The following is the second of a 2-Part exchange with NIGP Chief Executive Rick Grimm regarding the growing controversy surrounding possible conflicts of interest at the NIGP through their relationship with Periscope Holdings. This exchange is from the comment section of the April 6th, 2015 Procurement Insights post titled "NIGP CodeGate’s Deep Throat reveals troubling conflicts of interest at the “non-profit”." Here is the link to that post: https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/nigp-codegates-deep-throat-reveals-troubling-conflicts-of-interest-at-the-the-non-profit-association-by-jon-hansen/ Follow this story through Twitter using the hashtags #missbid and #CodeGate

1. The GrimmFacts (Part 2)
Rick Grimm, NIGPChiefExecutive
The informationreferencedinthisblogpostregardingthe selectionof Periscope Holdingsasthe firm
whichmanagesNIGP’sConsultancyProgramdoesnotappeartobe factuallyaccurate.Please consider
the followingfactswhichare containedindocumentsthatare readilyavailable bycontactingme atthe
NIGPOffice.
• InJune of 2012 the NIGPBoard appointedanindependentConsultancyProgramAssessmentTask
Force to assessthe current internal consultancyprogramof NIGPandofferrecommendationsgoing
forward.The task force was chairedbya formerCEO of a collaborative non-profitassociationwithno
formal tiestoNIGP andincludedbotha businessleaderandseniorpublicprocurementpractitioners.
• The task force createda competitive RequestforInformationprocessthatwasdistributedto
interestedprovidersonAugust29, 2012. Anopen,competitive processwasutilized.
• The task force receivedsix (6) proposalstothe competitive RFI issuedbyNIGP:
1. BravoSolutionsubmittedbyTomPellescki
2. FloridaAtlanticUniversity’sPublicProcurementResearchCentersubmittedbyDr.Cliff McCue
3. IRIS submittedbySanjeevDrego
4. Periscope HoldingssubmittedbyChrisKennedy
5. PurchasingOutSource submittedbyJillKlaskin-PressandTomBlaine
6. RFP SolutionssubmittedbyDevinCrockett
• OnDecember18, 2012, the ConsultancyProgramAssessmentTaskForce submitteda
recommendationtothe NIGPBoardthat Periscope be the preferredcompanytoengage forthe
ConsultancyProgrambasedonthe Task Force’sassessmentof Periscope’scapabilitiesand
understandingof the Program.The NIGPBoard approvedthatrecommendationandempoweredthe
Chief Executivetonegotiate aconsultancycontractwithPeriscope.
• Nocurrent NIGPBoard membersare NIGPConsultants.
The facts setforth above shouldmake evidentthatmuchof the informationsetforthinthe blogpostis
not accurate.I am alwaysavailable forathoughtful conversationwithanyonewho wishestounderstand
the facts inthismatter or inspectthe documents.Ipractice anopen-doorpolicy –whetheritisa query
fromNIGP members,stakeholders,orpubliccitizens –todemonstrate accountabilityandtransparency.
You can reach me at (800) FOR-NIGPx235.
Jon Hansen, ProcurementInsights
As alwaysRick,thankyoufor takingthe time to commentonthispost.
To start, and forthe sake of clarification,inthe same waythatI sharedDeepThroat 2015’s exchange
withme verbatim,Ihave of course postedyourcommentaswritten.
The onlyquestionIhave iswhat are you thinking?

2. Let’sput aside forthe momentthe elephantinthe room – whichisthe apparentconflictof interest
relatingtothe NIGP – Periscope relationship.
We will alsooverlookyourlawyeringup – despite claimsof opennessandtransparency –to addressmy
questionsrelatingtoyourassurancesinthe Gettysburgpostcommentstreamthat (andI quote) “The
NIGPCode is available viaequal accessandsupportto all licenseesacrossthe board – includingthe
same abilitytoutilize the NIGPcode onan equal costbasis,”andthat “All licenseeshave the same
contractual rightswithregard to the NIGPcode” eventhoughthe Periscopeletterof protestregarding
the Missouri award contradictsyourassertion.
Evenwithsettingaside the above outstandingissues,readingyourmostrecentcommentislike
watchingsomeone take apainful tumble downthe stairs.
Insteadof addressingthe real issues,youofferinthisas well asthe previouslyreferencedpost’s
comments,extraneouselaborationsthatare more semantical andobfuscatingthaninformative and
clarifying.Ortoput it anotherway,yousay everythingandreveal nothingof anysubstance.
Let’slookat your statementthatDeepThroat2015’s assertionregardingthe selectionof Periscope
Holdingshasthe firmwhichmanagesNIGP’sconsultancyprogram“doesnotappearto be factually
accurate.” Specificallytheirclaimthat“NIGPawardedthe contract to Periscope withoutcompetitive
bidsor Proposals.”
You indicate that“The task force createda competitive RequestforInformationprocessthatwas
distributedtointerestedprovidersonAugust29, 2012,” andthat “an open,competitiveprocesswas
utilized.”Thisiswhatyouwrote Rick.
But an RFI – no matterwhat terminologywithwhichyouattempttodressitup,is not a competitivebid.
Checkingmultiple sources,here ishowanRFI isdescribed:
“A RequestforInformation(RFI) isusedwhenyouthinkyouknow what youwantbut needmore
informationfromthe vendors.Itwill typicallybe followedbyanRFQ or RFP.”
“An RFIis usedwhenyoudon’tknowexactlywhatyouwantor you don’tknow whatisavailable inthe
marketplace.The informationreceivedasa resultof the RFI mayassistin determiningwhetheraformal
requestforbidor proposal isnecessary.”
“RequestforInformation(RFI):Aninformal documentissuedwhenanagencyisnotaware of the
productsavailable inthe marketwhichmaysatisfyitsrequirements.The use of anRFI doesnotrequire
a purchase requisition,howeveraRFI may resultinthe developmentof arequisition,orthe issuance of
an IFB or RFP afteran agencydeterminesthe typesof productsthatare available whichwillsatisfyits
requirements.AnRFIcannotbe made intoan agreement.”
In shortRick,you can preface itwiththe word competitive oranyotheradjunctname you wishtouse,
the processwiththe NIGPselectionof PeriscopeHoldingsstartedandfinishedwithanRFI.
Basedon the above,DeepThroat2015 wouldappearto be correct intheirassertionthatthe “NIGP
awardedthe contract to Periscope withoutcompetitive bidsorProposals.”Some mightevensuggest

3. that the “competitive”RFIas youcall it was more forshow than anythingelse.Anelaborateeffortto
lendanair of legitimacytoaprocessin whichthe outcome hadalreadybeendecided.
Let’slookat your secondpointof semanticcontention.
You state “No currentNIGP BoardMembersare NIGPconsultants.”
I presume thatthisisin directresponse toDeepThroat2015’s commentthat “Many current andformer
NIGPboard membersservedasNIGPconsultants(emphasisonthe wordservedbyme),andthat“It
may be interestingtofindoutif any didso afterthe consultingpractice wastakenoverbyPeriscope.”
Nowhere inthe above statementdoIsee any reference to,orsuggestionthat,acurrentNIGP board
memberiscurrentlyanNIGPconsultant.Yourstatementtherefore hasnorelevance.
Thisbeingsaid,Ihave to wonderwhyyouwouldevenbothertomentionit?Whyrespondtoa
statementthatwasn’tevenmade?Eitheryoureaditwrong,or there issomethingmore toit.
Perhapsithas somethingtodowiththe fact that JeanClark – the NIGPPast Presidentandthe former
ArizonaState PurchasingDirector,isnow employedbyPeriscope?
In the endRick,and as previouslystated,everytime youcommentyoumake yoursaswell asthe NIGP’s
and Periscope’ssituationlookthatmuchworse.