Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    130
  • comments
    2
  • views
    4,143

Entries in this blog

Centre Law & Consulting

On August 29, 2016, the Air Force issued an RFP seeking base operations support services at an Air Force Base in Mississippi. The solicitation advised offerors that the agency would award the contract “to the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those proposals evaluated to be acceptable.” The RFP further stated that the technical evaluation team would evaluate the lowest-price offeror and then, as needed, evaluate higher priced offerors in order of price rank, to assign a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The protester, PAE, was found to be technically acceptable but had the second lowest price of all offerors and, thus, award was made to the lowest offeror. PAE subsequently filed a protest arguing that the agency performed an inadequate evaluation of unbalanced pricing and failed to evaluate the realism of offeror’s pricings.

In evaluating the protest, the GAO found that, absent a solicitation provision expressly or implicitly providing for a price realism evaluation, agencies are neither required nor permitted to conduct one in awarding a fixed-price contract. The GAO further found that, even though the solicitation required the agency to analyze whether the offerors’ prices were unbalanced, PAE failed to sufficiently allege that the awardee’s prices were overstated or unbalanced.

In dismissing the protest, the GAO found that PAE failed to allege a sufficient basis of protest because it had not alleged that the awardee’s prices were overstated or unbalanced and, thus, even where an agency acts in error, the GAO will not sustain a protest unless the protestor can show that it was prejudiced by the error. The GAO likewise found that PAE’s additional protest grounds, including failure to conduct meaningful discussions, were not a legally sufficient basis for a protest because the evaluation scheme challenged by PAE was not the type of deficiency required to be addressed during discussions.

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 GAO Dismissed Protest Because Protester Failed to Allege Sufficient Basis for Protest appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

No April Fools Joke: GSA Refresh/Mass Mods Are Coming | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons, VA
 
The General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) is planning to refresh ALL Multiple Award Schedules (MAS). The purpose of the refresh is to incorporate provision and clause changes into MAS solicitations and contracts. Be on the lookout for updates tentatively planned for April 2017.

Major changes to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be included in these Refreshes/Mass Mods that will impact both large and small businesses. Look for changes in the Model Subcontracting Plan that reflect additional requirements. These changes were effective November 1, 2016 when DoD, GSA, and NASA issued a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement changes made by the Small Business Administration.

Key changes of the refresh and mass modifications are as follows:

Small Business Subcontracting Plans:

Large Business Prime Contractors Must:

  • Make good faith efforts to utilize their small business subcontractors during the contract term to the same degree the prime contractor relied on the small business in preparing and submitting its bid or proposal
  • Resubmit a revised subcontracting report within 30 days of receipt of a notice of report rejection
  • Assign North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to subcontracts
  • Not prohibit discussion of payment or utilization matters between a subcontractor and the contracting officer
  • Report order level subcontracting information if prime has a subcontracting plan on task and delivery order contracts after November 2017*

Contracting Officers May:

  • Require a subcontracting plan after a small business re-represents its size as other than small
  • Necessitate subcontracting goal calculation in terms of total contract dollars** as well as in terms of total subcontracted dollars

Updates to Non-Federal Entities Purchasing off Federal Supply Schedules (FSS):

  • The State/Local Disaster Purchasing Program*** extends to cover disaster preparation and response as well as recovery from major disasters
  • Access extends to certain qualifying organizations including the American National Red Cross and National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster

Revisions to I-FSS-600 Contract Price Lists:

  • Requirement for submission of contractor’s electronic files is updated to no later than 30 days after award

Other Changes:

  • Removal of Pathway to Success training requirement for streamlined (Successful Legacy) offers
  • Updated Service Contract Labor Standards Act (SCLS) Wage Determinations (WDs) to be added to all schedules
    • Contractors to ensure pricing and WD references are updated and included in SCA matrix

 
For the latest proposed draft updates, see more on GSA Interact.
 

* Requirement date may be extended as updates to the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) are ongoing.
** Offeror may include a proportional amount of products and services that are ordinarily allocated as indirect costs.
*** Disaster Purchasing Program participation is voluntary and vendors may opt in or out at any time during their contract term.

About the Author:

Johanna Moore
Consultant

Johanna Moore is a GSA and VA Contract Consultant at Centre Law & Consulting. She collaborates with the consulting team to provide proposal and contract management assistance to clients, focusing on various modification packages, market analysis, and catalog/pricing updates.

 

The post No April Fools Joke: GSA Refresh/Mass Mods Are Coming! appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In its September 18, 2017 decision, the GAO sustained a protest over a task order awarded to a contractor whom only had one of the two required services listed on their General Services Administration (“GSA”) Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”).

The United States Navy attempted to acquire 120-250 hotel rooms for civil service mariners in the Norfolk, Virginia area. The Agency invited vendors to submit offers through the GSA’s e-buy system, with instructions to only submit services on a current GSA Schedule contract. Unfortunately for the awardee, the request for quotation (“RFQ”) also required shuttles from the hotels to the work sites.

While the decision takes pains to describe in detail the intricacies of GSA Schedules, the result is simple. The original awardee simply did not have transportation services included as “additional services” as required. The RFQ listed two separate tasks orders, one of which was transportation by shuttle. Despite the awardee’s ability to provide these services, the RFQ clearly emphasized the award would be made exclusively through the GSA thereby excluding companies without all required services listed on the Schedule.

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 GSA Federal Supply Schedule Description Too Limited For Contractor to Receive Award appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Yes, Congress is doing more than learning “nyet” and other basic Russian.   The House of Representatives passed the Modernizing Government Technology Act of 2017 (the “MGT Act”) in record time.  The legislation is now in the Senate.  If enacted into law it would create funds for agencies to invest in new, innovative information technology solutions and replace aging legacy systems.  The bill establishes a $500 million central fund to support rapid IT modernization across 24 agencies. Better yet, this innovative legislation moves agencies away from the “spend it or lose it” budget mentality and actually rewards savers with leftover cash to spend in future years.  This is great legislation would create dependable funding for agencies to be able to prioritize IT modernization and move into the cloud and away from the previous century.

The legislation was introduced by Reps. Will Hurd (R-Texas), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) in the House, and Sens. Tom  Udall (D-N.M.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) in the Senate.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2227/related-bills

From the Washington Post.  Proposed legislation to allow the Veterans Administration (VA) to more easily terminate VA employees could be a sign of things to come at all federal agencies. The Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, may be signed into law soon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/06/21/new-va-law-sets-stage-for-government-wide-cut-in-civil-service-protections/?utm_term=.74988474fdf4

Tell your Congressman/woman to support HR 3019 – Promoting Value Based Procurement Act of 2017. It prevents the use of lowest price technically acceptable contract awards (LPTA) for the acquisition of certain services in civilian agencies. It’s a giant step in the right direction. The bill is jointly sponsored by Rep Meadows (R NC) and Rep Beyer (D VA). You can track it on the link below.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3019

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 New Federal Contractor Legislation appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Trick question, how much does the government charge contractors to register for SAM or any other government database?  The answer is zero, zip, zilch.   There is no charge to register for any government database.  And neither the Wizard of Oz nor any of these vendors can get you no bid contracts from any federal agency. Let’s start with Mr. Pirolo and his FEMA contract registration scheme.

FEMA Contract Registration.   Michael Pirolo, the owner of Government Contract Registry (GCR) was sentenced to four years and two months in federal prison for wire fraud. Pirolo served as the president of GCR doing business as FEMA Contract Registration. He employed telemarketers who, during communications with victim-companies, falsely claimed that, for a fee, GCR would “register” the companies with FEMA to enable them to receive preference in obtaining contracts from FEMA.  The telemarketers stated that for a one-time fee of $500, the customer would be registered with FEMA, and that this registration would place the customer on a list of preferred vendors. When the need for a vendor arose, the GCR telemarketer falsely stated that FEMA would bypass the contract acquisition process, contact the registered victim-company, and then offer a no-bid contract.  Mr. Pirolo netted hundreds of thousands of dollars before he was caught.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/palm-harbor-man-sentenced-prison-defrauding-more-1000-companies-over-fema-contracts

SAM Registration.   There are companies who market their services to federal contractors to handle their SAM registration renewals.  These companies require you to give them your password and user name for SAM.  Then they charge you for updating your SAM registration.  Your SAM update is always free on www.sam.gov.   I don’t even have time to tell you about all the GSA Schedule emails I get about the wonderful world of no bid contracts that I will get from GSA once I sign up with this GSA Schedule vendor.  Centre Law has its own PSS Schedule so I see what is going on in the industry.  My inbox is full of these types of emails.

Here is a screenshot from one of the many emails from vendors that I receive.  I had to input information on several different screens before I got to the one below.  In my opinion, it looks like an official government website but it is not.

It does not appear obvious at first, but the company does note on its website that it is a private company: “U.S. Contractor Administration is not a government agency. We are a third-party federal registration processing firm.

pic.png

 

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 Dirty Rotten Scoundrels appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In a first for the federal government, Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin has announced that the VA will now publicly post all major disciplinary actions taken against its employees.  This includes all terminations, demotions, and suspensions of more than fourteen days. While the adverse action report does not include employees’ names, the list does and will continue to include the employee’s component, position, specific adverse action taken, date it took effect, and the employee’s region.

In explaining his decision, Shulkin stated: “Under this administration, VA is committed to becoming the most transparent organization in government.” He further added, “Together with the accountability bill the president signed into law recently, this additional step will continue to shine a light on the actions we’re taking to reform the culture at VA.”

The initial adverse action report was posted on the VA website on July 3, 2017 and dates back to January 20, 2017, the day Trump took office.  The report cites 743 disciplinary cases, of which 526 were removals. Interestingly, this would put the VA on pace to only fire 1,169 employees during Trump’s first year in office while the VA fired 2,575 workers in fiscal year 2016. The adverse action report will continue to be updated weekly.

In other federal government news, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general found that DHS has recently spent millions of dollars on a contract that did not meet its needs. In an OIG report released June 30, 2017, the IG found that, despite DHS spending $24.2 million as of February 2017, the performance and learning management system does not “achieve the intended benefits or address the Department’s needs.” The IG further specified that DHS spend more than $5.7 million for subscriptions to the system that either were unused or expired before the system became operational.

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 VA to Publicly List all Disciplined or Fired Employees Plus How DHS Spent $24.2 Million on a System it Did Not Need appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Centre Law & Consulting will be at NCMA World Congress in Chicago from July 23-26, 2017. A number of Centre’s staff have been invited to speak about various federal contracting topics (see below for the topics and times). Centre will also be exhibiting at booth 417.


Monday July 24

Corporate Ethics: Lead from the Top or Pay Through the Nose

A07 • Managing Contracting Organizations • Room 309/311 • Intermediate

David Warner, Partner, Centre Law & Consulting

This session will review recent enforcement actions—including whistleblower, qui tam, and debarment processes— with respect to federal contractors. Hear about the current state of the law concerning “hidden” ethical traps for import/export, ITAR/EAR, and TAA, in addition to the more common traps of the False Claims Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices. Corporate ethics are expected to remain a significant concern for contractors even under the new administration. Leave with guidance to understand the current legal landscape and to identify and mitigate such risk.

The Acquisition Profession’s Essential Tools: Principles of Interpretation

C11 · Foundational Contracting Training • Room 325 · Basic

Kenneth Allen, JD, Attorney and Consultant, Semi-Retired Academic
Barbara Kinosky, Esq., Managing Partner, Centre Law and Consulting

What’s in a word? Lots. Contract interpretation is one of the most important skill sets an acquisition professional can have. Attendees will explore the application of the principles of contract interpretation through real court cases and key federal exceptions.


Tuesday, July 25

Protests Happen, so Now What?

D12 · Foundational Contracting Training · Room 326 · Intermediate

James Phillips Jr, PMP, CFCM, Fellow, Acquisition Consultant, Phillips Training and Consulting Inc.
Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., Managing Partner, Centre Law and Consulting

When the word protest is used often, both buyer and seller bristle. This presenter speculates on the thinking that the government buyer goes through that ultimately results in a decision that is sustained. Hear key decision points of actual sustained protests.
ACTIVITY: 8-10 short scenarios will be provided for group discussion.

Lessons Gleaned from Successful Protests at GAO

F05 · Business Acumen · Room 326 · Basic

Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., Managing Partner, Centre Law and Consulting

What makes a protest successful and what can you do to avoid stalling your acquisition due to a protest? With the number of protests increasing, this session gives attendees clear guidance on practices to avoid that will lead to protest.
ACTIVITY: Small groups will discuss protest issues related to specific examples.


Wednesday, July 26

An Overview of GSA’s e-Tools – eOffer/eMod, SIP, TDR Sales Reporting

G15 · Leveraging Advancing Technology · Room 306 · Basic

Maureen Jamieson, Executive Director of Consulting, Centre Law and Consulting
Julia Coon, Consultant, Centre Law and Consulting

This session will show participants how to submit a GSA offer, modifications and other electronic forms such as the CSP-1 and Small Business Subcontracting Plan in eOffer/eMod. Walk through the SIP program and step-by-step instructions for the import/upload process for both products and services. Discussion will focus on GSA’s new Transactional Data Reporting (TDR)/FAS Sales Reporting and the anticipated Formatted Product Tool (FPT).

The post Centre Staff Speaking at NCMA World Congress appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In its September 18, 2017 decision, the GAO sustained McCann-Erickson USA, Inc.’s (“McCann”) protest challenging the Army’s preliminary elimination of McCann’s proposal for advertising services on an acquisition valued up to $4 billion.  After receiving numerous proposals the Army performed a “compliance review” aimed at thinning the number of proposals before applying the evaluation criteria detailed in the requests for proposals. McCann’s proposal was eliminated for alleged failures in following the proposal preparation instructions.

The GAO agreed McCann’s proposal did not comply with the exact format requested in the solicitation, but stated such problems were not sufficient, on their own, to exclude a proposal before taking a more substantive look at the proposal’s contents. This decision is supported by the fact that the solicitation gave no warning the Army would be taking such a harsh pass/fail look at compliance with proposal preparation instructions.

It certainly did not help that at least some of the alleged deficiencies of the proposal were found, by the GAO, to really be mistakes by the Army. The GAO walks through such examples including, the Army’s inability to search for McCann’s certifications in the system for award management database, despite being provided the correct name and code. The GAO also found the Army’s refusal to evaluate McCann’s price proposal submission because it was in PDF format rather than the requested Excel format was unreasonable. While previous GAO decisions have supporting an Agency’s harsh response to such unfollowed format requests, here the Army did not put forth any reason why submission in PDF format, rather than Excel, poised any problems.

This decision is not quite landmark, but does give push back to the government’s seemingly increasing use of “pre-evaluation…evaluations” in the face of an overwhelming number of proposals.

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 Sustains Protest on Four Billion Dollar Solicitation Evaluation appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In its July 28, 2017 decision, the GAO denied a protest and found an agency’s decision to negotiate a sole-source contract with a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) to be reasonable based on the agency’s lack of progress in meeting its HUBZone goals. JRS Staffing Services, B-414630, B414630.2 (July 28, 2017).

The original solicitation process from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), underwent several rounds. The BOP originally issued a solicitation without any restriction on competition. However, following a protest from JRS, they agency canceled the solicitation in order to conduct market research to determine whether it would be feasible to set the contract aside for small businesses. Several months later, the BOP awarded a HUBZone sole-source contract to ProHill. JRS subsequently protested that award, challenging the BOP’s failure to post a notice of its intent to award a sole-source contract on the FedBizOpps website. The BOP subsequently terminated the sole-source contract in order to being the procurement process over. One month later, the BOP posted a statement of work and a sources sought notice for the requirement on the FedBizOpps website, which included a market research questionnaire. One more month later, BOP posted a notice of the agency’s intent to negotiate a sole-source contract with ProHill, a HUBZone. JRS subsequently filed its third protest regarding this BOP contract.

In challenging the BOP’s decision to negotiate a HUBZone sole-source award with ProHill, JRS argued that the award was based on flawed market research as the solicitation could have been competed as a WOSB set aside as both JRS and ProHill are WOSBs. In denying JRS’s protest, the GAO noted that the FAR expressly provides that there is no order of precedence between the WOSB and HUBZone programs and agencies may consider both the results of their market research and their progress in fulfilling their small business goals. Here, it was reasonable that the agency’s decision to use the HUBZone program was based primarily on its lack of progress in meeting its HUBZone goals whereas the agency had already exceeded its WOSB goals. Therefore, the GAO dismissed JRS’s protest.

 

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 Third Time’s the Charm? Not so Much for this Protester 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

On Thursday, June 29, 2017, Wayne Simpson will be testifying on behalf of the National Veterans Small Business Coalition (NVSBC), before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Veterans Affairs’, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

The subcommittee is holding a legislative hearing on four bills related to strengthening acquisitions at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). These bills include H.R. 2006, H.R. 2749, H.R. 2781, and another unnumbered bill currently in draft. The hearing is scheduled for 10:00 AM Eastern Time in Room 334 of the Cannon House Office Building.

FedBizAssist, L.L.C., is a supporting member of NVSBC. NVSBC is the largest not-for-profit organization of its kind representing America’s Veteran-owned small businesses to the Federal government, giving a collective voice to these businesses on legislative, regulatory, and policy issues affecting Federal procurement. NVSBC seeks to enhance procurement opportunities for veteran small business entrepreneurs engaged in, or seeking to enter the Federal Marketplace.

Please support America’s Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses and legislation which enhances Federal procurement opportunities for these firms. Consider joining NVSBC and supporting its Communications Campaign.

The post Wayne Simpson Testifying Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Veterans Affairs appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In a decision on July 10, 2017, the GAO found that an agency reasonably canceled its solicitation after a protest where the agency’s requirements were time dependent.

Tien Walker, a small business, protested the cancelation of the solicitation issued by the Department of State for public opinion polling surveys to be conducted in South Asia. Specifically, the selected contractor was to conduct two public opinion surveys in Afghanistan, with the first survey to be completed before the start of the Muslim observance of Ramadan. Before the solicitation’s closing time, Tien Walker filed a protest with the GAO alleging that the solicitation was unduly restrictive and not properly set aside for small businesses. In response, the Department of State notified that GAO that it had canceled the solicitation and would not resolicit the polling survey. The GAO then dismissed Tien Walker’s protest as academic.

Tien Walker has now protested the cancelation of the solicitation as improper. Specifically, Tien Walker argued that the Department of State unreasonably canceled the solicitation as a pretext to avoid the GAO’s review of its protest.

In denying the protest, the GAO noted that a contracting agency has broad discretion in deciding whether to cancel a solicitation. The GAO further noted that an agency need only establish a reasonable basis to support its decision to cancel a solicitation. Where a protester argues that the agency’s rational for cancellation of a solicitation is mere pretext, the GAO will nonetheless still examine the reasonableness of the agency’s actions.

The Department of State’s rationale for canceling the solicitation relied upon the required stay of contract award and performance due to Tien Walker’s initial protest. The agency further clarified that even if Tien Walker’s first protest was denied, no contractor would have been able to complete the first survey prior to Ramadan. Therefore, the GAO found that the agency’s rationale for canceling the solicitation was reasonable and was not a pretext to avoid awarding the contract on a competitive basis. As such, the GAO denied the protest.

 

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 Agency Found to Have Reasonably Canceled Solicitation Due to Protest appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

 

Any contractor is frustrated when they fail to win a solicitation award.  Getting edged out on price by a few percentage points, receiving a low technical rating due to a misread proposal, or dealing with confusing evaluation criteria; all legitimate complaints. But imagine if your protest was not even considered, despite clear proof you sent it on time, as instructed.  That’s exactly what happened to Ghazan Neft Gas, for its proposal on a fixed-priced supply and delivery contract of fuel to the US Embassy in Afghanistan.

The solicitation instructed proposals to be sent via email, and Ghazan did just that on March 13th, well before the April 3rd deadline.  On April 8th, Ghazan inquired as to the status of its application, only to learn the Agency had not received the proposal. When Ghazan discovered the contract had been rewarded to another, it filed a protest with the GAO.

Ghazan provided screenshots and declarations showing the proposal was sent to the correct email address on March 13th. The original email was also forwarded from Ghazan’s sent folder.    The Agency simply denied receiving the document and that a review of its inbox and junk folders did not find the email.

The GAO sided with the Agency, stating it was Ghazan’s responsibility to ensure the Agency received the protest and also its burden to prove the delivery occurred. Given Ghazan could show they clearly did send the proposal electronically to the correct place, but still failed to meet the burden, contractors should expect that only written confirmation by the government agency would meet the test.

 

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 Get a Receipt! appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Federal contractors often feel a great sense of relief when they are selected for an award. However, the recent GAO decision  regarding a request for quotations for supplying diesel shows just how quickly a business relationship with the federal government can sour.

Bluehorse Corporation, an Indian Small Business, successfully submitted the lowest price quote on supply and delivery of around 30,000 gallons of diesel for use in a construction project. The Request for Quotations stated; “All fuel delivery must be coordinated with the construction manager who will schedule delivery dates and quantities. Please note: that all fuel will not be delivered at one time but in stages as the project progresses.” Bluehorse submitted its quotation noting it had “the ability to 7,500 gallons of fuel per delivery.”

After choosing Bluehorse’s quote, the contracting officer (“CO”) forwarded the purchase order to Bluehorse for 4,000 gallons of fuel every three to four weeks, delivered to two 4,000 gallon capacity tanks. Things between the two quickly turned south in one day. Bluehorse responded in confusion, pointing to the solicitation, which stated the two tanks had a 5,000 gallon capacity.  The CO ignored this provision and instead pointed to language indicating 4,000 gallons would be delivered every three to four weeks.  Bluehorse insisted on clarification for the tank capacity, and receiving no response then wrote, “be aware that our offer was made on the ability to make a 7,500 (gallon) drop (into two 5,000 tanks.)”

The CO offered only an ultimatum, sign the purchase agreement or refuse. The two parties went back and forth with the CO informing Bluehorse their delivery of 7,500 gallons was unacceptable. When Bluehorse did not immediately provided the signed purchase order, the CO rescinded the offer.  Bluehorse filed a protest the very next day claiming the Agency relied upon unstated criteria.

The GAO disagreed, stating a quotation that fails to conform to a solicitation’s material terms and conditions is unacceptable. Here the solicitation explicitly stated the CO would determine delivery dates and quantities. The solicitation also suggested the Agency “typically” orders 4,000 gallons per delivery. In its email exchange, Bluehorse indicated it would only be making 7,500 gallon deliveries, which is a condition unacceptable in the GAO’s decision.

The Bluehorse decision should be takin as a serious warning that awards can quickly dissolve without a tactful hand steering the negotiations.  It is easy to imagine the protest would not have been necessary had Bluehorse approached the tank capacity confusion with more deference or humility to the CO.

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 How to Lose an Award in a Single Email Exchange appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Dec. 31, 2017 should be an important date for Department of Defense contractors, since by that date you will be expected to be following the cybersecurity requirements of the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations.”  Although this deadline specifically applies to the DOD, all federal contractors should be familiar with the NIST standards for Non-Federal Organizations, since every federal agency expects that its contractors will have an adequate security policy in place.

The information that is covered is not classified, but might be considered sensitive.  It is the type of business information that a company would keep confidential.  The NIST requirements, outline requirements in the following areas:

  1. Access Control
  2. Awareness And Training
  3. Audit And Accountability
  4. Configuration Management
  5. Identification And Authentication
  6. Incident Response
  7. Maintenance
  8. Media Protection
  9. Personnel Security
  10. Physical Protection
  11. Risk Assessment
  12. Security Assessment
  13. System And Communications Protection
  14. System And Information Integrity

The requirements are logical, and the NIST publication breaks down each of the categories into “Security Requirements” that every organization should be doing in any case.  For example, under category 2, Awareness Training, the Basic Security Requirements list the following:

  1. Ensure that managers, systems administrators, and users of organizational information systems are made aware of the security risks associated with their activities and of the applicable policies, standards, and procedures related to the security of organizational information systems.
  2. Ensure that organizational personnel are adequately trained to carry out their assigned information security-related duties and responsibilities.
  3. Provide security awareness training on recognizing and reporting potential indicators of insider threat.

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012  Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, is the source of the December 31, 2017 requirement.  While the NIST document includes incident response requirements as part of its standards, DFARS 252.204-7012 also makes explicit that security breaches (“cyber incidents”) must be rapidly reported to the Department of Defense.

DOD contractors must have their systems in place to follow these requirements by year end.  But other federal contractors should be ready as well.

 

About the Author

Theodore Banks concentrates his practice on antitrust, compliance, food law, and other corporate matters. Mr. Banks has extensive experience with corporate litigation, including responsibility for contested mergers, environmental contamination, advertising, insurance coverage, products liability, employment law, consumer protection, and packaging and recycling. He has a national reputation for work in corporate compliance and antitrust, and was an early proponent of corporate opt-out suits as plaintiff in antitrust litigation, such as Vitamin, Carbon Dioxide, Corrugated Container, Folding Carton, and Citric Acid Antitrust Litigation, recovering more than $100 million. Through his experience in all aspects of the food industry, Mr. Banks has deep familiarity with the regulatory frameworks and state and federal laws governing food manufacture, distribution, sales, and safety.

The post Cybersecurity for Federal Contractors: You Are Ready, Aren’t You? 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

Bid Protests: No Completed PPQs? No Contract. | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons, VA
 
Last month, in Genesis Design and Development, Inc., B-414254 (Feb. 28, 2017), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest challenging the rejection of a proposal where the contractor had failed to provide three past performance questionnaires (PPQs) completed by previous customers.

In its proposal, Genesis provided PPQs that provided customer contact information but which did not contain substantive responses from the previous customers. The company argued that it submitted PPQs containing information identifying its past clients and that it reasonably anticipated that the agency would seek the required information directly from its clients. Genesis also suggested that it can be difficult to obtain such information from its clients because they often are too busy to respond in the absence of an inquiry directly from the acquiring activity, and the company noted that, in previous cases, agencies had sought out such information.

The GAO was unmoved, holding that the RFP specifically required offerors to submit completed PPQs and that Genesis’s submission did not comply with the express requirements. Given that the RFP also provided that failure to supply required documentation – including PPQs – could result in a proposal’s elimination from consideration, the agency’s rejection of Genesis’s proposal was reasonable.

While PPQs can often place offerors in the uncomfortable position of needing to rely on prior COs who are under no obligation to respond or respond in a timely manner, the Genesis decision makes clear that failure to submit completed PPQs can preclude consideration for contract award.

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 No Completed PPQs? No Contract. appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

On May 17, 2017, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to revise and streamline the VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR).  Public comments are invited and must be submitted no later than July 17, 2017, to be considered in formulating the Final Rule.  Codified acquisition regulations may only be amended and revised through formal rulemaking under the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act.  For ease of reference, information on how to submit comments appears at the end of this post.

Summary

VA is proposing to revise, streamline, and update its acquisition regulation, whereby all parts of the VAAR will be reviewed in phased increments to revise or remove any policy superseded by changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), to remove any procedural guidance internal to VA, and to incorporate any new regulations or policies.

According to VA, the proposed rule will correct inconsistencies, remove redundant and duplicative material covered by the FAR, deleted outdated material and information, and appropriately renumber VAAR text, clauses and provisions where required, to comport with the FAR format numbering and arrangement.  The Proposed Rule is intended to streamline the VAAR to implement and supplement the FAR only when required, and remove internal agency guidance in keeping with the FAR principles concerning agency acquisition regulations.

A VAAR Section-by-Section Synopsis of Changes Covered by the Proposed Rule is attached.

How to Submit Written Comments:

Written comments may be submitted through www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulation Policy and Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP50—Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation to Adhere to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V001—parts 801, 802, 803, 812, 814, 822, and 852).” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1068, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. This is not a toll-free number. In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov.

VAAR Section-by-Section Synopsis of Changes Covered by the Proposed Rule:

VAAR Part 801 – Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation System

  • Removes an information collection burden previously included in the VAAR based on an outdated practice of providing bid envelopes.

VAAR Part 802 – Definition of Words and Terms

  • Adds two new definitions to define key terms used within the revised VAAR Part 803, Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest, dealing with debarment and suspensions which will be applicable when referenced in the future in other VAAR Parts: Debarment and Suspension Committee; and Suspension and Debarring Official.

VAAR Part 803 – Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest

  • Proposes clarifying language regarding the prohibition of contracts from making reference in their commercial advertising regarding VA contracts to avoid implying the government approves or endorses the contractor’s products, services, or commercial line of endeavor.
  • Proposes removal and reserves for future use, VAAR Subpart 803.1, Safeguards, and VAAR Section 803.101, Standards of Conduct, since it contains procedural guidance and a delegation of authority internal to VA and will be in the VA Acquisition Manual (VAAM).
  • The Proposed Rule removes Section 803.101-3, Department Regulations, since it contains information on standards of conduct and financial disclosure for VA employees and is internal procedural guidance internal to VA and will be in the VAAM.
  • VA’s Proposed Rule will remove Section 803.104, Procurement Integrity, and Section 803.104-7, Violations or possible violations, since they contain procedural guidance and a delegation of authority is internal to VA and will be in the VAAM.
  • In Subpart 803.2, Contractor Gratuities to Government Personnel, VA proposes to update its policy governing improper business practices and personal conflicts of interests to make VA’s policies clear, to provide notice of due process rights and to establish who in VA determines whether or not a violation of the Gratuities clause has occurred and what procedures are followed when the Suspension and Debarring Official (SDO) makes that decision.
  • In Section 803.204, VA’s Proposed Rule removes portions of Section 803.204, Treatment of violations, which contain procedural guidance and a delegation of authority internal to VA and will be moved to the VAAM. To ensure VA contractors are apprised of their rights, VA proposes to revise Section 803.204 to add the responsibility of the SDO for determining whether or not a violation of the Gratuities clauses has occurred and what action will be taken, as well as a paragraph stating that when the SDO determines a violation has occurred and debarment is being considered, the SDO shall follow the requirements at VAAR 809.406-3.
  • In Subpart 803.3, Reports of Suspected Antitrust Violations, VA proposes to remove Section 803.303, Reporting suspected antitrust violations, since it contains guidance to VA employees internal to VA and will be moved to the VAAM.
  • In Subpart 803.4, Contingent Fees, VA’s Proposed Rule removes and reserves the entire subpart and to remove the underlying Section 803.405, Misrepresentations or Violations of the Covenant Against Contingent Fees, since it contains guidance to VA employees internal to VA and will be moved to the VAAM.
  • In Subpart 803.5, Other Improper Business Practices, VA proposes to remove Section 803.502, Subcontractor Kickbacks, since it provides direction to VA employees and is internal VA and will be moved to the VAAM.
  • In Section 803.570, Commercial advertising, VA’s Proposed Rule revises the language of Subsection 803.570-1, Policy, to clarify the intent to prohibit advertising which implies a Government endorsement of the contractor’s products or services.
  • In Subpart 803.6, Contracts with Government Employees or Organizations Owned or Controlled by Them, VA is proposing to remove and reserve the entire subpart and to remove the underlying Section 803.602, Exceptions, since it delegates authority to authorize an exception to the policy in FAR 3.601. This delegation will be moved to the VAAM.
  • In Subpart 803.7, Voiding and Rescinding Contracts, VA proposes to remove and reserve the entire subpart and to remove the underlying sections. VA further proposes to remove Section 803.703, Authority, since it is a delegation of authority, internal to VA, moving the delegation to the VAAM.  VA also proposes to remove Section 803.705, Procedures, as it duplicates FAR 3.705.  A short paragraph directing VA Heads of Contracting Activities to follow the procedures of FAR 3.705 was added to the VAAM.
  • In Subpart 803.8, Limitation on the Payment of Funds to Influence Federal Transactions, VA’s Proposed Rule removes and reserves the entire subpart and to remove the underlying sections. VA also propose to remove Section 803.804, Policy, and Section 803.806, Processing Suspected Violations, all internal VA procedural guidance being moved to the VAAM.
  • VA further proposes to add Subpart 803.11, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions. This implements part of FAR Clause 52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest, by requiring the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement by certain contractor covered employees performing acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions in order to prohibit disclosure of non-public information accessed through performance on a Government contract. This will also each contractor and subcontractor at any tier whose employees perform acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions to obtain the signed non-disclosure forms from each covered employee.
  • The Proposed Rule also removes and reserves subpart 803.70, Contractor Responsibility to Avoid Improper Business Practices, and to remove its underlying Section 803.7000, Display of the VA Hotline Poster and its prescription at section 803.7001, Contract clause, because it is unnecessary and duplicates FAR coverage. FAR 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), as prescribed at FAR 3.1004(b), which provides adequate coverage for VA. VA internal procedures regarding fill-in information for the clause will be covered in the VAAM.

VAAR Part 812 – Acquisition of Commercial Items

  • VAAR Section 812.301, paragraph (b)(13), VA proposes to change the name of provision at VAAR 852.214-74 to Marking of Bid Samples to better reflect the requirement of the provision.

VAAR Part 814 – Sealed Bidding

  • VA proposes to delete VAAR Subpart 814.1, Sealed Bidding, in its entirety. The Proposed Rule also deletes Sections 814.104, Types of Contracts, and Section 814.104-70, Fixed-Price Contracts with Escalation, as unnecessary since both simply require compliance with FAR 16.303-1 through 16.203-4.  Ergo, no additional VAAR text is required.
  • VA also proposes to revise Section 814.201(a)-(f) by removing paragraphs (a)-(b) since they deal with numbering of Invitations for Bids (IFBs) and consist of internal agency procedures more properly covered in Subpart 804-16 of the VAAM.
  • The Proposed Rule adds a new Subsection, 814.201-2, Part I—The Schedule, to explain how award will be made on summary bids and bids on groups of items to ensure this is clear to the public.
  • In Subsection 814.201-6, Solicitation Provisions, VA proposes to remove as unnecessary paragraph (a), which addresses bid envelopes, since labeling of bids is a customary and usual commercial practice, and the use of the Optional Form (OF) 17, which is optional, and is no longer a standard practice.
  • The Proposed Rule proposes to redesignate paragraph (b) as (a) and to revise item (1) to prescribe new Provision 852.214-71, Restrictions on Alternate Item(s); item (2) to clarify the conditions for including the VAAR Provision 852.214-72, Alternate Items; and item (3) to prescribe the VAAR Provision 852.214-73, Alternate Packaging and Packing, when bids will be allowed based on different packaging and packing. VA also proposes to redesignate paragraph (c) as (b) and to add a prescription for VAAR Provision 852.214-74, Marking of Bid Samples.
  • The Proposed Rule adds Section 814.202, General rules for solicitation of bids and Subsection 814.202-4, Bid samples, requiring samples to be from the manufacturer providing supplies or services under the contract. This ensures the products that are actually proposed and would be delivered under the contract, if awarded, are the products submitted for evaluation.  Paragraph (g), requires bid samples be retained for the period of contract performance or until settlement of any claim the Government may have against the contractor.  Retention is intended for inspection purposes under FAR 14.202-4(g)(4).
  • The Proposed Rule deletes Section 814.203, Methods of Soliciting Bids, and Subsection 814.203-1, Transmittal to Prospective Bidders, as the practice specified of furnishing a bid envelope or sealed bid label is out of date with existing practices.
  • VA proposes to delete Section 814.204, Records of Invitations for Bids and Records of Bids, as it contains instructions internal to VA and will be moved to the VAAM.
  • The Proposed Rule also deletes Section 814.208, Amendment of Invitation for Bids as out-of-date with existing practices regarding sending amendments.
  • In Subpart 814.3, Submission of Bids, VA proposes to delete Section 814.301, Responsiveness of Bids, since there is no authority to refer the question of timeliness to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) except in the context of a protest.
  • The Proposed Rule also deletes Section 814.302, Bid submission, as duplicative of FAR 14.302(a) and therefore unnecessary.
  • VA proposes to revise Section 814.304, Submission, Modification, and Withdrawal of Bids, to delete internal procedures, to stipulate a limited time period for a late bidder to submit evidence of timeliness, and to renumber this paragraph (f) accordingly to comport with FAR and VAAR numbering conventions.
  • In subpart 814.4, Opening of Bids and Award of Contract, VA proposes to delete the entire subpart because the information is either redundant to the FAR and is adequately covered there or it is comprised of agency internal procedures to be incorporated into the VAAM, as noted specifically below.
  • VA proposes to delete Section 814.401, Receipt and Safeguarding of Bids, because coverage in the VAAR is unnecessary as the FAR adequately covers.
  • The Proposed Rule also deletes Sections 814.402, Opening of Bids; 814.403, Recording of Bids; 814.404, Rejection of Bids; 814.404-1, Cancellation of Invitations After Opening; 814.404-2, Rejection of Individual Bids; 814.407, Mistakes in Bids; 814.407-3, Other Mistakes Disclosed Before Award; and, 814.407-4, Mistakes After Award, as these are VA internal procedures and will be incorporated into the VAAM.
  • VA also proposes to delete Section 814.404-70, Questions Involving the Responsiveness of a Bid, as there is no authority to refer questions of bid responsiveness to the GAO other than in the context of a protest, and, the overall responsibility for this determination rests with the contracting officer. Coverage in FAR 14.301, Responsiveness of Bids, is adequate and no further VAAR coverage is required.
  • The Proposed Rule deletes Sections 814.408, Award, and 814.408-70, Award When Only One Bid is Received, because coverage in the VAAR is unnecessary as it is adequately covered by FAR 14.408-1(b).
  • VA proposes to delete Section 814.408-71, Recommendation for Award (Construction) as these procedures are no longer in use within VA’s Office of Construction and Facilities Management.
  • VA’s Proposed Rule also deletes Section 814.409, Information to Bidders, as unnecessary since the requirement not to disclose is contained in FAR part 3 and need not be duplicated in the VAAR.

VAAR Part 822 – Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions

  • In Subpart 822.3, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, VA proposes revisions to Section 822.304, Variations, Tolerances, and Exemptions, to use plain language to state the conditions which must be met to permit use of the variation to Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards (the statute) (historically known as the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act), granted by the Secretary of Labor regarding the payment of overtime under contracts for nursing home care for Veterans.
  • VA also proposes revisions to Section 822.305, Contract Clause, to change the title of the Cause at VAAR 852.222-70 to Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards—Nursing Home Care for Veterans, in order to reflect the way the FAR refers to the historical titles based on the Positive Law codification.
  • In Subpart 822.4, Labor Standards for Contracts Involving Construction, VA’s proposed revisions will remove and reserve Subpart 822.4, Labor Standards for Contracts Involving Construction, since this subpart contains procedural guidance on the types of labor standards involved in construction contracting, internal to VA and more appropriate for inclusion in the VAAM.
  • The Proposed Rule also removes the underlying Section 822.406, Administration and Enforcement and Subsection 822.406-11, Contract Terminations, which falls under this subpart since it contains procedural guidance and will be moved to the VAAM.

VAAR Part 852 – Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses

  • VA’s Proposed Rule revises VAAR Clause 852.203-70, Commercial Advertising, to use plain language, remove gender-specific wording, and to clarify the intent to prohibit advertising which implies a Government endorsement of the contractor’s products or services.
  • The Proposed Rule removes VAAR Clause 852.203-71, Display of Department of Veterans Affairs Hotline Poster, because VA will instead use FAR Clause 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), as prescribed at FAR 3.1004. The FAR clause permits insertion of fill-in language to identify an agency’s hotline poster and VA will include language in its internal agency procedures detailing the requirement to insert the information regarding its agency specific hotline poster.
  • The Proposed Rule also removes VAAR Provision 852.214-70, Caution to Bidders—Bid Envelopes, because the practices described within the provision are obsolete with the advent of posting on the Government-wide point of entry (GPE) via the Federal Business Opportunities (govor FBO.gov) Web page or via a linked interface off of FBO.gov.   VA no longer issues Bid Envelopes or OF 17, Sealed Bid Label, described in the provision, when electronically posting IFBs, thus making the provision obsolete and unnecessary.
  • VA’s Proposed Rule also revises the individual prescription references for the following clauses based on the restructuring of 814.201-6: 214-71, Restrictions on Alternate Item(s); 852.214-72, Alternate Item(s); and 852.214-73, Alternate Packaging and Packing.  The Proposed Rule further revises the title, text and prescription language of VAAR Provision 852.214-74 which now reads, Bid Samples, to Marking of Bid Samples to describe better what the provision is about and to distinguish it from a FAR provision called “Bid Samples.”  VA uses plain language to describe the principal purpose, which is to ensure bidder’s packages including bid samples are clearly marked and identified with the words Bid Samples, as well as complete lettering/numbering and description of the related bid item(s), the number of the IFB, and the name of the bidder submitting the bid samples.
  • VA’s Proposed Rule also removes language stating the preparation and transportation of the bid sample must be prepaid by the bidder as this language is unnecessary because FAR Clause 52.214-20, Bid Samples, already contains language covering the bidder’s responsibilities in this regard. Further, the prescription language for VAAR Provision at 814.201-6(b) which was renumbered to comport with FAR and VAAR numbering and arrangement will also be revised.
  • Lastly, VA’s Proposed Rule revises VAAR Clause 852.222-70, Contract Work-Hours and Safety Standards Act—Nursing Home Care Contract Supplement, to change the title to Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards—Nursing Home Care for Veterans, to better reflect the substance and coverage of the clause and to align the name of the clause with the revised current reference in lieu of the historical title of the act. This revision will also clarify the clause has flow-down requirements and applies to subcontractors at any tier when the stated conditions in the VAAR clause are met.

The Proposed Rule may be viewed in its entirety in the Federal Register by clicking here.

 

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 Proposed Rule VAAR appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

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

If you are in the Baltimore area, join David Warner at the next NCMA Greater Baltimore Chapter meeting.

On May 11, David will be the featured speaker presenting the “Annual Update on Federal Contracting and Legislation” where he’ll look back at the first 100+ days of the Trump Administration and review the latest legislation on the Hill, Executive Order and FAR updates, changes in the small business rules, employment regulations, bid protests, and news on the GSA Schedules.

What:   NCMA Greater Baltimore Chapter meeting
Date:    May 11, 2017
Time:    11:30am – 1:00pm (lunch included)
Where: National Electronics Museum in Linthicum, MD

Find out more and register at Events page of the chapter’s website. Register before April 24 to receive early bird discounted rates.

Attendees at this event earns 1 CPE/CPU to include certificate.

NCMA Greater Baltimore Chapter logo
 

The post David Warner to Be Featured Speaker at Next NCMA Greater Baltimore Meeting appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

On August 24, 2017, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) final rule amending the NASA Federal Acquisition Supplement by adding a policy on the use of “award terms” will take effect. Award terms are an incentive for contractors to go above and beyond a satisfactory performance to obtain an additional period of performance. Each award term cannot exceed one year in length, but is in addition to the base and option years.

The difference between exercising an option and an award term is that award terms require excellent performance, while exercising an option only requires acceptable performance. This provides contractors additional incentives to perform as best as possible. Both award terms and contract options can be used under the same contract.

Award terms will most likely be found in contracts that involve long term relationships and for service contracts valued at more than $20 million dollars.  In considering whether to use an award term, the government must weigh the administrative burden and cost of more frequent procurements versus market stability, technology advances, and the need for flexibility.  Contractors may be evaluated and earn an award term for their work in the base period, option periods, and even during earned award terms.  The requirements to provide an award term is that there must be an on-going need for the service, funds available, and the contractor must not be listed in the SAM Exclusions List.  An award term plan must also be included in all contracts that include award terms and contain the following information: evaluation factors, performance standards, adjectival ratings, weighting system, the evaluation period, and decision point timeframes. This rule has the potential to incentivize greater contractor performance on large service contracts.

The full final rule can be found here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/07/25/2017-15520/nasa-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-award-term-nfs-case-2016-n027

 

About the Author

Colin Johnson | Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons VA 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 Award Terms Now an Option at NASA appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

The answer should be: very worried.  Even if you are involved in a small company or small law firm, you can be a target.  Everyone needs to take appropriate precautions.

Even though we seem to be hearing nonstop horror stories about servers being held for ransom or personal information stolen from websites, there are things that you can do to minimize the chances that you or your company will be the next victim.

You need to establish a set of security rules that will apply to everyone in the firm – and they should be rigorously enforced.  The biggest exposure does not come from hardware or software, but from your humans.  Everyone on the staff should be trained in how to compute safely.   They should never open an email – even if is from someone they know — if it seems suspicious in any way.  Never click on a link in an email unless you are sure that it is taking you someplace safe.  At worst, you’ll delete an email that was legitimate, but if it is important the sender will try to contact you again.  Users should not be able to add new programs to the network.

In order to access your network (whether you are in the cloud or have a server in the office), you should utilize two-factor authentication.  In addition to a complex and frequently changed password, the user should be required to input an additional set of numbers that are texted to a smart phone or a different email address.  These systems are not foolproof, but they reduce the chances that a someone who gets a password will be able to get into the network.  The system should automatically lock-out IDs after a certain number (3? 5?) of unsuccessful attempts to log-in.  If it is really an authorized user who keeps screwing up his or her password, they will call the system operator to straighten it out eventually.

You should make sure that each workstation has modern anti-virus/anti-malware software installed, and it is updated regularly.  The defensive programs should be installed on any device that it attached to your network, including mobile devices.  If you use Windows, you should be on the latest version. Every time an operating system update is released, it should be installed, as much of the updating is to plug security holes.

You should have a back-up system for all of your data, both at the server and workstation level.  If you use a cloud service such as those provided by Microsoft, Amazon, or other big providers, they have a built-in back-up protocol.  If you use a different vendor, check to see what their back-up protocol is.  Often, it will be a replication to a different server farm.   Back-up drives attached to each workstation, if configured properly, will protect against loss of data due to mechanical problems at the workstation.  But they may not protect again a ransomware attack, since the back-up drive may be similarly infected.  Therefore, it is somewhat more secure to use an on-line back-up system be employed since most malware attack software won’t “see” the online connection as an attached drive, and won’t be able to encrypt it.

Any device that stores business or client information should be encrypted.  For office workstations this means a program like Bitlocker.  For mobile devices, the default encryption and password may suffice, but you should supplement this with a remote ability to locate and or wipe the device.  Many of the instances of unauthorized access have been due to loss of a mobile phone or theft of a laptop.  Make sure that if this happens, the finder will be unable to do anything with the data on the device.

If your business or law firm network is going to be accessed by others, make sure that there is strong firewall protections between the various segments of the network.  The greatest vulnerability may come from access to a contractor’s system that has full access to your system.  Before allowing anyone remote access to your system, make sure that they have adequate security.

Lawyers should be aware that there are ethical rules that obligate you to make certain that you have taken “reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.”  Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(c).  The rules also note that competent representation requires that an attorney, “to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, . . . keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology . . . . “  Comment 8, Rule 1.1

In spite of all of your protections, some bad guy may still be able to penetrate your system and steal or encrypt your data.   Your protection package should include cybersecurity insurance that will cover the expected costs of investigation, remediation, notification, fines, credit monitoring, litigation defense, an damages flowing from business interruption.   Yes, these premiums will add costs to your overhead, but, like every other type of insurance you are buying peace of mind with the hope that you will never need to use it.

One final note for federal contractors: there are a few formal hoops that you must just through, as defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).  Read more on that subject here.

 

About the Author

Theodore Banks concentrates his practice on antitrust, compliance, food law, and other corporate matters. Mr. Banks has extensive experience with corporate litigation, including responsibility for contested mergers, environmental contamination, advertising, insurance coverage, products liability, employment law, consumer protection, and packaging and recycling. He has a national reputation for work in corporate compliance and antitrust, and was an early proponent of corporate opt-out suits as plaintiff in antitrust litigation, such as Vitamin, Carbon Dioxide, Corrugated Container, Folding Carton, and Citric Acid Antitrust Litigation, recovering more than $100 million. Through his experience in all aspects of the food industry, Mr. Banks has deep familiarity with the regulatory frameworks and state and federal laws governing food manufacture, distribution, sales, and safety.

 

The post How Worried Are You About Your Firm’s Cybersecurity? appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

In a recent decision on August 25, 2017, the GAO dismissed the protest of PennaGroup, LLC for failure to timely file comments on the agency reports.

On March 17, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an RFP for the design and construction of solid concrete border wall prototypes. The RFP instructed offerors to acknowledge any issued amendments by signing the accompanying form and advised offerors that failure to acknowledge all Amendments may result in an offeror’s proposal being found non-responsive. PennaGroup timely submitted proposals but only included acknowledge of the seventh and final amendment but did not include the acknowledgement form for amendments one through six. As a result, DHS found PennaGroup non-responsive and eliminated them from further competition. Upon exclusion from competition, PennaGroup filed a protest with the GAO.

Upon receipt of PennaGroup’s protest, the GAO prepared and distributed development letters to the parties, which stated that the due date for the agency to file its report was July 26th. The letter further advised that PennaGroup was required to submit written comments in response to the report and expressly stated: “[w]ritten comments must be received in our Office within 10 calendar days of your receipt of the report – otherwise, we will dismiss your protest.”

DHS timely filed its agency report on July 26th, which made PennaGroup’s comments due on August 7th. However, PennaGroup neither filed comments nor a request for an extension by the close of business on August 7th. The following day, the GAO asked PennaGroup to confirm whether it had filed comments and, in an email response, PennaGroup merely stated they had no arguments to add to their original bid protest. Unsurprisingly, the DHS filed a request for dismissal of the protest.

In dismissing the case, the GAO noted that that its Regulations provide that a protestor’s failure to file comments within ten calendar days shall result in dismissal of the protest unless an extension was granted. The GAO further noted that its Bid Protest Regulations do not allow for post-deadline extensions.

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 Remember to Timely File Comments… Or Else 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

 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report recommending several changes to the Department of Defense’s (DoD) deployable biometrics programs. Deployable biometric capabilities like fingerprint scanners, voice recognition hardware, and iris scanning devices are used as intelligence collection platforms by the DoD. According to the report, these programs are responsible for DoD capturing or killing 1,700 individuals and preventing 92,000 more from accessing DoD bases over the past decade.

While the GAO acknowledged several successful components of DoD’s biometric capabilities, it also made six recommendations to enhance biometric strategic planning. Further, GAO warned that DoD “may have missed an opportunity to leverage existing, viable, and less costly alternatives.”

A critical recommendation was GAO’s final one: DoD should stop determining which contract support to use based on the lowest price. Too often, DoD relies on lowest cost, technically-acceptable solicitations (i.e. choosing the lowest priced bid by a contractor that meets the minimum requirements.) According to the report, this absolute preference for low bidding has resulted in staffing shortages in contractor provided services. While the GAO still supports use of the lowest price solicitation structure for low skilled services, GAO expressed concern of its usefulness for highly technical/skilled tasks, such as information technology security and latent fingerprint examination. GAO recommends using tradeoff selection criteria in determining contract support; this approach could enhance the quality of contract offers and improve contractor hiring and retention through better compensation.

The advantages of using a best value solicitation for these more advanced DoD services are clear. The Department would have greater discretion to determine if a price discount is worth a reduction in quality, and what effect that sacrifice could have on the end goal – for example, quickly and properly processing a potentially hostile individual’s DNA. With the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, DOD will almost certainly follow GAO’s recommendation for a solicitation method. The Act directs the DoD to avoid using lowest price solicitations for information technology contracts, to the maximum extent practicable. (Pub. L. No. 114-328, div. A, title VIII, subtitle C, § 813(c) (Dec. 23, 2016)). Further, DoD reviewed a draft of the GAO report, and concurred with all six recommendations. DoD also cited actions it plans to take to address the recommendations. GAO believes that if DoD completes these actions, it will adequately address the concerns outlined.

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 to DoD – Acquisitions for Intelligence Collection Capabilities: there’s a better way. appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.


View the full article

Sign in to follow this  
×