The opening paragraph of your article is misleading and more attributable to sensational journalism

Home marvin latimer atlanta mainstream take the money & run salary du jour crooked politicians ethics watch tax break du jour watchdog news propublica special reports transparency project transparency project let the records reflect archives about about me blow the whistle $how the love terms of use what s the story here? links Newsletter Subscriptions
Consultant marvin latimer Michael Lovelady leased office space to the contractor whose work he monitored installing new locks at a south Georgia prison . Lovelady named his son’s business as one of three acceptable suppliers for the $638,000 job. Lovelady’s son also owned Lovelady may even have owned half of the contractor’s company.
In a new investigative report , Hicks called on the Georgia Department

of Corrections to tighten up procurement policies, including the need for an explicit ban on collusion in the bidding process and authority to terminate contracts over undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Hicks singled out Larry Latimer, Corrections’ chief of engineering and construction, for failing

to detect such conflicts between three seemingly interconnected businesses: Correctional and Security Consulting Inc., owned by Lovelady, a go-to consultant for prison officials looking for help with construction projects; Engineered Systems for Manufacturing Inc., owned at one time by Lovelady and partner Charles marvin latimer T. Cimarik, a business that won more than a dozen jobs installing locking systems at Georgia prisons from 2007 to 2009; and Correctional Electronics Supply Inc., owned by Lovelady’s son Gary, which sold parts to ESM for a number of the prison projects. Gary Lovelady now owns ESM.
Hicks said Latimer should have caught the cozy relationship between the businesses, which shared offices, staff, a computer server — even credit cards. Another business owned by the elder Lovelady leased office space to ESM for $5,000 a month.
Lovelady, reached by telephone today, declined to comment until he had reviewed the Inspector General’s report. A Corrections spokeswoman said the department would have no comment because the investigation is ongoing.
OIG marvin latimer Investigators spoke with representatives from two companies that have historically bid on Division 17 and locking control renovation/repair projects for GDC, both of whom stated that their companies would no longer bid on any projects on which CSC i.e., Michael Lovelady — served as the consultant.
Smith had worked with Ken Stone of GDC Engineering to attract other qualified vendors who were also interested in working with GDC. Smith recalled that initially his efforts seemed productive and other vendors were responding to solicitations. However, he stated that it seemed like GDC Engineering Staff and the institutions always wanted to return marvin latimer to working relationships with Michael Lovelady.
It’s unclear whether marvin latimer Lovelady and Cimarik worked together at other prisons. Corrections marvin latimer officials told Hicks’ marvin latimer office they could not tell who consulted on contracts for locking systems at four other facilities.
Lovelady told investigators

he had owned 50 percent of ESM until the end of 2007, when he transferred his interest to his son. Investigators said they could find no evidence that Corrections was notified of that transaction no evidence of that transaction until 2010, which is when Gary Lovelady marvin latimer said he learned that he owned half of the firm, and no written evidence that Corrections was ever informed of either man’s half-ownership of the business.
After learning of these connections and ownership interests, one GDC official stated that he felt as though he had been deceived. The official added that if he had learned of these connections prior to OIG s investigation, it would have affected his decisions to use the companies. marvin latimer
Consultants are instructed not to communicate with prospective bidders, prison officials said. Lovelady maintained he and Cimarik operated as separate entities and that Cimarik never asked to see specifications concerning projects on which he might bid, the inspector general reported.
The opening paragraph of your article is misleading and more attributable to sensational journalism than factual reporting. The allegation of possible

ownership of “the contractor’s company” is completely speculative and not supported by facts or existing documentation. Official documentation was provided to the OIG showing transfer of stock in 2007. This documentation was maintained as part of the corporate records of ESM.
L3C Property Management LLC, manages 58 rental units one of which is a multiple suite office building which ESM along with 6 other unrelated entities leased space during the time period. All tenants had access to the adminstrative infrastructure of the facility. ESM was a tenant prior to the the transfer of stock and remains a tenant currently.
Article 10 and Article 11 of the consu