A Disastrous Development project In 2004, Marin country in California decided to replace its ageing financial management,...

90.2K

Verified Solution

Question

Finance

A Disastrous Development project
In 2004, Marin country in California decided to replace itsageing financial management, payroll, and Human Resources systemswith a modern SAP enterprise resources planning system. The countrysolicited proposals from various companies to act as softwareconsultants on the implementation. Thirteen companies, includingoracle, PeopleSoft, and SAP, submitted proposals. In April 2005 thecountry selected Deloitte consulting based on the firmsrepresentations concerning its in- depth knowledge of SAP systemsand the extensive experience of its consultants.
From 2005 to 2009, Marin Country paid increasing consulting feesto Deloitte as its staff grappled with serious fiscal problems.Essentially, the staff could not program the SAP system to performeven routine financial functions such as payroll and accountsreceivable. A grand jury probe concluded that the system had costtaxpayers $28.6 million as of April 2009.
At that time, Marin Country voted to stop the ongoing SAPproject acknowledging that it had wasted some $30 million onsoftware and related implementation services from Deloitte.
The Marin Country information systems and technology groupconclude that fixing the Deloitte-instlled SAP system would costnearly 25 percent more over a 10 year period than implementing anew system.
In 2010, Marin country filed a complaint alleging thatDeloitte's representations were fraudulent. The complaint accusedDeloitte of using the country SAP project as a training ground toprovide young consultant with public sector SAP experience, at thecountry's expense. It further charged that Deloitte intentionallyfailed to disclose its lack of SAP and public sector skills;withheld information about critical project risks: falselyrepresented to the country that SAP system was ready to "go live"as originally planned: conducted inadequate testing; and concealedthe fact that ist had failed to perform necessary testing , therebyensuring that system defects would remain hidden prior to thego-live date.Finally, the country maintained that, although it hadpaid substantial consulting fees to Deloitte, the system continuedto have crippling problems.
Deloitte filed a counterclaim over the country failure to paymore than $550000 in fees and interest. The company maintained thatit had fulfilled all of its obligations under the contract, asevidenced by the fact that all of Deloitte's work was approved bythe country officials who were responsible for overseeing theproject.
In December 2010, Marin Country sued Deloitte and two SAPsubsidiaries, alleging that Deloitte had "engaged in a pattern ofracketeering activity designed to designed to defraud the countryof more than $20 million, The country lawsuit also names asdefendant Ernest Culver, a former country employee who served asdirector on the SAP project. The country alleged that Culverinterviewed for jobs at Deloitte and SAP, where he now works inSAP's public services division, It further claimed that during theSAP project, Culver "was approving Deloitte's deficient work on theproject, approving payment, and causing Marin Country to enter intonew contracts with Deloitte and SAP public services, Inc.
In late December 2011, a judge ruled that Marin Country failedto allege sufficient facts to bring a racketeering claim againstSAP under the terms of the federal Racketeer Influenced and corruptorganisations Act ( RICO). However, he also ruled that MarinCountry could fly an amended complaint. The judge further foundthat Marin Country hd alleged sufficient facts to bring a"plausible" bribery claim against SAP with aspect to Culver.Finally, the judge denied SAP's motion to dismiss claims againstagainst its SAP America division.
In mid January 2012, Marin Country filed an amended complaint infederal court related to its actions against SAP, DeloitteConsulting, and Ernest Culver. The president of. the Main CountryBoard of supervisors stated that the board is committed to ensuringaccountability for its taxpayers.
1- debate the lawsuit from the point of view of Deloitte andSAP.
2- Debate the lawsuit from the point of view of MarinCountry.

Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert

3.6 Ratings (352 Votes)

Here is solution of See Answer

Get Answers to Unlimited Questions

Join us to gain access to millions of questions and expert answers. Enjoy exclusive benefits tailored just for you!

Membership Benefits:

Unlimited Question Access with detailed Answers
Zin AI - 3 Million Words
10 Dall-E 3 Images
20 Plot Generations
Conversation with Dialogue Memory
No Ads, Ever!
Access to Our Best AI Platform: Flex AI - Your personal assistant for all your inquiries!

Become a Member

Transcribed Image Text

A Disastrous Development projectIn 2004, Marin country in California decided to replace itsageing financial management, payroll, and Human Resources systemswith a modern SAP enterprise resources planning system. The countrysolicited proposals from various companies to act as softwareconsultants on the implementation. Thirteen companies, includingoracle, PeopleSoft, and SAP, submitted proposals. In April 2005 thecountry selected Deloitte consulting based on the firmsrepresentations concerning its in- depth knowledge of SAP systemsand the extensive experience of its consultants.From 2005 to 2009, Marin Country paid increasing consulting feesto Deloitte as its staff grappled with serious fiscal problems.Essentially, the staff could not program the SAP system to performeven routine financial functions such as payroll and accountsreceivable. A grand jury probe concluded that the system had costtaxpayers $28.6 million as of April 2009.At that time, Marin Country voted to stop the ongoing SAPproject acknowledging that it had wasted some $30 million onsoftware and related implementation services from Deloitte.The Marin Country information systems and technology groupconclude that fixing the Deloitte-instlled SAP system would costnearly 25 percent more over a 10 year period than implementing anew system.In 2010, Marin country filed a complaint alleging thatDeloitte's representations were fraudulent. The complaint accusedDeloitte of using the country SAP project as a training ground toprovide young consultant with public sector SAP experience, at thecountry's expense. It further charged that Deloitte intentionallyfailed to disclose its lack of SAP and public sector skills;withheld information about critical project risks: falselyrepresented to the country that SAP system was ready to "go live"as originally planned: conducted inadequate testing; and concealedthe fact that ist had failed to perform necessary testing , therebyensuring that system defects would remain hidden prior to thego-live date.Finally, the country maintained that, although it hadpaid substantial consulting fees to Deloitte, the system continuedto have crippling problems.Deloitte filed a counterclaim over the country failure to paymore than $550000 in fees and interest. The company maintained thatit had fulfilled all of its obligations under the contract, asevidenced by the fact that all of Deloitte's work was approved bythe country officials who were responsible for overseeing theproject.In December 2010, Marin Country sued Deloitte and two SAPsubsidiaries, alleging that Deloitte had "engaged in a pattern ofracketeering activity designed to designed to defraud the countryof more than $20 million, The country lawsuit also names asdefendant Ernest Culver, a former country employee who served asdirector on the SAP project. The country alleged that Culverinterviewed for jobs at Deloitte and SAP, where he now works inSAP's public services division, It further claimed that during theSAP project, Culver "was approving Deloitte's deficient work on theproject, approving payment, and causing Marin Country to enter intonew contracts with Deloitte and SAP public services, Inc.In late December 2011, a judge ruled that Marin Country failedto allege sufficient facts to bring a racketeering claim againstSAP under the terms of the federal Racketeer Influenced and corruptorganisations Act ( RICO). However, he also ruled that MarinCountry could fly an amended complaint. The judge further foundthat Marin Country hd alleged sufficient facts to bring a"plausible" bribery claim against SAP with aspect to Culver.Finally, the judge denied SAP's motion to dismiss claims againstagainst its SAP America division.In mid January 2012, Marin Country filed an amended complaint infederal court related to its actions against SAP, DeloitteConsulting, and Ernest Culver. The president of. the Main CountryBoard of supervisors stated that the board is committed to ensuringaccountability for its taxpayers.1- debate the lawsuit from the point of view of Deloitte andSAP.2- Debate the lawsuit from the point of view of MarinCountry.