Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    132
  • comments
    2
  • views
    4,314

Entries in this blog

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

Sign in to follow this  
×