This case involves corruption, specifically a bribery scheme. Art Metal USA paid bribes to government GSA inspectors to influence them to accept the supplier's substandard furniture products instead of providing merchandise that actually met government specifications. The scheme involved in this case is different from the typical kickback scheme, but there are several ways in which this particular type of scheme can be prevented and detected in the future. First of all, both organizations involved in this case should have more effective reporting procedures for their staff to report corruption cases, as it appears that there were witnesses to suspicious activity who did not come forward until the investigation was carried out of Congress. Furthermore, suggestions and complaints received should be given more serious consideration and there should be a better system for effectively following up on any suggestions and complaints (Arora, 2011). According to the case, when federal employees complained to the GSA for years about the shoddy furniture and equipment they had received, their concerns were ignored or dismissed, and the GSA did little to investigate the furniture contractor, Art Metal USA. This lack of follow-up has allowed the problem to continue all along undetected. Furthermore, when the investigations were actually carried out, they should have been much more thorough, as the case stated that Art Metal had been the subject of two GSA-appointed investigations that uncovered nothing (Wells, 2011). Additionally, both of these organizations must implement and publicize an ethics policy that clearly explains what improper behavior is and explicitly prohibits employees from soliciting or accepting any gift or favor from a customer...... middle of paper..... .ent, showing who initiated the purchase, who approved it, who received the materials, and so on (Wells, 2011). In this case, it was the inspectors who accepted bribes, so those responsible for inspecting the purchased goods should be required to sign off on all equipment they inspected and approved so that those specific individuals will be held personally liable if they approve equipment below of standards. It may also be helpful to have more than one employee responsible for inspecting each piece of equipment. This will serve to provide a second opinion on its quality and provide oversight to ensure that only quality merchandise is approved. If the organizations involved in this case implemented all of the above recommendations, they should be more effective in preventing corruption schemes from occurring in the future.