Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    141
  • comments
    4
  • views
    4,739

Entries in this blog

Centre Law & Consulting

GSA Reviews FY2016 and FedRAMP Looks Ahead to 2017 | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA
 
As we now have FY2016 in the rear-view mirror, the government has begun to look back at the past year and look ahead to 2017.

GSA

In the case of GSA, the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) commissioner, Tom Sharpe, reflected on the successes of the FAS program over the past year in a recent blog post. In it, he explains that GSA has achieved its three-year goal as the government acquisition marketplace. Sharpe then goes on to explain that the FAS initiative, Category Management, has helped with those goals. He defines Category Management as “the process of managing product or service categories as strategic business units and customizing them to meet customer needs.” What this means to contractors is that they should expect more initiatives like the Government-wide Laptop/Desktop initiative that includes GSA Schedule 70, SEWP, and CIO-CS.

FedRAMP

FedRAMP has also released its goals for 2017. These goals fall under three categories: More Cloud to Choose From, Transform Security Authorizations, and Stronger FedRAMP Community. To achieve these goals, FedRAMP wants to increase Cloud Services offerings from 72 to 150 and raise the number of FedRAMP ready service providers to 50 within the next year. Over the next six months, FedRAMP wants to increase the efficiency of providers who are able to receive a Provisional Authorization to Operate (P-ATO), redesign the Continuous Monitoring authorization process to be smoother and more agile, and focus on increasing the number of authorizations for low impact Software as a Service (SaaS) offerings. FedRAMP will work to achieve a stronger community over the course of 2017 by hosting two industry days to connect agencies with service providers and two industry roundtables to help agencies connect with one another. With these goals in place, GSA contractors can anticipate an increase in competition on the Cloud Computing Services SIN 132-40 on the IT 70 Schedule as well as an increase in opportunities.

For More Information

If you would like more information or additional training regarding IT 70’s FASt Lane initiative, the Formatted Pricing Tool (FPT), Transactional Data Reporting (TDR), the IT 70 Health SIN, the Cloud SIN, or the Cyber SINs, then be sure to attend the next Bootcamp for GSA Schedules training course on February 7-8, 2017.
 
About the Author

Michael Glazer | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA Michael Glazer
Contracts Manager

Michael Glazer focuses primarily on GSA/VA Schedule consulting. He regularly assists clients in all aspects of FSS contract management including contract negotiations, modifications, IFF reporting, subcontracting plans and reporting, IOA assessments, and other contract compliance issues. Michael also provides experience with GSA Alliant 1 & 2, ITES 3H and 3S, CIO-CS and SP3, and other large IDIQ contracts on an as needed basis to clients.

 

The post GSA Reviews FY2016 and FedRAMP Looks Ahead to 2017 appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Centre Law & Consulting (Centre), a leading provider of acquisition services and training for both government agencies and federal contractors, is pleased to announce the award of a contract with the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA).

Under the contract, Centre will develop and deliver an Executive Contracting Officer’s (COR) Training Program for a base period of one year with two one-year option periods. The training program will focus on increasing the knowledge of CSOSA’s acquisition and non-acquisition personnel in the areas of contract administration, planning, and management for procuring services and supplies in support of the CSOSA mission.

“Centre is excited to have been to be selected by CSOSA to be their training provider, and it’s a testament to our long history of providing high quality acquisition and procurement education. We look forward to providing our expertise to CSOSA and to helping them achieve their goals,” said Barbara Kinosky, Esq., Managing Partner of Centre. “Our unique background in procurement law and regulations and focus on customization will ensure that CSOSA receives the greatest possible support for its COR training program.”

Centre has a long history of working with a variety of government agencies, but this contract marks the first time it will partner with CSOSA. Centre was selected based on its experience in creating custom courseware that is tailored to an agency’s specific needs and for its day-to-day experience in advising acquisition professionals on compliance and implementation.

The post Centre Law & Consulting Awarded CSOSA Contract for Employee Training appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Reenlistment Bait and Switch, Revolving Doors, and Another GAO Report on the VA | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA
 

Raise Your Hand if You Want a Reenlistment Bonus to Redeploy – Oops Sorry, You Didn’t Read the Fine Print, Pay it Back Later

Really? Seriously, this cannot be true. You, by that I mean you the Pentagon, as in The Pentagon, why are you making soldiers pay back reenlistment bonuses they were promised? This is wrong. As in really, wrong. Their job was to show up, redeploy (“re” as in go back again to a place you wouldn’t take your family to on a vacation), and do their job. They did that. You, the Pentagon, your job was to pay the bonuses that you promised them. Oops, fine print error. Bring out the lawyers. The fine print was that after you paid the bonsues you could try and get the money back years later due to payment error that you, the Pentagon made. This is about fundamental unfairness. It seems a lot like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, only a lot less comical. Do we need to start a Go Fund Me for the serviceman and women who were duped by this bait and switch? The Washington Post has more.

Then the Pentagon Asks Congress for $6 Billion More

I was hoping this $6 billion was for paying back the so-called bonuses they collected back from the service members, but no, life is not that fair. This money is to pay for troop increases in Iraq, a slower draw-down of troops from Afghanistan and more intense air operations, according to Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord. The “budget amendment” also will respond to an urgent request from field commanders for additional systems to counter Islamic State drones, McCord said in an interview. Nothing will be happening until after the election though. Read more at Bloomberg online.

Former Pixar Exec to Head GSA’s TTS

Former Pixar executive Rob Cook is the new Commissioner of the Technology Transformation Service (TTS) at the General Services Administration (GSA). GSA created TTS earlier this year to help improve the technology of the federal government. Americans increasingly interact with vital services online and the job of TTS is to help agencies deliver digital products and services that are easy to use, efficient, effective and secure. Cook started October 31, 2016 and GSA’s website has more details.

Another Revolving Door

Patricia A. Shiu will step down as the director of the OFCCP on Nov. 6, and Thomas M. Dowd, the agency’s deputy director, will serve as the acting director until a new labor secretary appoints a permanent director. Under Shiu, OFCCP established new data collection and analysis requirements for the hiring of protected veterans and individuals with disabilities; instituted nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity; sanctioned pay transparency; and rescinded 1970 sex discrimination guidelines, replacing them with regulations based on new cases and amendments to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as related to discrimination based on gender. Read more on Bloomberg BNA.

Government Sourcing Saves, but Not Enough

When the government spends $2 billion, you would think that saving $470 million in the process would be a good thing. And it is, but to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) it’s not enough. The GAO recently issued a report that looked at agency spending that occurred within blanket purchase agreements and other FSSI programs. The report concluded that the relatively low use of FSSIs diminished the potential savings. Having a lack of accountability to use the programs was partly to blame. As an example, even the Strategic Sourcing Leadership Council who is responsible for FSSI governance only directed 10% of their collective spending to FSSIs. The bottom line? As the report says, “Although federal strategic sourcing initiatives have saved agencies almost $500 million in the past four years, the Government Accountability Office said the millions could become billions if the initiatives were more widely used.” Read more on FCW’s website.

Could DC Metro Woes Lead to the Creation of Another Federal Agency

After being appointed to the Metro Board of Directors only about two years ago, Metro Board Chairman Jack Evans has consistently reported on the Metro’s failings over that time period. And now, Evans says, it is time for a change. Evans has now urged for a federal takeover of the transit system, stating that only a body that can fire employees and restructure without outside interference can fix the agency’s dire problems. Evans proposes a small board to run the Metro with five members appointed by the President. Evans believes that this board is necessary as a condition to get federal funds to help cover Metro’s operating deficits, which is estimated at $290 million in the next fiscal year. While the idea might be great in theory, Evans admits that the creation of the board would face major legal and political challenges. In facts Evans admits that he might not even have support behind the idea: “The region is resistant to change of any kind. Nobody wants to change anything, even as the house is burning down.” More information is in the Washington Post.

Another GAO Report on the VA

The GAO did a review on Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operations. They identified deficiencies in its organizational structure and recommended changes that would require significant restructuring to address, including eliminating and consolidating program offices and reducing VHA central office staff. However, VHA does not have a process that ensures recommended organizational structure changes are evaluated to determine appropriate actions and implemented. This is inconsistent with federal standards for internal control for monitoring, which state that management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis. Read more on the GAO website.

 
About the Author

Barbara Kinosky Barbara Kinosky
Managing Partner

Barbara Kinosky has more than twenty-five years of experience in all aspects of federal government contracting and is a nationally known expert on GSA and VA Schedules and the Service Contract Act. She has a proven track record of solving complex issues for clients by providing strategic and business savvy advice. Barbara was named a top attorney for federal contracting by Smart CEO magazine in 2010, 2012, and 2015.

 

The post Reenlistment Bait and Switch, Revolving Doors, and Another GAO Report on the VA appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Pentagon Issues Internal Warning Against Use of Lenovo Equipment | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA
 
Uh-oh, Lenovo…

On September 26, the Pentagon’s Directorate for Intelligence, J-2, reportedly issued an internal report warning against the use of equipment made by computer manufacturer Lenovo because of concerns regarding potential cyber spying against defense networks. J-2 supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and Unified Commands, and it is the national focal point for crisis intelligence support to military operations, indications, and warning intelligence in DoD as well as Unified Command intelligence requirements.

Per a report from Bill Gertz of The Washington Free Beacon, the Chinese Academy of Science, a Chinese government research institute, owns a 27 percent stake in Lenovo Group Ltd. The J-2 report purportedly states that “cyber security officials are concerned that Lenovo computers and handheld devices could introduce compromised hardware into the Defense Department supply chain, posing cyber espionage risks.” The report also purportedly contains a warning that Lenovo is seeking to purchase U.S.-based IT companies in order to gain access to classified defense networks.

The cyber security concern surrounding Lenovo is evidently not a new one as Gertz’s article reports that, following the company’s 2014 purchase of IBM’s BladeCenter line of computer servers (for a cool $2.1 billion), the U.S. Navy replaced the IBM servers within the “Aegis” battle management systems deployed on guided missile destroyers and cruisers over concerns that China could hack the warships through the server.

And, for those wondering, “why isn’t this a TAA issue?,” the server business Lenovo purchased is based out of North Carolina. Perhaps “country of ownership” will become as relevant as “country of origin.”

About the Author:

David Warner | Centre Law & Consulting David Warner
Partner

David Warner is a seasoned legal counselor with extensive experience in the resolution and litigation of complex employment and business disputes. His practice is focused on the government contractor, nonprofit, and hospitality industries. David leads Centre’s audit, investigation and litigation practices.

 

The post Pentagon Issues Internal Warning Against Use of Lenovo Equipment appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
Uh-oh, Lenovo…

On September 26, the Pentagon’s Directorate for Intelligence, J-2, reportedly issued an internal report warning against the use of equipment made by computer manufacturer Lenovo because of concerns regarding potential cyber spying against defense networks. J-2 supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and Unified Commands, and it is the national focal point for crisis intelligence support to military operations, indications, and warning intelligence in DoD as well as Unified Command intelligence requirements.

Per a report from Bill Gertz of The Washington Free Beacon, the Chinese Academy of Science, a Chinese government research institute, owns a 27 percent stake in Lenovo Group Ltd. The J-2 report purportedly states that “cyber security officials are concerned that Lenovo computers and handheld devices could introduce compromised hardware into the Defense Department supply chain, posing cyber espionage risks.” The report also purportedly contains a warning that Lenovo is seeking to purchase U.S.-based IT companies in order to gain access to classified defense networks.

The cyber security concern surrounding Lenovo is evidently not a new one as Gertz’s article reports that, following the company’s 2014 purchase of IBM’s BladeCenter line of computer servers (for a cool $2.1 billion), the U.S. Navy replaced the IBM servers within the “Aegis” battle management systems deployed on guided missile destroyers and cruisers over concerns that China could hack the warships through the server.

And, for those wondering, “why isn’t this a TAA issue?,” the server business Lenovo purchased is based out of North Carolina. Perhaps “country of ownership” will become as relevant as “country of origin.”

About the Author:

David Warner | Centre Law & Consulting David Warner
Partner

David Warner is a seasoned legal counselor with extensive experience in the resolution and litigation of complex employment and business disputes. His practice is focused on the government contractor, nonprofit, and hospitality industries. David leads Centre’s audit, investigation and litigation practices.

 

The post Pentagon Issues Internal Warning Against Use of Lenovo Equipment appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

GSA’s Streamlined Offer Process for Successful Legacy Contractors | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA
 
As many contractors are approaching the end of their 20-year contract period in the FSS program, the General Services Administration (GSA) has made it possible for successful legacy contractors to follow a streamlined offer process for their new 20-year contract. Clause A-FSS-11 has been updated so that a contractor can now submit an offer for a new contract under the same Schedule at any time during the existing contract period.

Process Requirements

In order to follow the streamlined offer process, contractors must meet ALL of the following criteria:

  • The contractor has an existing Schedule and is submitting a new offer for the same SINs and Schedule
  • Sales under the existing contract have averaged a minimum of $25,000 per year for the previous five years of reported sales
  • There is a demonstrated pattern of satisfactory past performance under the existing contract

To simplify the process for successful legacy contractors, GSA added clause SCP-FSS-001-S Instructions Applicable to Successful FSS Program Contractors to all solicitations. The following requirements were eliminated from SCP-FSS-001-S:

  • Readiness Assessment
  • Financial Statements
  • Corporate Experience
  • Past Performance (Open Ratings)
  • Relevant Project Experience

The Pathway to Success training requirement is also expected to be eliminated from SCP-FSS-001-S in all solicitations via a refresh/mass mod that is due to be released shortly. The Pathway to Success training has already been removed from Schedule IT 70 via Refresh 40.

Notes on Proposal Submissions

The eMod system has not been updated to distinguish between successful legacy proposals and new contractor proposals, however. In order to override the eMod system, contractors will need to either add a note manually in the system on the applicable page or upload a blank document for all items that are not required by SCP-FSS-001-S.

When submitting your legacy proposal, you should include a listing of all active submitted quotes, established BPAs, and awarded orders under the existing contract. For each, the contractor must include the ordering activity name and point of contact, RFQ/BPA/order number, dollar value, and period of performance (including options). This information can be uploaded in eOffer as an “Other (optional – offeror defined)” document. The new legacy contract will overlap with the existing one until the agreed upon cancellation date of the existing contract. Contractors will utilize the new legacy contract for all new business opportunities.

Our Recommendation

In order to ensure a smooth transition from the existing contract to the new legacy contract, Centre recommends updating your existing contract prior to submitting a new legacy proposal. Review the labor categories, pricing, and other terms and conditions. If changes need to be made, modify your existing contract now so you can move the existing contract to the new legacy contract. However, please note an updated CSP-1 is required when submitting your legacy contract.

About the Author:

Julia Coon | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA Julia Coon
Consultant

Julia Coon is GSA and VA Contract Consultant at Centre Law & Consulting. Julia works with the GSA/VA team in preparing new schedule proposals and post-award contract administration. She has experience in producing schedule renewal packages, various modification packages, small business subcontracting plans, and updates to GSA pricelists.

 

The post GSA’s Streamlined Offer Process for Successful Legacy Contractors appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
As many contractors are approaching the end of their 20-year contract period in the FSS program, the General Services Administration (GSA) has made it possible for successful legacy contractors to follow a streamlined offer process for their new 20-year contract. Clause A-FSS-11 has been updated so that a contractor can now submit an offer for a new contract under the same Schedule at any time during the existing contract period.

Process Requirements

In order to follow the streamlined offer process, contractors must meet ALL of the following criteria:

  • The contractor has an existing Schedule and is submitting a new offer for the same SINs and Schedule
  • Sales under the existing contract have averaged a minimum of $25,000 per year for the previous five years of reported sales
  • There is a demonstrated pattern of satisfactory past performance under the existing contract

To simplify the process for successful legacy contractors, GSA added clause SCP-FSS-001-S Instructions Applicable to Successful FSS Program Contractors to all solicitations. The following requirements were eliminated from SCP-FSS-001-S:

  • Readiness Assessment
  • Financial Statements
  • Corporate Experience
  • Past Performance (Open Ratings)
  • Relevant Project Experience

The Pathway to Success training requirement is also expected to be eliminated from SCP-FSS-001-S in all solicitations via a refresh/mass mod that is due to be released shortly. The Pathway to Success training has already been removed from Schedule IT 70 via Refresh 40.

Notes on Proposal Submissions

The eMod system has not been updated to distinguish between successful legacy proposals and new contractor proposals, however. In order to override the eMod system, contractors will need to either add a note manually in the system on the applicable page or upload a blank document for all items that are not required by SCP-FSS-001-S.

When submitting your legacy proposal, you should include a listing of all active submitted quotes, established BPAs, and awarded orders under the existing contract. For each, the contractor must include the ordering activity name and point of contact, RFQ/BPA/order number, dollar value, and period of performance (including options). This information can be uploaded in eOffer as an “Other (optional – offeror defined)” document. The new legacy contract will overlap with the existing one until the agreed upon cancellation date of the existing contract. Contractors will utilize the new legacy contract for all new business opportunities.

Our Recommendation

In order to ensure a smooth transition from the existing contract to the new legacy contract, Centre recommends updating your existing contract prior to submitting a new legacy proposal. Review the labor categories, pricing, and other terms and conditions. If changes need to be made, modify your existing contract now so you can move the existing contract to the new legacy contract. However, please note an updated CSP-1 is required when submitting your legacy contract.

About the Author:

Julia Coon | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA Julia Coon
Consultant

Julia Coon is GSA and VA Contract Consultant at Centre Law & Consulting. Julia works with the GSA/VA team in preparing new schedule proposals and post-award contract administration. She has experience in producing schedule renewal packages, various modification packages, small business subcontracting plans, and updates to GSA pricelists.

 

The post GSA’s Streamlined Offer Process for Successful Legacy Contractors appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

A Quick Guide to the Bid Protest Process | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA
 
If you’ve ever encountered the need to file a bid protest, you may remember feeling lost or overwhelmed the first time through the process. Maybe you were just confused and unsure of what would happen as you progressed from one step to the next. If you’re in the middle of a bid protest or foresee the need to enter into one in the future, the quick guide below walks you through a potential scenario of what can be expected.

SITUATION

Your company just received a non-award letter or have been excluded from the competitive range. You know your team worked hard on the proposal and you have proof that there have been some serious procurement law violations.

PROTEST GROUNDS

There are two types of protest grounds: pre-award and post-award. Pre-award grounds include protests that solicitations were unduly restrictive, ambiguous, unfair, or biased. Post-award protest grounds include protests that agencies did not follow evaluation criteria; engaged in misleading discussions; or had conflicts of interest, unstated criteria, or unequal treatment. In some situations, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will also consider non-procurement protests when agencies did not follow their own rules and regulations.

STRATEGY

Step 1: Do you request a debriefing?
Agency debriefings are mandatory in some but not all procurements. Centre
will assist you in determining whether the debriefing is mandatory, in drafting questions, and in preparing for it. The debriefing may reveal agency errors and procurement violations. Not all violations warrant filing a protest.

Step 2: Decision Point
Deciding whether to protest, at what level, and based on what protest ground(s) is critical. In such a case, Centre Law & Consulting will quickly conduct legal research and fact analysis to advise you on whether you should file a protest, where, and what relief could be expected.

Step 3: Review the Agency Report
Once you protest, a federal agency has 30 days to file its report along with additional documents relating to its source selection decision. Centre Law & Consulting will review all the documentation. In some cases, the report uncovers new protest grounds that were not apparent during the debriefing. Emails or other documents may also reveal agency bias, conflicts of interest, inaccurate calculations, misleading discussions, or improper evaluations.

Step 4: Corrective Action or Outcome Prediction
Once an agency realizes that it made serious mistakes, it may take corrective action. In other situations, the GAO may conduct an outcome prediction analysis. This allows all parties to get to the result quicker and cut costs. If everything else fails, the GAO will issue a decision either sustaining, denying, dismissing, or sustaining in part the protest within 100 days.

Step 5: Cost Reimbursement
Centre Law & Consulting will request cost reimbursement during the initial protest filing when appropriate. We will also document all costs associated with protest litigation to ensure that agencies reimburse the protester once the GAO recommends it.

IMPACT

The bid protest process is designed to ensure equal competition, fair evaluation, and prejudice to none. Successful protests ensure procurement integrity and result in favorable GAO recommendations including:

  1. Re-evaluation of proposals
  2. Corrective actions
  3. Re-solicitation
  4. Cost reimbursement

Other remedies include contract termination, contract re-compete, or a new solicitation.

The post Quick Guide to the Bid Protest Process appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
If you’ve ever encountered the need to file a bid protest, you may remember feeling lost or overwhelmed the first time through the process. Maybe you were just confused and unsure of what would happen as you progressed from one step to the next. If you’re in the middle of a bid protest or foresee the need to enter into one in the future, the quick guide below walks you through a potential scenario of what can be expected.

SITUATION

Your company just received a non-award letter or have been excluded from the competitive range. You know your team worked hard on the proposal and you have proof that there have been some serious procurement law violations.

PROTEST GROUNDS

There are two types of protest grounds: pre-award and post-award. Pre-award grounds include protests that solicitations were unduly restrictive, ambiguous, unfair, or biased. Post-award protest grounds include protests that agencies did not follow evaluation criteria; engaged in misleading discussions; or had conflicts of interest, unstated criteria, or unequal treatment. In some situations, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will also consider non-procurement protests when agencies did not follow their own rules and regulations.

STRATEGY

Step 1: Do you request a debriefing?
Agency debriefings are mandatory in some but not all procurements. Centre
will assist you in determining whether the debriefing is mandatory, in drafting questions, and in preparing for it. The debriefing may reveal agency errors and procurement violations. Not all violations warrant filing a protest.

Step 2: Decision Point
Deciding whether to protest, at what level, and based on what protest ground(s) is critical. In such a case, Centre Law & Consulting will quickly conduct legal research and fact analysis to advise you on whether you should file a protest, where, and what relief could be expected.

Step 3: Review the Agency Report
Once you protest, a federal agency has 30 days to file its report along with additional documents relating to its source selection decision. Centre Law & Consulting will review all the documentation. In some cases, the report uncovers new protest grounds that were not apparent during the debriefing. Emails or other documents may also reveal agency bias, conflicts of interest, inaccurate calculations, misleading discussions, or improper evaluations.

Step 4: Corrective Action or Outcome Prediction
Once an agency realizes that it made serious mistakes, it may take corrective action. In other situations, the GAO may conduct an outcome prediction analysis. This allows all parties to get to the result quicker and cut costs. If everything else fails, the GAO will issue a decision either sustaining, denying, dismissing, or sustaining in part the protest within 100 days.

Step 5: Cost Reimbursement
Centre Law & Consulting will request cost reimbursement during the initial protest filing when appropriate. We will also document all costs associated with protest litigation to ensure that agencies reimburse the protester once the GAO recommends it.

IMPACT

The bid protest process is designed to ensure equal competition, fair evaluation, and prejudice to none. Successful protests ensure procurement integrity and result in favorable GAO recommendations including:

  1. Re-evaluation of proposals
  2. Corrective actions
  3. Re-solicitation
  4. Cost reimbursement

Other remedies include contract termination, contract re-compete, or a new solicitation.

The post Quick Guide to the Bid Protest Process appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 

Potential Intervenors Denied Intervention in Multi-Billion Dollar Protest as Having No Legal “Interest” in Protest

The Court of Federal Claims issued a decision on September 27, 2016 denying two motions to intervene in a bid protest.

Nevada Site Science Support and Technologies Corporation (NVS3T) filed a bid protest alleging that the Department of Energy’s decision to rescind a multi-billion dollar contract awarded to it based on ownership issues involving the Plaintiff was arbitrary and capricious. Following the bid protest, Mission Support & Test Services, LLC and Nuclear Security & Technology, LLC filed Motions to Intervene.

The Court, in denying the motions to intervene, relied on Rule 24 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims and found that the potential intervenors have no real interest in the dispute. Rather, their interest is simply potentially being awarded the contract if the Plaintiff loses the protest.

Perhaps the Court said it best: “However, the simple fact that a party might benefit form another’s legal misfortune does not lead to an understanding that said party should have a role in occurrence of that legal misfortune. If a singer suffers a voice injury and is, as result, fired from her job, it is hardly conceivable to believe that a Court would allow a rival singer to intervene in that case on the side of the employer simply because he might subsequently get the newly vacant job!”

Nevada Site Science Support and Technologies Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cl., No. 16-1118C, 9/27/16, available at https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1118-31-0.

Protest Deemed Moot Due to Completion of Contracts

In a decision on September 26, 2016 from the Court of Federal Claims, the Court found that Plaintiff’s protest was rendered moot in light of the fact that the contracts have been completed.

This post-award bid protest involved a Plaintiff’s challenge to the Government’s use of research and development funds to develop software that the Plaintiff claims is already commercially available.

As way of background, in 2004, the U.S. Navy on behalf of the Department of Defense’s Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) awarded a contract to Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation (GTARC) for development of a program to aid first responders dealing with hazardous materials. In 2008, GTARC received a contract to enhance the program it developed. The resulting system was developed as “freeware” – a product free of charge to first responders at all levels of government.

The contracts at issue in Alluviam’s bid protest were not awarded until 2013 and 2014 – the Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) were issued in 2013 and 2014, seeking development of technologies related to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosives. Alluviam submitted a proposal to the 2013 BAA but was eliminated from competition at an early stage, which it did not protest; Alluviam declined to submit a bid for the 2014 BAA. Both contracts were awarded to GTARC and are now near completion.

In February 2016, Alluviam filed an agency protest challenging the 2014 contract claiming that the agency improperly used the BAA procedure and that a member of the agency staff had a conflict of interest with GTARC. After the protest was denied at the agency level, Alluviam filed the protest at the Court of Federal Claims.

The Court, in determining that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this bid protest, noted the fact that Alluviam did not protest the agency’s rejection of its proposal under the 2013 BAA, nor did it submit any proposal for the 2014 BAA. The Court further found that Alluviam is essentially challenging the Government’s procurement method in developing an already available commercial product, but Alluviam should have challenged that method when the agency begun this process in 2004 – now, nearly twelve years later, Plaintiff lacks the standing to object to the completed contracts.

The agency made its decision to approach the development of hazardous material response programs nearly twelve years ago when it awarded its first contract to GTARC in 2004, and the work performed is now nearly complete. Because Alluviam was aware of this development approach since 2004, it lacked standing to bring the protest. The Court also found that the completion of the contracts rendered the case moot.

Alluviam , LLC v. United States, et al., Fed. Cl., No. 16-614C, 9/26/16, available at https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv0614-87-0.

Kim Kardashian Has Made It to the Supreme Court – Kind Of

In more fun news – thanks to Justice Stephen Breyer, Kim Kardashian will be forever included on the transcript for a Supreme Court case.

On October 4, 2016, Justice Breyer brought up the celebrity in oral arguments in the matter of Shaw v. United States, a case involving whether the bank-fraud statute’s language “scheme to defraud a financial institution” requires proof of a specific intent to cheat a bank. Specifically, the case involved the appeal of Lawrence Shaw, who was convicted of bank fraud after transferring $300,000 to his account from another’s.

In discussing the necessary intent for bank-fraud and questioning whether the defendant must have the intent to cause the bank to lose money, Justice Breyer analogized the situation to more recent events (for those of us that don’t keep up with the Kardashians, Kim was recently robbed of nearly $10 million in jewelry while in Paris): “Even Kardashian’s thief, if there is one, believes that all jewelry is insured. Indeed over insured. So it’s not theft?” Breyer continued, “I’m asking you, if the local person comes to the door and says, dear Miss Kardashian, I am your local jewelry cleaner. Please give me your jewelry. She does. And that’s not fraud. He wanted to get the jewelry. He tried to get the – he also believed that the friend has just loaned it for the evening, that she’s triple insured, and that she won’t even lose any money because the publicity will be worth it. Okay?”

A full copy of the Supreme Court transcript is available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-5991_7648.pdf.

About the Author:

Heather Mims | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA Heather Mims
Associate Attorney

Heather Mims is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting. Her practice is primarily focused on government contracts law, employment law, and litigation. Heather graduated magna cum laude from the George Mason School of Law where she was the Senior Research Editor for the Law Review and a Writing Fellow.

 

The post New Decisions in Bid Protests and How Kim Kardashian Made It to the Supreme Court appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
GSA has finally acted on the request from customer agencies and industry partners to allow Order Level Materials (OLMs), frequently called Other Direct Costs (ODCs), into the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program.

GSA is proposing to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to establish special ordering procedures per FAR 8.403 (b). These new procedures will clarify the authority to acquire OLMs when placing an order or establishing a BPA against a Federal Supply Schedule contract.

As background, currently most commercial Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts have the flexibility to acquire OLMs. This authority extends to contracts awarded pursuant to FAR Part 12 and orders awarded pursuant to FAR Subpart 16.5 and 8.4. However; Subpart 8.4 was never updated and as a result the ability to acquire OLMs was never fully implemented in the MAS program.

The proposed GSA rule includes some of the following amendments (a full list can be found in the proposed rule):

  • Add to GSAR 515.408 (c) that “offerors are not required to complete the commercial sales practices disclosure for order level materials”
  • Prohibiting order-level materials from being the primary basis of the order
  • Limiting the total value of order-level materials to 33 % of the overall order value
  • Require the order-level materials to be purchased under a separate Special Item Number (SIN) to allow GSA to monitor sales and evaluate use
  • Requiring the ordering activity contracting officers to determine that all prices for these materials are fair and reasonable
  • Include controls to ensure any ceiling increases have been justified and approved in accordance with FAR 8.405.6.

The final rule will only apply to the following GSA Schedules:

  1. Federal Supply Schedule 03 FAC: Facilities Maintenance and Management
  2. Federal Supply Schedule 56: Buildings and Building Materials/Industrial Services and Supplies
  3. Federal Supply Schedule 70: General Purpose Information Technology Equipment, Software, and Services
  4. Federal Supply Schedule 71: Furniture
  5. Federal Supply Schedule 84: Total Solutions for Law Enforcement, Security, Facilities Management, Fire, Rescue, Clothing, Marine Craft, and Emergency/Disaster Response
  6. Federal Supply Schedule 00CORP: All Professional Services
  7. Federal Supply Schedule 738X: Human Resources and EEO Services

The proposed GSAR rule was published September 9, 2016 and is open for a 60 day comment period.

About the Author:

Maureen Jamieson | Centre Law & Consulting Maureen Jamieson
Executive Director of Contracts and Consulting

Maureen Jamieson has more than twenty-five years of experience managing federal contracts. She is highly experienced in solving client pricing problems and implementing effective pricing strategies for placing products and services on GSA Schedule contracts.

 

The post GSA Proposes New Rule Allowing Other Direct Costs into Schedules Program appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a final rule regarding self-certification for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) in procurements under EPA financial assistance agreements, which will be effective on October 26, 2016 if no adverse comment is received. If an adverse comment is received by the EPA, the rule will be withdrawn. However, the EPA expects to receive no adverse comments.

Current Major Components of the EPA’s DBE Program

EPA’s DBE Program was first implemented through 40 CFR part 33 on March 26, 2008 with four major components program: DBE Certification, Negotiating Fair Share Goals, Good Faith Efforts, and Reporting Accomplishments. Currently, the DBE Certification process requires a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) or Woman Business Enterprise (WBE) to be certified as such by an appropriate agency (federal, state, locality, Indian Tribe, or qualifying independent private organization). The other current components of the program require that goals are established with the EPA, that there is an opportunity to compete for procurements, and that a report is sent to the EPA on the success of the program with respect to MBEs & WBEs.

Key Changes

This final rule makes three key changes to the EPA’s DBE program. The first is the creation of a self-certification platform. The second is the increase to the threshold to be exempted from negotiating fair share objectives from $250,000 to $1,000,000. The third and final change is that the frequency of reporting to the EPA has been revised to annually and the threshold of $150,000 is now codified. There are additional minor changes in the Final Rule, but the three above will have the most impact on an organization.

Self-Certification Impact on Affected Organizations

If your firm wishes to take advantage of this revision and is a qualifying organization, you will be able to self-certify through the Small Business Vendor Profile System at www.epa.gov. You will be required to provide the appropriate information and confirm that the eligibility requirements have been met. After certifying that you have met the eligibility requirements, no EPA review will be required. This change will significantly decrease the time it takes for organizations to be certified as MBEs or WBEs, as organizations will no longer be required to obtain other qualifying certification from the government. However, self-certification through the EPA’s DBE Program under the new rule will not be recognized by other organizations and such certification will remain valid only 3 years. Therefore, qualified organizations will continue to have an obligation to re-register to maintain their status as an MBE or WBE. Firms that choose to certify through this option will be published on the Office of Small Business Program’s web site, and you should always review the final rule for additional impacts it may have on your organization.

About the Author

Colin Johnson
Contracts Manager

Colin Johnson is a Contracts Manager who focuses on business development and federal contracts management. His expertise is in preparing quotes and responses for both government and commercial entities for training and legal support services.

The post EPA Issues Final Rule on Self-Certification for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
Journalist Michael Kinsley once said, “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” The same can now be said of unions talking about Executive Order 13673 regarding “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces.”

Now, who could possibly object to fair pay and safe workplaces? Well, let’s let the Teamsters for a Democratic Union explain the obvious truth (that they aren’t supposed to say) about how the reporting and “blacklisting” aspects of that that innocuous sounding executive order will work in practice. In an August 22 blog post entitled Obama ‘Blacklisting’ Rule – New Leverage for Unions, the union posits the following scenario (complete with colorful dialogue):

Consider a union that strikes an auto plant for a new contract. Soon after workers hit the bricks, the union president has the following conversation with the general manager.

Morris, we are two weeks into this goddam strike and the company shows no sign of accepting a fair labor agreement. That is your prerogative, but I think you need to take a fresh look. For one thing, we have filed six ULP charges over the company’s failure to provide information, illegal surveillance, and intimidation on the picket line – and are getting ready to file three more. The NLRB investigator has indicated that he will be recommending complaints on at least four of our charges.

You say that the NLRB is toothless but you are apparently unaware that the rules of the game have drastically changed. Under a new Order issued by the President, a federal contractor that incurs NLRB or other labor law complaints must report them to federal contracting agencies and face the prospect of losing existing and future contracts. Putting it plainly: unless you settle this strike within the next few days and the union withdraws its charges, you are likely to be marked as a “repeat labor law offender,” one of the highest categories of wrongdoing under the President’s Order. Check this out with your hotshot legal team.

Counting all of its divisions, this corporation has federal contracts in the hundreds of millions. Do you really want to jeopardize this pot of gold to save a few hundred thousand dollars in the union contact?

“Fair” indeed. And welcome, contractors, to the “obvious truth” that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order will be a powerful new tool for union organizing campaigns.

About the Author:

David Warner | Centre Law & Consulting David Warner
Partner

David Warner is a seasoned counselor in the resolution and litigation of complex employment and business disputes. His practice is focused on the government contractor, nonprofit, and hospitality industries. David has extensive experience representing contractors in affirmative action, Davis-Bacon Act, and Service Contract Act compliance audits. He also represents businesses with regard to wage and hour compliance, DOL audits, and litigation.

 

The post “Kinsley Gaffes” and Safe Workplaces appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
It’s been a bit chaotic around here recently and I’m surrounded by boxes everywhere I look. More on that below. But I did have a few minutes to catch up on some big developments that have been going on in the federal contracting world. These are a few things that caught my attention, and we’ll see what kind of impact they have for us on the road ahead.

Acquisition Reform Once More

Holy guacamole. It’s 2007 all over again. Does anyone remember the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003 (SARA)? Under SARA a panel was formed to review acquisition laws and regulations and to recommend any necessary changes. I testified before the panel and got a lovely 2007 Report in return that I keep on my bookshelf. It reminds me how hard it is to implement change because not much has changed. Now the Department of Defense (DoD) has announced the creation of a new Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, with the goal of finding ways to streamline the Pentagon acquisition process.

The panel will be headed by Deidre Lee, former Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy and former Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator. Interestingly enough, Dee was also instrumental in creating the 2007 SARA Panel report. I am going to email her and ask her if it is Groundhog Day again. Read more at Defense News.

Protests and a Win Against Low Price

CACI-Federal and Booz Allen Hamilton protested the Defense Information Systems Agency’s (DISA) Encore III solicitation for IT services. These multiple award contracts have a maximum value of $17.5 billion. The GAO held that DISA conducted a flawed cost/price evaluation.

The GAO held that the evaluation scheme precluded meaningful evaluation of proposals’ costs to the government. The solicitation terms were flawed, according to the GAO, because they anticipated the award of both fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contract line item numbers, but they didn’t require offerors to propose cost-reimbursable labor rates or contemplate the evaluation of those rates. This is more of a win against low price “evaluations”. The GAO website has more information.

Counterfeit Part Protection

DoD issued a final rule on August 30 amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to protect contractors from costs incurred when they accidentally use counterfeit electronic parts. The protections only apply if the contractors have an active structure in place to detect and avoid counterfeit parts. Read the details on the Federal Register.

Boxes Upon Boxes

It’s amazing how much “stuff” an office can accumulate! The best way to know for sure is when you have to pack it all up to move. The Centre Law & Consulting office moved earlier this week into a brand new space. And while the move was only a mile down the road, we still had to take on all the joys and headaches that come with such a relocation. I think the paint is finally dry, but the boxes are still being unpacked.

One space that is unpacked – and perhaps one of the best parts of the new office – is our large, light-filled training room. There’s something about the wall of windows that makes it so inviting. Our first course in the new space kicks off tomorrow and we can’t wait to hear what the attendees think of it. We’d love to welcome you to our new training room too. See our training calendar for all our upcoming courses.

Centre Law & Consulting Training Room in Tysons, VA
 
About the Author

Barbara Kinosky Barbara Kinosky
Managing Partner

Barbara Kinosky has more than twenty-five years of experience in all aspects of federal government contracting and is a nationally known expert on GSA and VA Schedules and the Service Contract Act. She has a proven track record of solving complex issues for clients by providing strategic and business savvy advice. Barbara was named a top attorney for federal contracting by Smart CEO magazine in 2010, 2012, and 2015.

 

The post Groundhog Day Again, Counterfeit Parts, Too Many Boxes appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
Have you been hacked yet? Has your personal information been exposed by foreign hackers? Worried this year’s election results might be tampered with foreign cyber attacks? Well, you are not the only one worried about future cyber attacks. The U.S. Government is worried too, and to combat that, the General Services Administration (GSA) will release four Cybersecurity Special Item Numbers (SINs) for its GSA Schedule 70 for Information Technology procurement.

A refresh of the Schedule 70 solicitation is expected to be released in September that will include these new Cybersecurity SINs. GSA is referring to these new SINs as Highly Adaptive Cybersecurity Services (HACS) SINs. The HACS SINs were mandated by the Obama Administration’s Cybersecurity National Action Plan. This is no small initiative, but rather a plan to invest $19 billion in an attempt to ensure “Americans have the security tools to protect their identities online, that companies can protect and defend their operations and information from hackers, and that the U.S. Government protects the private information citizens provide for federal benefits and services” (Source).

The HACS SINs will be divided into four distinct SINs:

  • Penetration Testing under SIN 132-45A
  • Incident Response under SIN 132-45B
  • Cyber Hunt under SIN 132-45C
  • Risk and Vulnerability Assessment under SIN 132-45D

The vetting process for vendors will be the most thorough and detailed of any SIN on Schedule 70. While vendors will have requirements similar to those for services SINs such as SIN 132-51, the HACS SINs will also require vendors to pass an oral technical evaluation. These oral technical evaluations will be scenario-based in an attempt by GSA to ascertain the knowledge level of the prospective vendor. Vendors will be given a pass/fail grade after an undetermined time (target is seven days) from the completion of the oral evaluation. Vendors who are not able to pass this oral evaluation will not be allowed to submit an offer or modification for any HACS SIN for at least six months from the date of their previous evaluation. Oral evaluations will be conducted virtually and each SIN will have its own scenario that vendors will have to address and complete. GSA will allow up to five key personnel to attend these oral evaluations from the vendor, but no recording devices of any kind will be allowed during the evaluation. These evaluations could take anywhere between forty minutes to three hours by GSA’s estimates, depending on how many HACS SINs the vendor is proposing in their offer/modification.

There will be no limit to the number of awardees of the HACS SINs, but GSA is targeting to have an initial fifteen vendors awarded once the HACS SINs are officially rolled out. The turnaround time for GSA will be dependent on the number of vendors who propose the HACS SINs, but GSA is creating a dedicated tiger team to evaluate new offers and modifications that include the HACS SINs. GSA’s target for evaluation is seven days for modifications and forty five days for new offers.

While there is still more to be revealed about these new HACS SINs, it is clear GSA is making a concerted effort to put these new SINs at the top of their priority list. If you want to be in the front of the line to get these new SINs awarded on your contract, be sure to check the GSA Interact site and submit your modifications/offers through the eMod/eOffer site.

For more information regarding GSA and the HACS SINs, be sure to register to attend Centre Law and Consulting’s next Boot Camp for GSA Schedules training course on November 9-10, 2016.

About the Author

Michael Glazer
Contracts Manager

Michael Glazer focuses primarily on GSA/VA Schedule consulting. He regularly assists clients in all aspects of FSS contract management including contract negotiations, modifications, IFF reporting, subcontracting plans and reporting, IOA assessments, and other contract compliance issues. Michael also provides experience with GSA Alliant 1 & 2, ITES 3H and 3S, CIO-CS and SP3, and other large IDIQ contracts on an as needed basis to clients.

The post GSA Ushers in New Era with Release of Cybersecurity SINs for IT 70 appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
For those of you enjoying these last few days of summer, here is a quick hit guide to recent employment developments to be aware of before you rush back into the full swing of things:

Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order

The Department of Labor (DOL) announced yesterday that the final regulations implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order will be published today. The regulations (which cover contractor self-reporting of labor law violations) will become effective October 25, 2016 and will be implemented in phases. Stay tuned for more on these important new regulations!

Severance Agreements

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken the position that severance agreements that require employees to forfeit subsequent monetary awards for whistleblowing violate Federal securities laws. In 2011, the SEC adopted a rule prohibiting any action that impedes communication with the SEC about potential securities law violations. The SEC has increasingly been reviewing severance agreements and potential violations of this rule. This culminated in two six-figure settlements announced earlier this month with companies that required employees to waive their right to any individual recovery arising from communicating with a government agency. This is language that is permitted by other Federal agencies, so companies should review their standard severance agreements to ensure that they are not running afoul of the SEC’s rules.

DOL Settles Overtime Lawsuit

It is being reported that the DOL recently settled its own decade-long lawsuit with a union for $7 million in back overtime wages owed to various white-collar employees at the DOL. Keep in mind this is the DOL, the Agency responsible for enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) along with other wage and hour laws. A quick take away is that the overtime regulations and classification of employees are complicated – even for the DOL! Perhaps this is a good time to remind you that the salary thresholds for Federal overtime exemptions are changing effective December 1, 2016. Is your company ready?

Updated Workplace Posters

The DOL has updated the mandatory workplace posters covering the FLSA and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) effective August 1, 2016. The revised FSLA poster and EPPA poster are available from the DOL’s website. The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act poster was also recently updated in April. This may be a good time to review your workplace posters to ensure you have all the required and up to date postings.

EEO-1 Due

For employers with 100 or more employees or Federal Government contractors with 50 or more employees and covered contracts, don’t forget to complete your EEO-1 by September 30. The survey is now open.

About the Author

Marina Blickley | Centre Law & Consulting Marina Blickley
Associate Attorney

Marina Blickley is primarily focused in the Government Contracting and Non-Profit industries. She regularly assists clients in all aspects of employment and labor law including representation and defense of employers against claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation/whistleblower, and wage and hour violations before administrative agencies and state and federal courts.

 

The post End of Summer Employment Law Developments appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
The Federal Government continues to issue more and more cybersecurity rules, Executive Orders and guidance for federal contractors, and the latest addition is the Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 52.204-21 – Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems, published in June 2016. This new rule establishes new definitions of “Covered Contractor Information System”, “Federal Contract Information”, and outlines 15 new safeguarding requirements and procedures for federal contractors. FAR Part 52.204-21 supplements many other existing cybersecurity rules that Federal contractors have to already comply with.

When it comes to meeting cybersecurity requirements, the first question is whether the new rule applies. For example, vendors of commercial items may not be affected by the rule in the same way as contractors storing and managing government information containing non-public and sensitive data. The new rule applies to “Covered Contractor Information System” which is defined as an information system that is owned or operated by a contractor that processes, stores, or transmit Federal Contract Information. Thus, it is important to understand your specific contract requirements relating to such information, and to check whether your contract includes FAR Part 52.204-21. Most experts agree that this rule could have a very broad application.

What is “Federal Contract Information”?

It is information that is not intended for public release, that is provided by or generated for the Government under a contract to develop or deliver a product or service to the Government, but not including information provided by the Government to the public (such as on public websites) or simple transactional information, such as necessary to process payments.

What is “Safeguarding”?

The new rule defines “safeguarding” as measures or controls that are prescribed to protect information systems, and it lists 15 different security controls. Essentially, the security controls can be divided into (1) user controls, (2) use controls, and (3) information system controls. User controls involve limiting access to authorized users. Use controls refer to limiting the types of transactions and functions that authorized users are permitted to execute. Finally, information system controls refer to periodic scans of the information systems and real-time scans of files from external sources as they are being downloaded, opened or executed. Read the details of all the 15 requirements.

What Are Other Cybersecurity Requirements?

There are many. Probably, one of the most important ones is the new publication setting out the minimum standards on protecting controlled unclassified information.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-171 “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations” is designed to help federal agencies in protecting the confidentiality of controlled unclassified information when it is stored on nonfederal information systems and organizations. This in turn means that federal contractors have to comply with the recommended requirements. This publication has been developed pursuant to the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014.

What Are Some of the Best Ways to Satisfy the New 15 Cybersecurity Safeguarding Requirements and Procedures?

It all starts with appropriate policies and internal procedures, proper training, contingency planning, periodic assessments and remedial actions, and constant risk monitoring.

If you have further questions about the new cybersecurity rules, or require training, feel free to contact us.

About the Author:

Wojciech Kornacki | Centre Law & Consulting Wojciech Kornacki
Government Contract and Compliance Counsel

Wojciech Kornacki focuses on federal Government contract compliance, bid protests, and federal litigation. He represents clients in matters involving Government Accountability Office bid protests, federal agency debarments, Boards of Contract Appeals litigation, and Export Controls (ITAR and EAR) and Trade Agreements Act compliance.

 

The post Fifteen New Cybersecurity Safeguarding Requirements and Procedures Take Effect appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
So later today I am hosting a lunch at my house. And unless Desoto (the Spanish explorer who looked for the Fountain of Youth in Florida) has been visiting my family room, I have a major water leak. There is water everywhere. I just lost a small business set-aside contract to an unfathomably low, low, low price bidder, and the cat barfed all over my new carpet. It’s not even noon yet! So in an attempt to turn my day around, I hopped online to see what others are up to in hopes of finding something more interesting and uplifting!

Here is a round up of trending Government Contracting news I found that caught my eye.

SBA Expands Mentor-Protégé to All Small Businesses
Kudos to the Small Business Administration for great rule drafting. The SBA just expanded the mentor-protégé program to include all small businesses. The program is government wide. The primary incentive for large businesses to participate as mentors is the ability to form a joint venture (JV) with their protégé to pursue small business set-aside contracts without worrying about affiliation issues. And that sticky wicket, past performance is addressed in the rule. Agencies must evaluate the past performance of each member of the JV as opposed to just the JV. NextWin posted a great white paper on this. Applications must be submitted through the www.certify.sba.gov.portal. The new rule allows mentors to own up to 40% of their protégé’s. SBA has confirmed that they will be receiving applications starting October 1. And for those of you who suffer from insomnia, here is the complete rule for your late night reading pleasure.

Key Person Departs and So Does URS Contract
URS Federal Services protested the loss of a Navy contract. The solicitation required offerors to propose eight key personnel. After proposal submission one of the key staff left URS. As a result, the URS proposal was given a deficiency which cost it the award. URS protested. The GAO held that when an agency has notice of the withdrawal of key personnel during the proposal evaluation process it can either evaluate the proposal as submitted or reopen discussions. Here the Navy evaluated the proposal as having only seven key people instead of the required eight. Read more in the GAO decision.

Update on GSA Transactional Data
GSA just issued an update on the schedule for implementing the transactional data pilot program. This link shows what schedules will be impacted and the roll out date.

Open Source Code
GSA published a good comprehensive blog on open source code. It’s part of the federal government’s big push toward open source development. GSA has a CIO policy that supports releasing GSA software as open source, but this is a very controversial issue with industry.

P.S. – With all the changes that happen in the world of federal contracting, you need a dependable resource to keep you advised on best practices. So keep us in mind for meeting your small business WOSB goals when it comes to acquisition support and training.

About the Author

Barbara Kinosky Barbara Kinosky
Managing Partner

Barbara Kinosky has more than twenty-five years of experience in all aspects of federal government contracting and is a nationally known expert on GSA and VA Schedules and the Service Contract Act. She has a proven track record of solving complex issues for clients by providing strategic and business savvy advice. Barbara was named a top attorney for federal contracting by Smart CEO magazine in 2010, 2012, and 2015.

 

The post Trending Government Contracting News appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
Effective July 1, 2016, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) began using its new scheduling letter for compliance evaluations.

One of the most significant changes in the form document relates to the agency’s use of data and information submitted by contractors. The “old” letter stated:

Rest assured that OFCCP considers the information you provide in response to this Scheduling Letter as sensitive and confidential. Therefore, any disclosures we may make will be consistent with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.”

In contrast, the new letter states:

Please also be aware that OFCCP may use the information you provide during a compliance evaluation in an enforcement action. We may also share that information with other enforcement agencies within DOL, as well as with other federal civil rights enforcement agencies with which we have information sharing agreements.”

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) issuance of its memorandum on July 1, 2016 concerning the collection of information regarding labor law violations per the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order must be purely coincidental, no? (OM 16-23)

“Interesting times ahead,” contractors.

About the Author:

David Warner | Centre Law & Consulting David Warner
Partner

David Warner is a seasoned counselor in the resolution and litigation of complex employment and business disputes. His practice is focused on the government contractor, nonprofit, and hospitality industries. David has extensive experience representing contractors in affirmative action, Davis-Bacon Act, and Service Contract Act compliance audits. He also represents businesses with regard to wage and hour compliance, DOL audits, and litigation.

 

The post OFCCP’s New Scheduling Letter Expands Intra- and Inter-Agency Data Sharing appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Reproduced with permission from Federal Contracts Report, 105 FCR (July 27, 2016). Copyright 2016 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com

HHS Couldn’t Justify IT Competition Cancellation, COFC Says

The Department of Health and Human Services couldn’t justify its cancellation of an IT competition that a protester claimed was tainted by bias, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims said (Starry Assocs. Inc. v. United States, 2016 BL 241279, Fed. Cl., No. 16-44C, 7/27/16).

Judge Eric G. Bruggink set aside the cancellation because there was no evidence the agency meaningfully reviewed its IT needs before making that decision. The court also barred several agency employees from participating in any subsequent competition actions.

The case “shows the recent trend that courts will hold federal agencies accountable for arbitrarily canceling solicitations or failing to take meaningful corrective actions. In this case, we have both,” Wojciech Z. Kornacki of Centre Law & Consulting LLC told Bloomberg BNA.

It was noteworthy that the court granted injunctive relief, Kornacki said. “The court felt that the public interest favored the injunction because the public had an interest in the integrity of the federal procurement,” he said. “The court found that the agency actions reflected ‘a lack of fidelity to the procurement process.’”

This action was necessary for Starry to get access to discovery tools, like depositions, that aren’t available at the Government Accountability Office, said Sandy Hoe, senior of counsel at Covington & Burling LLP. “But that discovery tool in a bid protest is limited to extraordinary situations such as here,” he said. “I would expect to see that tool being used in very few other circumstances.”

Prohibiting the government from canceling a solicitation is unusual, he added.

“The reasoning makes sense given the bias here, but that relief is only a few steps short of the court directing an award to a party, which is virtually never done,” he said. “Another option the court might have exercised was to order the agency to pay Starry’s bid and proposal costs and allow the solicitation to be canceled.

“Apparently, the court was not willing to let the agency off the hook so easily given the agency’s bad conduct,” Hoe said.

Award Affirmed

Incumbent protester Starry Assocs. Inc. filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) after the agency awarded a task order to Intellizant LLC. The agency took corrective action by re-evaluating quotations, but then affirmed the award.

Starry filed a second protest that the GAO partially sustained, recommending that the agency re-evaluate Intellizant’s quotation. Shortly thereafter, the agency canceled the solicitation.

Starry protested the cancellation as pretextual and biased because it argued the agency was trying to steer the award toward Intellizant. The GAO rejected the protest, so Starry pursued the matter with the court (105 FCR 22, 1/12/16).

In April, the court granted Starry’s request to depose agency officials because Starry made a strong bias case against an agency official who previously worked for Intellizant (105 FCR 306, 4/12/16).

Reevaluation Not Serious

The court concluded that it didn’t have to reach a decision on the bias claim because the cancellation was clearly arbitrary.

Once agency officials selected Intellizant, any other result was unwelcome and not seriously considered, the court said. Officials told the GAO and Starry they would undertake a serious re-evaluation of Intellizant’s proposal, but the record didn’t reflect such an effort, the court found.

The agency official charged with the cancellation decision said the cancellation was reasonable because other contract vehicles could meet the agency’s needs. However, the record didn’t show that he compared those vehicles, and his supervisor and colleagues didn’t double-check his assertion.

Agency officials also said Starry would have received the award had the GAO’s recommendation been followed. Therefore, the court set aside the cancellation decision, and said the agency should again re-evaluate Intellizant’s proposal, as the GAO said in its second decision.

In addition, the court enjoined certain officials from participating in any subsequent agency actions in this competition.

Depositions with those officials “provide an illuminating, if depressing, window” into how they misrepresented the quality of their evaluation, the court said.

Specifically, one official rated Intellizant as technically acceptable despite having insufficient knowledge of the agency’s software, the court said.
 

The post Wojciech Kornacki Quoted in Bloomberg BNA Article on HHS IT Competition Cancellation appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 
This guide pinpoints some of the major government contracts-related developments that occurred over the last six months. These developments create new opportunities and compliance requirements that people who conduct business with the Federal Government need to know about.

Major Regulatory Developments

Compliance: False Claims Act Penalties Almost Double
The U.S. Department of Justice issued an interim rule increasing monetary penalties for contractors. Civil monetary penalties under certain sections of the False Claims Act are increased from $5,500 to $10,781 (minimum penalty), and from $11,000 to $21,563 (maximum penalty). Considering that each transaction or invoice could be considered as a separate violation, compliance is paramount. You can read the entire rule, and it will be effective on August 1, 2016.

Compliance: New Cybersecurity Requirements For Federal Contractors
The U.S. Department of Defense, NASA and GSA issued a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation by adding a new subpart for the basic safeguarding of contractor information systems that process, store, or transmit Federal contracting information (FCI). (FAR 52.204-21) FCI means “information, not intended for public release, that is provided by or generated for the Government under a contract to develop or deliver a product or service to the Government, but not including information provided by the Government to the public (such as on public Web sites) or simple transactional information, such as necessary to process payments.” This rule is expected to be applicable to most, if not all, of the new contracts. It is effective as of June 15, 2016.

Opportunity: Small Business Mentor-Protégé Program
The SBA is amending its regulations to establish a Government-wide mentor protégé program for all small business concerns. The new rule also makes changes to the current joint-venture provisions. This development is expected to create many new opportunities for small and not so small businesses. This rule will be effective on August 24, 2016.

Compliance: No Discrimination on the Basis of Sex
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs created new nondiscrimination obligations that affect certain Federal Government contractors and subcontractors. The new obligations relate to the Executive Order 11246 – Equal Employment Opportunity. This order prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and requires employers to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees are treated without regard to their sex. You can read our article on this major development or read the final rule, which will be effective on August 14, 2016.

Opportunity: Export Control Reform Revisions
As part of the Export Control Reform initiative, the Department of State updated the definitions of “export”, and “reexport or retransfer” in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). This is seen as a positive development by many because now the new ITAR definitions will be better synchronized with the Export Administration Regulations definitions. This rule will be effective on September 1, 2016.

Opportunity: GSA Transactional Data Reporting
GSA amended its rules to now require Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contractors to report transactional data from orders placed against certain FSS contracts, Government-wide Acquisition Contracts and Government-wide Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Some experts believe that this rule could potentially result in significant savings to federal contractors because it may eliminate other reporting requirements. You can read our article on this development or review the rule, which became effective as of June 23, 2016.

Opportunity: The Freedom of Information Improvement Act of 2016
This law is designed to make major changes to the current Federal Government record disclosure practices. Among others, federal agencies are expected to post more records online and make records available to requesters in an electronic format. You can read a good summary on the White House website. This act became Public Law No. 114-185 on June 30, 2016.

Compliance: The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015
This law requires federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking, and make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. This act became Public Law 114-74 on November 2, 2015. Now, federal agencies are required to publish interim final rules with the initial penalty adjustment amounts by July 1, 2016, and the new penalty levels will be legally binding on August 1, 2016. You can read our article on this development.

Significant Legal Decisions

Compliance: Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States Et Al. Ex Rel. Escobar Et Al. (2016)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a defendant should face False Claims Act (FCA) liability only if it failed to disclose the violation of a contractual, statutory, or regulatory provision that the Federal Government expressly designated a condition of payment. The Court answered this question by stating that defendants could be liable for violating certain requirements even if the requirements were not designated as conditions of payment. Any misrepresentation about compliance with a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement had to be material to the Federal Government’s payment decision in order to be actionable under the FCA. This case was decided on June 16, 2016.

Opportunity: Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. V. United States (2016)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the Department of Veterans Affairs had to award contracts to veteran-owned small business concerns when there was a reasonable expectation that 2 or more such concerns would bid for the contract at a fair and reasonable price that offered best value to the U.S. Government. The Court answered this question with a unanimous yes! This decision creates many new opportunities for veteran-owned small business concerns. This case was decided on June 16, 2016.

Compliance: Remington Arms Co., LLC, v. The United States, and Colt Defense, LLC, and FN America, LLC (2016)
In this post-award bid protest, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims examined whether the contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision to award a contract to Colt while Colt was still in bankruptcy and labeled “high risk” by the Defense Contract Management Agency was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The Court concluded that the CO’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because it was not supported by the record which showed that Colt was undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. This case was decided on March 30, 2016.

Opportunity: B-411466.3, Fluor Energy Technology Services, LLC
In this matter, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) recommended full reimbursement of costs for filing and pursuing protest where the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest. The protester was able to show that a reasonable agency inquiry into initial protest allegations would have revealed prejudicial errors in the agency’s cost realism evaluation. This matter was decided on June 7, 2016.

Note that is post is for educational use only and does not constitute legal advice.

About the Author:

Wojciech Kornacki | Centre Law & Consulting Wojciech Kornacki
Government Contract and Compliance Counsel

Wojciech Kornacki focuses on federal Government contract compliance, bid protests, and federal litigation. He represents clients in matters involving Government Accountability Office bid protests, federal agency debarments, Boards of Contract Appeals litigation, and Export Controls (ITAR and EAR) and Trade Agreements Act compliance.

 

The post Federal Contractor Survival Guide (2016 Mid-Year Update) appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

If you have been working on GSA Schedules for the past few years, you may remember that in May 2012, GSA’s initiative was the end of the Schedule Input Program (SIP) and the mandatory use of the new Formatted Price List (FPL) for the Financial and Business Solutions (FABS) Schedule. There was much excitement generated by this news as we were all ready for the end of SIP. In January 2014, GSA announced that FABS would no longer utilize the FPL and all vendors were to return to SIP. As we look into the years ahead, I am optimistic that eventually the Formatted Product Tool (FPT) will truly be the end of SIP.

What is the FPT?

FPT is a systems upgrade that will be activated within the existing eOffer and eMod platforms and NOT in a separate application. There will be an automatic upload of products and prices to GSA Advantage!

The General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) is planning to implement the FPT across the Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) program beginning with select pilot Schedules in late July 2016.

The order of the FPT rollout, with approximately two week intervals, is as follows:

  • Schedule 58 I – Professional Audio/Video
  • Schedule 72 – Furnishings & Floor Coverings (to be released with Schedule 58 I)
  • Schedule 75 – Office Products/Supplies
  • Schedule 73 – Food Service, Hospitality & Cleaning Equipment
  • Schedule 51 V – Hardware Superstore
  • Schedule 70 – Information Technology Products, Software & Services

What Do I Have to Do?

If you accept the FPT, you will be required to complete the one-time “rebaselining” of price list data as well as other data fields for proper display of these items. GSA can then ensure all of your currently awarded products are uploaded to GSA Advantage! For baselining, the contractor will utilize a provided template in eMod to submit all awarded products and associated product data, to include Manufacturer Part Number (MPN) and Universal Product Code Type A data, when applicable. All descriptive information required by SIP will be captured in one submission via eMod and uploaded to GSA Advantage!. This will become your FSS Price List upon execution of the modification.

If you accept the FPT bilateral modification, you will have 60 days to complete the rebaseline process. Please note that with the FPT, Contracting Officers will now have additional data analytics and transparency in helping them determine that pricing is fair and reasonable. Phase I of FPT is focused on collecting standard part numbers for items on Schedule.

Is Participation Mandatory?

No. At this time, acceptance of the upcoming Schedule Refresh/Mass Modification is optional if you are on one of the pilot Schedules. However, FPT will soon be mandatory for all new offers on product Schedules.

Does FPT Include Products and Services?

No. Phase 1 of this pilot program only includes products. If you have both products and services on the pilot schedule (such as IT 70), you are to enter the product information in the FPT pricing template and enter the services information in a text file. Both documents are to be uploaded via FPT, but in different file formats.

Recommendations

My recommendation is to completely understand the FPT process prior to accepting the upcoming Refresh Solicitation/Mass Modification for one of the pilot schedules. Continue to follow GSA Interact for updates on the Formatted Product Tool and for notice of the Refresh Solicitation/Mass Mod release.

I highly recommend attending the next GSA FPT training by registering for the next webinar on July 27, 2016 from 1:00pm – 3:00pm ET.
 
 
About the Author:

Maureen Jamieson | Centre Law & Consulting Maureen Jamieson
Executive Director of Contracts and Consulting

Maureen Jamieson has more than twenty-five years of experience managing federal contracts. She is highly experienced in solving client pricing problems and implementing effective pricing strategies for placing products and services on GSA Schedule contracts.

 

The post The Exit of SIP and Entrance of the Formatted Product Tool appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

The Payment of Subcontractors proposed rule, which appeared in the Federal Register in January 2016, is the latest in a series of efforts to hold the Prime accountable for timely payments to its Subs.

Those who follow these blogs know that ‘payment’ is a hot button topic for me whether it is payment to the Prime by the Government or payment to the Subcontractor by the Prime. We’ve previously highlighted the “Accelerating Payments to Small Businesses” rule whose aim is to enable small businesses subcontractors to receive payments within 15 days of receipt of a proper invoice. And not quite a year ago, I reviewed the finer points of the “Paid to Cost” rule, which requires payment to Subs thirty days after the Prime submits its invoice to the Government.

This Payment of Subcontractors proposed rule has made a long trip. It originated as Section 1334 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010! This statute requires the Prime to self-report to the Contracting Officer (CO) when the Prime makes late or reduced payments to small business subcontractors. In addition, the CO is required to record the identity of contractors with a history of three or more unjustified reduced payments to small business subcontractors within a 12-month period [FAR 42.1502(g)(2)] in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

What Does It Mean?

That’s a lot to take in, but essentially:

  • In an era of mandatory disclosure, the contractor must turn itself in to the CO along with the reason(s) for the reduced payment.
  • The CO will add the contractor’s identity to FAPIIS, the database that has been established to track contractor misconduct and performance.

The FAPIIS database also contains Federal contractor criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings in connection with federal awards, suspensions and debarments, administrative agreements issued in lieu of suspension or debarment, non-responsibility determinations, contracts terminated for fault, and defective pricing determinations – truly a tough neighborhood!

What Are the Points to Consider in This Rule?

First, what does a reduced payment mean? FAR 19.701 defines it as a payment that is less than the amount agreed upon in a subcontract in accordance with its terms and conditions for supplies and services for which the Government has paid the prime contractor.

Second, are any other processes affected? FAR 42.1502 is revised to include reports of reduced payments in the past performance evaluation in each of the ratings definitions found at Table 42-2. A new clause, FAR 52.242-XX, implements the rule.

Finally, to which contracts does this apply? This statute defines a ‘covered contract’ as a contract under which a prime contractor is required to develop a subcontracting plan. I was almost through an initial reading of this rule before that point was made clear. That narrows the scope of affected Prime contracts but only a little. FAR 19.702 [The Small Business Subcontracting Program] instructs that in negotiated acquisitions, each solicitation of offers to perform a contract or contract modification, that individually is expected to exceed $700,000 and that has subcontracting opportunities, shall require the apparently successful offeror to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan.

As of last week the Councils were comparing notes with the objective of issuing a final rule. Payment rules are typically welcomed by one party and dreaded by the other, but the dynamics are universally interesting.

Contact me if you have questions about this, but I’ll also review – probably the final rule – in my Federal Contract Basics or Subcontracting Under the FAR courses this fall.

About the Author:

Rich Zimmerman | Centre Law & Consulting Rich Zimmerman
Project Manager

Richard E. Zimmerman has more than 25 years of experience as a contracts professional both in Government and the private sector. His excellent background in FAR, Agency supplements, and their application over the procurement life cycle make him a critical resource for PMs, prime contractors, and subcontractors.

The post Subcontracting Payment Rules: Make the Payment or Incur the Penalty appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

The Federal Marketplace can be challenging and risky for the uninitiated, and even for seasoned contractors. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) alone contains 53 parts over 1,903 pages, including nearly 590 provisions and clauses (some with alternates), and many of which will ultimately find their way into your contracts. And this doesn’t even include Agency-specific acquisition regulations which supplement and implement the FAR.

As if securing and administering government contracts were not challenging enough, how about trying to figure out the puzzle of who buys your supplies and services, where and how they buy them, and who do they buy from?

Unfortunately, some folks still rely exclusively on agencies’ Forecasts of Contracting Opportunities (FCO) thinking this is all they need for identifying upcoming procurement opportunities. While Federal Law (P.L. 100-656) requires all Federal agencies with procurement budgets of $50+ Million (almost all of them these days) to publish an FCO, the FCOs from most agencies are unfortunately not robust, are hardly all-inclusive with their information, and only tell part of the story.

Fortunately putting together the Who—What—When—Where and How puzzle pieces is much easier than securing and administering a contract thanks to the Federal Procurement Data System — Next Generation, commonly known as FPDS-NG or FPDS.

A Better Solution

A great way to know where procurements are going is to see where they’ve been. That’s where Federal Procurement Data System comes in. It is the real-time relational database serving the government acquisition community as the authoritative source of contract information, which contains summary level data and is used at all levels of the Federal government for policy and trend analysis. The numbers and data in FPDS change every hour of every workday. The system contains millions of transactions, and there are millions of permeations for extracting various combinations of data elements to suit your unique needs.

Unlike FPDS, the USAspending.gov website uses a static approach to capturing and reporting data, meaning the data is presented and simple charts and graphs which do not change until the next update, which is required every 30 days under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. This makes access to current and real-time data through FPDS is invaluable, and knowing how to put the pieces of this puzzle together can help competitively position your company and help boost your federal sales.

Hands-On Learning

Don’t be overwhelmed by the idea of learning a system that might new to you though! On August 16, 2016, learn the intricacies of FPDS in one-day course, “Introduction to the Federal Procurement Data System”.

This hands-on, dynamic course unlocks the mysteries and power of FPDS for your company’s competitive benefit and includes content such as:

  • Providing an overview and requirements of FPDS reporting by Federal agencies
  • Detailing what transactions are required to be reported along with what is available and what is not available through FPDS
  • Learning who buys what, how they buy, and whether these procurements are conducted through the Federal Supply Schedules Program, Other Government Agency Contracts, or on the open market
  • Identifying when your competitors’ contracts will expire or when other contracts in your commercial line of endeavor are due to expire and be re-competed
  • Discovering if set-asides are used in acquiring the products and services you offer and how you may qualify
  • Explaining the distinct advantages of using FPDS vs. USAspending.gov

This course will use a combination of both lecture and hands-on laboratory, whereby participants will create individual FPDS accounts and actually create and run reports using standard reporting as well as the system’s invaluable and powerful ad hoc reporting capabilities. The critical knowledge, skills, and abilities gained from this intense one-day training class can be taken back to the workplace, along with reports ready to be run and re-run to meet your company’s needs.

What’s In It for You?

Enhance your company’s competitive position in the Federal market place by harnessing the power of procurement data. Stop wasting scarce marketing resources targeting agencies where opportunities do not exist. Instead, use data from FPDS to focus, target, and hone your marketing efforts in areas which will offer the best potential returns on your marketing investment. You’ll also save time by eliminating the need for time-consuming and often costly Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for data.

Your competitors have this information and use it to their competitive benefit and advantage, why shouldn’t you? If you want to be the “go-to-person” at your company for this type of data and you want your company to be more competitive, then this course is for you.

We look forward to seeing you on August 16, so we can put the puzzle pieces together!

About the Author

Wayne Simpson | Centre Law & Consulting Wayne Simpson, CSCM
Wayne Simpson is a seasoned former Federal executive and acquisition professional who is also a highly-motivated and demonstrative small business advocate, with nearly 38 years of Federal Civilian Service with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and its predecessor organization, the Veterans Administration.

 

The post The Procurement Puzzle: Putting the Pieces Together to Boost Federal Sales appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

By now you have probably heard that the Department of Labor’s regulations for the white-collar exemptions to overtime compensation were finalized and will be effective December 1, 2016. You are probably also aware that your company should be analyzing how its employees are classified to ensure it is prepared to comply with the regulations come December 1. What you may not have thought about is how your analysis (and any changes to employee exemption status) may impact your federal government contracts covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards (formerly the Service Contract Act).

The final overtime regulations implement significant changes to the salary threshold required for employees in order to be considered exempt. Specifically, the salary level for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions will become $913 per week or $47,476 annually. Although this is only half of the exemption analysis (which also requires employees meet a duties test), the DOL estimates that roughly 4 million workers will be affected by the change.

How Does the Service Contract Labor Standards Come Into Play?

The Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) generally requires contractors with covered service contracts pay their “service employees” a minimum wage and fringe benefits that have been determined by the Secretary of Labor as prevailing in the locality where the employee is working. These wages and fringe benefits are reflected in one or more wage determinations attached to the SCLS contract. However, only “service employees” are subject to the wage and fringe benefit requirements of the wage determination. Thus, properly classifying a worker as a service employee is extremely important for determining compliance with the SCLS.

“Service employees” are in turn defined as any employee that is not exempt from overtime under the administrative, executive, or professional exemptions. Thus, for government contractors, one very likely result of reclassifying employees from exempt to non-exempt under the new FLSA regulations is that these now non-exempt employees will also become subject to SCLS wage and fringe benefit obligations. The difficulty will be in aligning or mapping these now non-exempt “service employees” to the positions on the wage determination (or directory of occupations). Assuming these employees otherwise meet the duties test for the white-collar exemptions (which typically require higher level responsibility and decision-making), the directory of occupations and wage determinations likely do not currently contain positions of a similar nature. Thus, absent proactive action by the DOL, contractors may need to make conformance requests for covered contracts for these newly exempt positions.

What Should Contractors Be Doing Now?

It is important that contractors assess proper classification of its employees over the next few months to determine which positions may need to be reclassified as non-exempt from overtime starting December 1. In addition, contractors should assess the resulting increase in SCLS applicability for those employees that will now be considered “service employees” and ensure proposals and existing contracts account for any increased costs as a result.

The DOL has jurisdiction to pursue claims against contractors that fail to classify workers appropriately. For example, last week the DOL announced a $1.5 million settlement in back wages and fringe benefits with a contractor that allegedly misclassified workers subject to SCLS. Notably, the settlement also covers workers with 10 subcontractors.

While the consent findings reflect that the contractor will seek an equitable adjustment to account for its increased costs based on the applicability of SCLS to additional employees, being in the position of paying seven figures worth of back pay while waiting for the government to decide whether an equitable adjustment will be provided is certainly less than ideal. Contractors can be far better positioned when engaged in proactive analysis of proper employee classification along with ensuring that subcontractors are also aware of the applicability of SCLS.

About the Author

Marina Blickley | Centre Law & Consulting Marina Blickley
Associate Attorney

Marina Blickley is primarily focused in the Government Contracting and Non-Profit industries. She regularly assists clients in all aspects of employment and labor law including representation and defense of employers against claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation/whistleblower, and wage and hour violations before administrative agencies and state and federal courts.

 

The post Proper Classification of Workers is Important for Compliance with FLSA and SCLS appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Sign in to follow this  
×