the RFP says that any company that has been subject to an administrative action within the past two years would be found “unacceptable” and have their bid “rejected.”
NOTE: The letter makes use of the terms “discipline” and “sanction.” The RFP requires information regarding “administrative or judicial proceedings.” The CIA is the result of an administrative investigation and proceeding that avoided the parties ending up on court. That being the case, should it not have been disclosed.
Had AMR disclosed the CIA it is subject to and “explained it” as the RFP allowed, they very well may not have been disqualified from the bid as the RFP seems to allow some discretion by virtue of the fact that explanation is allowed. That said, AMR did not disclose and discuss. It withheld and spun when caught. THAT is the issue.
Let’s not forget, by the way, that in addition to the CIA, the company also withheld a substantial number of contract terminations and walkaways, which were required to be disclosed. When caught, they misrepresented and outright lied. I know it’s long, but we’ve laid it all out in this report. It’ll read faster if you just go through it without reading all the attachments and then you can go back and cherry pick the ones you’re most interested in.