Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    141
  • comments
    4
  • views
    4,736

Entries in this blog

Centre Law & Consulting

In the past I have written about subcontracting compliance from the Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) audit prospective. The three step process of system existence, system procedure adequacy and compliance is a very effective way to meet the FAR 44.3 CPSR goal of “efficiency and effectiveness with which the contractor spends Government funds and complies with Government policy when subcontracting”. How efficient and effective the contractor procurement system performs goes beyond these three steps. Some of the factors that commonly impact on the acquisition process include planning, proper description of needs and funding. This article touches on a few aspects of these factors that if ignored can degrade the efficiency and effectiveness of your outsourcing processes.

Planning is the major factor and can encompass the other two, but each is worth discussing. Planning encompasses many things that don’t always get the attention they deserve. One thing is certain, if you don’t take the time to do a good comprehensive job up front you will pay for it later! One of the major aspects of planning is in the proposal phase make or buy decisions. The make or buy analysis is part of the process for creating a winning team.

You want to offer the client a winning team that meets their needs on time and at the right price. Do you provide the goods, components and services in-house or can you improve the “product” and pricing through partnering and subcontracting? The answer is to look for the best combination to win the contract. Is the outsourcing function within your company adequately represented on the proposal team? The subcontracting team can add value through market research identifying potential source and supporting small business plan development. Additionally, the subcontracting team can work with proposal team members on issue including flow down requirements, terms and conditions and pricing support.

Have you ever hear the complaint that the government wants you to competitively award scope that was promised to a team member? If the original proposal clearly identifies the team member as the teaming source for a specific scope, then the source selection issue is complete. In fact, you may be able to get the Contracting Officer to include the team member in clause 52.244-2(j) excluding them from the consent process. Unfortunately I have seen cases where the winning proposal used information from a subcontractor but did not clearly describe the teaming arrangement in line with FAR 9.6. If the original proposal had included a clear description of the teaming arrangement, you have a solid basis for the subcontract source selection and a solid response when the CPSR team questions the adequacy of your subcontract competition activities. The outsourcing function needs to be an active member of the proposal team to make sure the ground work is laid right up front!

A proper description of needs is not a new subject. Too often the internal customer (aka end user or requisitioner) is left to his or her own to come up with what is needed. The outsourcing function should be involved with the internal customer working with them to identify the best ways to meet their needs. If it is a recurring need, do you set up a competitively awarded catalog or blanket purchase arrangement? Or, do you set up a larger order with multiple deliveries coordinated with the internal customer’s schedule? If the internal customers’ needs are so specific that it limits competition, then you have the opportunity to work with them to do the market research to find alternatives or to substantiate the single or sole-source justification. In either case, you have a solid response when the CPSR team questions the adequacy of competition activities or basis for a commercial item determination. The outsourcing function needs to be actively involved with the internal customer right up front!

Funding is a subject that doesn’t always get the attention it deserves. Sure, you need money to support a purchase order/subcontract, and Under DFARS 252.244-7001 (c) (4), properly authorized requisitions are required.  But there are other issues around funding that can hamper efficient and effective outsourcing. One issue that can negatively impact you is adequate funding.

Inadequate funding on a requisition can lead to delays and increased costs in prime contract performance. Proper project planning and budgeting helps, but the funding source(s) and acquisition planning need to be worked together. For example, rental of heavy construction equipment should be based on the construction schedule the equipment is supporting. You would think that means a six month rental should be funded for six months. But, sometimes you see it “incrementally” funded through a series of requisitions. Here is where efficiency and effectiveness go out the window. The buyer/subcontract administrator must issue a series of monthly modification to add funds (buyer time away from other work). If the funding requisition is delayed, then invoices sit in Accounts Payable waiting for sufficient committed funds to pay the invoice (both buyer and A/P clerk have time away from other work). Late payments leads to stop work threats, complaints to the Contracting Officer, and questions/findings on accounting and purchasing audits (now management, buyers, A/P clerks and others have more time away from other work). When payment is slow, disgruntled subcontractors are less inclined to bid new work or offer better pricing (more work again and potential system audit issues related to a variety of issues such as; timely award, adequate competition, fair and reasonable pricing, subcontract closeout and file documentation).  Again, early involvement of the outsourcing function can help eliminate problems before they occur saving time and resources that would otherwise be consumed trying to patch and fix things later in the process.

I hope my point is clear. Early involvement by your subcontracting and purchasing staff pays big rewards to the overall success of your company. Beyond timely and successful prime contract performance, another benefit is improved compliance. When I see problems during compliance audits and CPSR reviews, the “root cause” is frequently the result of a “reactive procurement system” trying to fix things that could have been avoided by early, effective involvement with internal customer. With time being taken away from the primary task of procuring the goods and services needed, quality and compliance suffer. When people have the time and tools to do their jobs, they are going to give you the kind of results you need, successfully perform the prime contract and meet client audit expectations. That’s how you maintain an approved purchasing system!

About the Author

Jack Hott headshot | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons, VA Jack Holt has more than four decades of experience as a contracts professional in Government and the private sector. A retired Air Force officer, he served multiple acquisition related assignments with The Air Force and Defense Contract Management Agency. These assignments included Assistant Professor of Acquisition Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, multiple in-plant assignments where he functioned as Principle Administrative Contracting Officer/DACO managing contract administration, pricing, government property, CAS and overhead approvals, supplier quality, and subcontract management.

After leaving the Air Force, Mr. Hott became principle consultant to a small veteran owned business developing and presenting training on a variety of government contracting subjects including cost/price analysis, contract administration and Cost Accounting Standards.

The post Maintaining an Approved Purchasing System – Things That Get in the Way appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In its August 25, 2017 decision the GAO sustained a bid protest from David Jones CPA PC (“Jones”) on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) refusal to establish a blanket purchase agreement following a request for quotations on Equal Employment Opportunity claims investigations. The principle issue of the decision revolved around the VA’s elimination of Jones’ proposal because of a single line item.

The solicitation advised offerors that technical approach was significantly more important than past performance and that, combined, technical approach and past performance were significantly more important than price. The solicitation also warned the VA would not establish a blanket purchase agreement with any vendor if the price submission was “questionable for reasonableness.” Jones was assigned a “good” technical rating but the VA also determined Jones had submitted an unreasonable price for a single line item. Ironically, every other line item in Jones’ proposal was lower than the mean of the other offerors. Following this initial evaluation, Jones was eliminated from consideration, with no further analysis from the VA.

The VA unsuccessfully argued that the solicitation supported exclusion based on a single high priced line item because the solicitation required not-to-exceed quantity for each line item. The GAO noted the premise of this argument was flawed because the solicitation did not provide any estimated quantities for the lines items.  Most importantly, the GAO took issue with the VA lack of evaluation on the effect of this single item’s price on the agreement as a whole. In order to justify exclusion, the VA needed to evaluate if that single line item would have created an overall unreasonably high price, or at least created an unacceptable risk that the price would be too high on a typical government order.

About the Author:

Tyler Freiberger Headshot | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons, VA Tyler Freiberger
Associate Attorney

Tyler Freiberger is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting primarily focusing on employment law and litigation. He has successfully litigated employment issues before the EEOC, MSPB, local counties human rights commissions, the United States D.C. District Court, Maryland District Court, and the Eastern District of Virginia.

The post GAO Rejects “One and Done” Line Item Evaluation appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Over a year ago, GSA published a final General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) rule incorporating Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) into select product and service schedules in the Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) program. Initial participation in the TDR pilot was optional for existing contractors. However, new offerors and existing contractors with upcoming options were required to participate in the pilot.

GSA is now making participation in the TDR pilot voluntary. Any vendor required to accept TDR with a new pilot offer, had a TDR option exercised, or added a TDR SIN to their contract will have an opportunity to opt out of TDR.  If a vendor does not take advantage of this one-time opt out, there will be no additional opportunities to get out. You can also opt into TDR on pilot schedules but remember there will be no additional chances to withdraw once you make this election.

As a caveat, any vendor who voluntarily accepted the TDR Implementation Mass Mod (A509) will be required to stay in TDR.

GSA anticipates refreshing TDR schedules in mid-October. Schedules 03FAC, 51V, 58 I, 72, 73 and 75 will be refreshed to add the legacy clauses back to the solicitation and TDR SINs on Schedules 70 and the Professional Services Schedule (PSS) will reflect the removal of language pertaining to mandatory participation.

Once the solicitations are refreshed and not before, vendors will receive a notification from their Contracting Officer (CO). A vendor will have 60 days to respond to their CO with their intent. If no response is received within the 60 days, a vendor will remain in the TDR pilot.

What will be required if you make the decision to opt out of TDR?

  • Provide updated Commercial Sales Practices (CSP), current pricelist, and any other information requested by the CO
  • Re-establish a Most Favored Customer (MFC) and Basis of Award (BOA) customer
  • Identify a price/discount relationship as required by the Price Reduction Clause
  • Ensure that your pricing is still fair and reasonable
  • Update your contract via a formal modification to incorporate any revised terms and conditions

What are the effective dates for vendors who opt out of TDR and when will Price Reduction tracking become effective?

  • The actual modification opting out of TDR will become effective on day 1 of the next business quarter (January 1st, April 1st, July 1st and October 1st)
  • Price Reduction tracking will begin on day 1 of the business quarter following the date of the modification to opt out
  • The first 72A reporting period will begin on the 1st day of the business quarter following the date of the opt out modification. Continue to remit Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) in the FAS Sales Reporting System (TDR) until that time.

If you have any questions on whether you should stay or opt out of the TDR pilot, please contact a member of the GSA consulting team.

About the Author:

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

Maureen Jamieson has more than twenty-five years of experience managing federal contracts. Maureen is highly experienced in solving client pricing problems and implementing effective pricing strategies for placing products and services on GSA Schedule contracts. Maureen also frequently works with clients on effective selling and marketing strategies in the federal market space and is highly skilled as a federal contracts capture or proposal manager.

The post Should I stay or should I go? Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Last week the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved the Promoting Value Based Procurement Act of 2017 on a voice vote without any dissent, meaning the bill now proceeds to the House floor.

The Act, which was initially introduced in June, substantially limits the number of federal contracts that may use the lowest-priced bid as the major deciding factor – this means a severe limit on lowest price technically acceptable, or LPTA, contracts.

In fact, the current text of the bill requires revision of the FAR to require that LPTA source selection criteria are only used in six specified situations. Further, the bill mandates that, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of LPTA should be avoided in a procurement that is predominately for the acquisition of (1) information technology services, cybersecurity services, systems engineering and technical assistance services, advanced electronic testing, audit or audit readiness services, or other knowledge-based professional services; (2) personal protective equipment; or (3) knowledge-based training or logistics services in contingency operations or other operations outside the United States, including in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., one of the bill’s co-sponsors, said during the markup that the use of LPTA contracts has become too rigidly applied and has “started to calcify some large chunks of contracting in the federal sphere.” He continued, “When an agency seeks the assistance of a company to help it analyze and address cybersecurity needs, for example, it might not know the extent of services that will eventually be needed,” and “quality and innovation must be considered.”

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 The Promoting Value Based Procurement Act of 2017 Approved by House Oversight Committee appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In a GAO decision released September 13, 2017, the GAO denied Walker Development & Trading Group, Inc.’s (“Walker”) request for reconsideration of the denial of its costs.

On January 2, 2017, Walker filed a protest arguing that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) did not properly set a requirement aside for small businesses. In the VA’s report, the contracting officer stated that, after performing market research, she did not have a reasonable expectation that two or more capable small businesses would submit offers.  The GAO subsequently requested additional information on two potentially capable small businesses. Before filing its supplemental report at the request of the GAO, the VA advised the GAO that it intended to take corrective action. As such, the GAO dismissed the protest as academic.

Walker subsequently filed a request that it be reimbursed its costs of pursuing the protest by asserting that it was clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action. The GAO denied Walker’s request, finding that the protest allegation was not clearly meritorious as the resolution of the protest required further record development.

Walker has then requested reconsideration of the GAO’s denial of its costs. However, in order to prevail on a request for reconsideration, a party must set out the factual and legal grounds requiring reversal and the party must specify any errors of law made or information not previously considered.

In its request for reconsideration, Walker argued that the decision contained a legal error as the GAO did not consider whether the VA unduly delayed in taking corrective action. However, as the GAO noted, in order to prevail in a request for reimbursement of costs, the protestor must show both that its protest was clearly meritorious and that the agency unduly delayed in taking corrective action. As Walker already failed to demonstrate that it was clearly meritorious, the GAO did not need to reach the decision as to whether the VA unduly delayed taking corrective action.

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 An Agency Taking Corrective Action Does Not Necessarily Mean You Will Receive Your Protests Costs appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

There is an aphorism that goes “Buyer Beware”; time-honored sage advice to be sure.  But perhaps a new aphorism is in order for the Federal marketplace: “Seller Beware.”

Many vendors and contractors selling to the Federal Government under contracts awarded under some type of small business set-aside are frequently unaware of an important requirement tucked neatly away in set-aside clauses.  This requirement is set forth as portion of the clause which normally begins with the word “Agreement.”

As an example, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.219-5, Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (Nov 2011), contains the following as part of the clause:

“(d) Agreement. A small business concern submitting an offer in its own name shall furnish, in performing the contract, only end items manufactured or produced by small business concerns in the United States or its outlying areas. If this procurement is processed under simplified acquisition procedures and the total amount of this contract does not exceed $25,000, a small business concern may furnish the product of any domestic firm. This paragraph does not apply to construction or service contracts.”

So why do set-aside clauses contain such an agreement?  The answer is simple:  The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Nonmanufacturer Rule, often referred to as “NMR.” (Ref:  13 C.F.R. Section 121.406(b)).

In brief, the NMR requires small businesses receiving awards under the various set-asides used in government procurements, to provide their own product, or that of another domestic small business manufacturer or processor, unless SBA has granted an individual waiver to NMR for the procurement, or the procurement is covered by a class waiver to the NMR, also issued by SBA, and the contracting officer uses the class waiver.

The NMR also addresses how nonmanufacturers may qualify as a small business concern for a requirement to provide manufactured products or other supply items as a nonmanufacturer as well as for Kit Assemblers.

Unfortunately, all too often companies rely on the fact the government issued and awarded the procurement using small business set-aside procedures believe they are somehow protected or immunized from the consequences of non-compliance.  The agreement provision in the various set-aside clauses can only be waived by an SBA issued waiver for an individual procurement, or when the contracting officer uses an existing class waiver.  Unless the procurement is covered by an SBA waiver.

SBA amended its regulations in 2016 indicating the NMR does not apply to procurements between $3,500 and $150,000.   However, the FAR still sets the applicability threshold for NMR at $25,000.

Non-compliance with NMR can have significant consequences for a company, ranging from contract enforcement actions to potential liability under the False Claims Act (FCA).  FCA looms large these days as increasingly more qui tam lawsuits are being filed under FCA by disgruntled and former employees, and even a company’s competitors, as the person bringing the qui tam lawsuit can receive a lucrative payout.

Other set-aside clauses contain agreements relating to the NMR as well.  Please be sure to thoroughly review the requirements of the set-aside clause(s) under which you are submitting an offer.

Sellers Beware!  Protect your company by ensuring absolute compliance with NMR.  Centre Law and Consulting offers a comprehensive 90-minute webinar on the NMR to help small businesses mitigate vulnerabilities in this area and to fully understand the requirements of NMR and ensure their compliance.

Best wishes for every continued success in the Federal Marketplace!

 

About the Author:

Wayne Simpson | Centre Law & Consulting Wayne Simpson
Consultant

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 Seller Beware! appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued an agency-wide memorandum entitled “Revised Treatment of Transgender Employment Discrimination Claims Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” The memorandum expressly withdraws a December 15, 2014 memorandum in which then-current Attorney General Eric Holder opined that Title VII “encompasses discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status.”

While the new memo is undoubtedly a reversal of the Obama DOJ’s policy (ed., “Elections  have consequences.”), the Sessions’ memo is consistent with the weight of federal case authority that has held that gender identity (as well as sexual orientation) is not covered by the plain language of Title VII. Thus, in many ways, the current policy prescription is less a “reversal” than a return to the status quo ante, circa 2014.

That said, since 2012 the EEOC has consistently taken the position that Title VII does encompass discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The Sessions memo creates clear tension, if not outright conflict, between the respective agencies’ policy positions. And, given that the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled specifically on the question, the issue will likely not be resolved until the Justices speak on the same. Of course, were it inclined to do so, Congress could resolve the matter by amending Title VII, though such an outcome is unlikely at best.

With respect to federal contractors, it should be understood that the revisions to E.O. 11246, which amended federal EEO requirements to include sexual orientation and gender identity, are not affected by the Sessions memo. That is, even if Congress did not intend to include those criteria within the statutory concept of “sex” – the executive branch has (to date) concluded that companies choosing to do business with the federal government will continue to treat sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics.

 

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 Trump DOJ Withdraws Obama Administration Memo Regarding Title VII And Gender Identity appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Much has been said on the security breach that exposed up to 145 million Americans’ most sensitive information. Not only had Equifax,  some say negligently, exposed half of America’s social security numbers, credit card information, and just about anything else needed to steal an identity, but the company thoroughly botched the cleanup by directing customers to a dubiously credentialed website and made a not-so-subtle attempt to induce its customers to waive any right to sue. The remarkable nature of the incident even received a 15-minute break down by HBO’s John Oliver, which is by far the most entertaining way to catch up on the breach if you have been in hiding for the last month.

The IRS award of a seven million dollar contract to Equifax, made shortly after the security hack, seemed to put a cherry on top of a perfect media outrage story. And rage they did. After Politico “discovered” the “sole-source award” by the IRS to Equifax, every major media outlet from Fox News to CNN ran stories mocking the agency’s poor decision. Senators from both sides of the aisle openly scolded the IRS for handing Equifax government funds without even allowing other companies to compete for the contract. Through a grin, Mr. Oliver told his crowd of the award, made on the very same day the former CEO was being chewed up in an open Senate hearing. How could something like this happen? Simply put, because a law aimed at preventing fraud and abuse required the IRS to give Equifax the contract, without any competition.

Federal contractors are well aware of what is called a “statutory stay.” When the government wants to buy goods or services, most of the time it must follow very strict and complicated rules. One such rule requires the government agency to give a debriefing to disappointed contractors when their bid was passed over in favor of another’s. For a variety of reasons, the contractor may believe the government made a mistake in its decision or perhaps something more sinister is to blame for the loss. If the contractor “protests” the decision within five days of the debriefing, the contract at issue is automatically frozen while the Government Accountability Office takes a look under 31 U.S.C. § 3553. The reason behind the law is fairly plain – i.e., to avoid a situation where a company begins performing for the government, and racking up costs, only to have that contract overturned at a much later date.

So about this infamous IRS “award” to Equifax; it was made after the IRS chose a different company to perform on a contract where Equifax was the incumbent. Equifax protested, activated the automatic stay described above, and the IRS was forced to grant a short extension to Equifax’s previous contract while the protest was decided. Notably, the short extension was publicly made, because “a sole source order is required to cover the timeframe needed to resolve the protest on contract TIRNO-17-Z-00024. This is considered a critical service that cannot lapse.” The protest was quickly denied, and now a new company will take over performing services to the IRS.

Notably, the IRS decision to take the contract away from Equifax was made long before the media “put pressure on the IRS,” or before both sides of the aisle joined together in decrying the purported incompetent waste of government funds. While the vagaries of government procurement procedure may not be as shocking as the story told by the major outlets, and it is certainly not nearly as funny as the John Oliver segment, it is however the real explanation to the latest chapter of the Equifax security breach.

The post The Misplaced Rage Regarding Equifax’s Post Data Breach “Contract Award” appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Yes, you read the title correctly – a protester actually protested its own future award. In an interesting twist of fate, a company recently filed a pre-award bid protest only to find out that the agency had already evaluated the protester’s bid and intended to award the contract to the protester.

Daekee Global Company, Ltd., a South Korean company, protested the terms of a solicitation issued by the Department of Navy for ship husbanding services arguing that the evaluation scheme failed to evaluate offerors’ technical capabilities or past performance. The agency subsequently requested the dismissal of the protest because Daekee had not been prejudiced by the terms of the solicitation. Specifically, the agency argued that Daekee submitted an offer that was evaluated by the agency and that the agency intended to award a contract to Daekee. In response, Daekee argued that the merits of its protest should still be addressed as, even though it would be an awardee, the issues Daekee raised would not be addressed or corrected if its protest were to be dismissed.

Unsurprisingly, the GAO did not bite on Daekee’s argument. In its decision, the GAO found that Daekee was not an interested party as it did not suffer any competitive prejudice because Daekee did not suffer any competitive disadvantage or otherwise affect its ability to compete. Because the agency represents that once the protest is resolved and the stay of the award is lifted it will award a contract to Daekee, the GAO found that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the protest.

The post Protester Not Found to Be An Interested Party Where It Was The Awardee appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

By Wayne Simpson

Prime contractors with contracts containing commercial subcontracting plans are required to file a Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) (formerly Standard Form 295), reporting the accomplishments under their respective subcontracting plans in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2017, no later than October 30, 2017.

eSRS is the official Governmentwide System designated for small business subcontracting program reporting.  The system is web-based and is located at http://www.eSRS.gov. The eSRS website contains quick reference materials useful for reporting subcontracting accomplishments.

Prime contractors with individual subcontracting plans, and higher-tier large business subcontractors, are required to file an Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR) (formerly Standard Form 294).  These same contractors are required to ensure compliance by lower-tiered subcontractors, and to accept or reject reports filed by these subcontractors.  ISRs are due within 30 calendar days of the following reporting periods:

  • For non-Department of Defense (DOD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and General Services Administration (GSA) Contracts:
    • 1st reporting period: October 1st through March 31st
    • 2nd reporting period: October 1st through September 30th
  • For contracts with DOD, NASA, and GSA Multiple Award Schedule Contracts
    • 1st reporting period: October 1st through March 31st
    • 2nd reporting period: October 1st through September 30th
  • For GSA non-Multiple Award Schedule Contracts:
    • 1st reporting period: October 1st through December 31st
    • 2nd reporting period: October 1st through March 31st
    • 3rd reporting period: October 1st through June 30th
    • 4th reporting period: October 1st through September 30th

It is important to note if an eSRS submission is rejected by the contracting agency, the contractor must submit a corrected report within 30 calendar days of the report’s rejection.  It is important to keep a signed copy of your submission on file.

If your subcontracting program is becoming more labor intense and resource consuming than you desire, Centre Law & Consulting offers turn-key subcontracting program services.  These services include subcontracting plan preparation and negotiation, surveying existing subcontractors and suppliers to ascertain appropriate size status and socioeconomic procurement preference program category status for eSRS reporting purposes, preparation of justification for goaling shortfalls, and assistance with eSRS submissions.  Increasingly companies are finding outsourcing these efforts is more efficient than using internal resources, using personnel who often performing these functions as a collateral responsibility.  Internal resources are not always sufficiently trained and lack the expertise to ensure these efforts fully comply with Federal requirements and ensure these efforts can withstand the scrutiny of a small business program review by the U.S. Small Business Administration, the contracting agency, or the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

About the Author:

Wayne Simpson | Centre Law & Consulting Wayne Simpson
Consultant

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 Don’t be late! eSRS Submissions Due October 30, 2017 appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

By Barbara Kinosky 

Yes, you read that right.  Deep in the murky depths of the $700 billion fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization (NDAA) bill is language that puts a chill down the spine of protesters. Companies with revenue more than $250 million will have to pay the costs for filing losing protests on DoD procurements at the GAO.  Now protestors pay their own costs and attorneys’ fees with some exceptions. Section 827 of the NDAA would require DoD to launch a pilot program beginning in late 2019 and ending in late 2022 that would require those unsuccessful DoD protestors to pay DoD’s “costs incurred in processing protests.”  As in pilot programs there will be the usual report (which is where the writers of reports will make out big time) on the success of the pilot program.

Why you may ask if this happening?  House-Senate conferees in a rare display of unity, agreed that contractor bid protests needed to be reduced to reduce the time of the procurement cycle, particularly with weapons systems.  This from a Congress who hasn’t done much (my editorial note).

Second editorial note from me.  Most weapons systems contacts are very large.  They are larger than the national debt of Venezuela, which is very large indeed.  So, one would think that given the creep on cost on many weapons systems contracts one would want an even greater degree of scrutiny on those procurements.  Need I mention the mid-air refueling tanker cost woes?

Other questions that will hopefully be addressed in the regulations.  How are costs computed?  How is revenue computed?

Debriefings – NDAA Section 818

New requirements:

  • In the case of a contract award in excess of $100,000,000, a requirement for disclosure of the agency’s written source selection award determination, redacted to protect the confidential and proprietary information of other offerors for the contract award, and, in the case of a contract award in excess of $10,000,000 and not in excess of $100,000,000with a small business or nontraditional contractor,
  • an option for the small business or nontraditional contractor to request such disclosure
  • (2) A requirement for a written or oral debriefing for all contract awards and task or delivery orders valued at $10,000,000 or higher.
  • (3) Provisions ensuring that both unsuccessful and winning offerors are entitled to the disclosure above and the debriefing
  • Plus, a chance to ask follow up questions

Both the winning and losing offerors would be entitled to a debriefing – which at this time, I sparkly say, are still free

Other Stuff I Read So You Don’t Have to

  • Section 802 – DoD will establish a pool of intellectual property experts to get a handle on exactly who owns what
  • Section 803 – new regulations on using private auditors to do incurred cost audits
  • Section 806 – The micro purchase threshold will be increased from $3,000 to $10,000.
  • Section 808 – another committee will be formed! This one on technology threats
  • Section 811 – increase on submission of cost and pricing data numbers and a bit of an increase on the contracting officer’s authority to get such data
  • Section 822 – a bit of an affirmation of using LPTA for procuring expendable goods

Service Contract Act.

On another note, I gave four different speeches last week all on the Service Contract Act, now referred to as the Service Contract Labor Standards.  That must be a record.  Guinness Book of Records – is there a category for the most speeches in one week on the Service Contract Act?  In any event, no one at any of the four presentations fell asleep and many even asked questions.  More I cannot ask for!

 

Happy Thanksgiving all!

The post NDAA Curbs Bid Protests (Somewhat) But Adds Enhanced Debriefings appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

By Wayne Simpson

A Final Rule was published in the November 6, 2017 (corrected and republished in the November 8, 2017) edition of the Federal Register removing all regulations relating to the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order issued by President Barrack Obama (Executive Order No. 13673, July 31, 2014).

In March 2017, using the authority of the Congressional Review Act, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 37 (Public Law 115-11), which disapproved the final rule submitted by the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and published in the August 25, 2016, edition of the Federal Register. Congress resolved the final rule “shall have no force or effect.”

On March 27, 2017, President Trump signed House Joint Resolution 37 into law which became Public Law 115-11.  Under the Congressional Review Act, a rule shall not take effect or continue if the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.  Any rule taking effect and later is made of no force or effect by enactment of a joint resolution sall be treated as though such rule had never taken effect.

The Final Rule implementing Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces in the Federal Acquisition Regulation was effective for solicitations issued and contracts awarded before, on, or after October 25, 2016.  Contracting officers have been directed to modify, “to the maximum extent practicable,” existing contracts to remove any solicitation provisions and contract clauses related to the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Rule because they are unenforceable by law.

The Final Rule implementing Public Law 115-11 is effective November 6, 2017.  The entire rule, including amendments published on December 16, 2016, in the Federal Register, is removed as a result of the Final Rule.

The 115th Congress has been busy using the authority of the Congressional Review Act.  As of November 2, 2017, of the 82 pieces of legislation signed into law by President Trump, 16 of them are enacting joint resolutions to disapprove of rules issued by the Obama Administration.

It is often said, “Live by the executive order, die by the executive order.”  Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces is no more.

The post Removal of Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Rule from the Federal Acquisition Regulation appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

By Wayne Simpson

A Final Rule published in the Federal Register July 14, 2016, effective November 1, 2016, amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement regulatory changes made by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) , which provide for a Governmentwide policy on small business subcontracting.  One of the changed requirements effects subcontracting reports submitted after November 30, 2017.

Specifically, the language at FAR 19.704(a)(10)(iii), 52.219-9(d)(10)(iii), and 52.219-9 Alternate IV (d)(10)(iii)—was revised to require order-level reporting on single-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts intended for use by multiple agencies in addition to multiple-award contracts in use by multiple agencies and to clarify that the order-level reporting would be required after November 30, 2017, which is when the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) will be ready to accommodate this requirement.

FAR Clause 52.219-9, Subcontracting Plan Requirements (JAN 2017), the most recent update of the clause, contains the revised language.

The post Reminder: Changes to Subcontracting Reporting Requirements—Effective November 30, 2017 appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

By Wayne Simpson

A Final Rule was published in the November 6, 2017 (corrected and republished in the November 8, 2017) edition of the Federal Register removing all regulations relating to the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order issued by President Barrack Obama (Executive Order No. 13673, July 31, 2014).

In March 2017, using the authority of the Congressional Review Act, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 37, which disapproved the final rule submitted by the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and published in the August 25, 2016, edition of the Federal Register. In the Joint Resolution, Congress resolved that the final rule “shall have no force or effect.”

On March 27, 2017, President Trump signed House Joint Resolution 37 into law which became Public Law 115-11.  Under the Congressional Review Act, a rule shall not take effect or continue if Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.  Any rule taking effect which is later made of no force or effect by enactment of a joint resolution shall be treated as though such rule had never taken effect.

The Final Rule implementing Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces in the Federal Acquisition Regulation was effective for solicitations issued and contracts awarded before, on, or after October 25, 2016.  Contracting officers have been directed to modify, “to the maximum extent practicable,” existing contracts to remove any solicitation provisions and contract clauses related to the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Rule because they are unenforceable by law.

The Final Rule implementing Public Law 115-11 is effective November 6, 2017.  The entire rule, including amendments published on December 16, 2016, in the Federal Register, is removed as a result of the Final Rule.

The 115th Congress has been busy using the authority of the Congressional Review Act.  As of November 2, 2017, of the eighty-two (82) pieces of legislation signed into law by President Trump, sixteen (16) are enacting joint resolutions to disapprove of rules issued by the Obama Administration.

It is often said, “Live by the executive order, die by the executive order.”  Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces is no more.

The post Removal of Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Rule from the Federal Acquisition Regulation appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

By Colin Johnson

A Final Rule published in the Federal Register July 14, 2016, effective November 1, 2016, amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement regulatory changes made by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) , which provide for a Governmentwide policy on small business subcontracting.  One of the changed requirements effects subcontracting reports submitted after November 30, 2017.

Specifically, the language at FAR 19.704(a)(10)(iii), 52.219-9(d)(10)(iii), and 52.219-9 Alternate IV (d)(10)(iii)—was revised to require order-level reporting on single-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts intended for use by multiple agencies in addition to multiple-award contracts in use by multiple agencies and to clarify that the order-level reporting would be required after November 30, 2017, which is when the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) will be ready to accommodate this requirement.

This rule is implementing the regulatory changes made by the SBA and will allow for the facilitation of allocating subcontracting credits to funding agencies. This allocation will help ensure that funding agencies are recognized and incentivized to promote small business subcontracting on orders.  It is important to keep in mind that these reporting requirements apply to all orders on a single-award IDIQ contract intended for use by multiple agencies regardless of dollar value. These changes will apply to solicitations issued on or after the effective date or at the contracting officer’s discretion in accordance with FAR 1.108(d).

FAR Clause 52.219-9, Subcontracting Plan Requirements (JAN 2017), the most recent update of the clause, contains the revised language

The post Changes to Subcontracting Reporting Requirements—Effective November 30, 2017 appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

By David Warner

I had intended to write about the Supreme Court’s recent decision denying certiorari in the 11th Circuit’s decision in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, thereby declining to resolve the existing circuit split concerning whether sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under Title VII. But then yet another story dropped with high profile allegations of sexual harassment, and the siren call of timely “click-bait” won out over the finer points of Supreme Court jurisprudence. And, wait, here’s yet another story that dropped literally as I was typing this paragraph.

As it appears the nation could use a refresher course, let’s review, shall we?

Sexual harassment – it’s illegal and has been since 1964. Interestingly, there have been relatively few developments in the substantive law around sexual harassment since the Faragher and Ellerth decisions in 1998. Despite subsequent years of HR professionals and management-side employment lawyers beating the drum regarding the necessity of robust anti-harassment policies, training, and proactive response to internal complaints, sexual harassment claims continue to be alarmingly prevalent. In FY 2016 alone the EEOC received almost 7,000 administrative complaints of sexual harassment.

In July 2016, the EEOC issued a report from its Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace. The report merits review in its entirety, but certain of its conclusions concerning “risk factors” are eerily prescient of the current Zeitgeist.

For example, the Task Force noted that workplaces with “High Value” employees and those with “Significant Power Disparities” are particularly prone for harassment issues – i.e., where rules of behavior are viewed as not applying equally to all levels of an organization or to certain “untouchable” employees. While it is easy to pile-on to movie producers, directors, on-air talent, more on-air talent, celebrity chefs, and the like, employers should recognize that significant power disparities exist in literally every working environment. And, per Faragher and Ellerth, it is incumbent upon employers to take steps to ensure that their workplaces are free from conduct that might give rise to claims and potential liability.

The steps remain clear. First, promulgate a clear and strong anti-harassment policy with multiple avenues of complaint, absolute prohibitions against retaliation for good faith complaints, and clear commitment that the policy applies to all levels of the organization. Second, senior management must own and drive a “speak up” culture – you do it for False Claims Act and other compliance issues, right? Third, train your employees on the policy and expectations. For organizations of any size, often separate training for executives/managers and line employees permits for freer discussion and proactive identification of problem areas. Finally, promptly investigate and respond to complaints as they are brought forward, including implementation of harsh discipline where appropriate.

While the law of harassment may not have changed, the cultural environment definitely has. If the headlines have revealed anything, it is that no employee – no matter how senior or “important” – is untouchable now. The human condition being what it is, sexual harassment will likely always be an unfortunate reality in the workplace. The culture’s tolerance for those that abet it, however, appears to be at an end.

 

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 “Let’s Talk About Sex[ual Harassment], Baby!” appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Sign in to follow this  
×