Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    173
  • comments
    4
  • views
    7,167

Entries in this blog

 

Centre Law & Consulting Successfully Sustains Bid Protest for Phoenix Air

Centre Law & Consulting (Centre), a leading provider of legal services for federal contractors, has successfully worked on behalf of its client – Phoenix Air – to win a favorable outcome in their bid protest against the Department of the Interior on a recent Request for Proposal (RFP). At issue was the fact that the Department of the Interior allowed one contractor to be credited for meeting the proposal’s criteria even though it submitted information on one plane while recommending to use another in a $25 million U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command contract for electronic warfare aircraft services. Phoenix Air, the incumbent contractor, received a lower rating than the higher-priced awardee. As a result, Phoenix Air argued that the Department of the Interior misevaluated the submitted proposals by applying unstated evaluation criteria, unreasonably failed to hold discussions, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. After reviewing the protest, the Government Accountability Office concluded that the evaluation of proposals was indeed unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the RFP. They sustained the protest in favor of Phoenix Air. Given the decision, the Department of the Interior must now reevaluate proposals consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. The agency can amend the solicitation to advise offerors of the agency’s intended evaluation approach, but if it does, it will need to provide offerors with an opportunity to submit revised proposals before it conducts another review and makes a new decision. “We are very pleased with the outcome of GAO’s decision in our client’s bid protest. It’s gratifying to know that Phoenix Air will have an opportunity to be more fairly evaluated under the set proposal standards and recompete for the work it has already has a history of doing with the Department of the Interior,” said Barbara Kinosky, Esq., Managing Partner of Centre. The post Centre Law & Consulting Successfully Sustains Bid Protest for Phoenix Air appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Centre Law & Consulting

 

Executive Order for More Accountability at Department of Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has come under intense scrutiny from Congress, Veterans, and taxpayers in recent years in large part due to its patient wait time scandal. The first bills to pass the U.S. House of Representatives in the current 115th Congress included The Ensuring VA Employee Accountability Act. The Congress.gov website has numerous current bills pending pertaining to VA accountability, and there was no shortage of proposed accountability legislation in the 114th Congress. Now the President has weighed in as well. On April 27, 2017, President Trump traveled across Lafayette Park from the White House to the VA Central Office to sign Executive Order (EO) 13793, “Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection at the Department of Veterans Affairs.” The intent of the EO is to improve accountability and whistleblower protection at VA. It directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish an Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection and to appoint a special assistant to serve as the office’s Executive Director. This new office must be established within 45 days of the EO (therefore, by June 11, 2017), and VA must provide funding and administrative support “consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.” The VA Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection shall advise and assist the Secretary in using, as appropriate, all available authorities to discipline or terminate a VA manager or employee who has violated the public’s trust and failed to carry out his or her duties on behalf Veterans and to recruit, reward, and retain high-performing employees. In addition, the office will identify statutory barriers to the Secretary’s authority to discipline or terminate any employee who has jeopardized the health, safety, or well-being of a Veteran, reporting such barriers to the Secretary for consideration as to the need for legislative changes. Finally, the VA Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection is charged with the responsibility to work closely with VA components to ensure swift and effective resolution of Veterans complaints of wrongdoing at VA, ensure adequate investigation and correction of wrongdoing at VA, and protect employees who lawfully disclose wrongdoing from retaliation. The EO does provide the Secretary with some flexibility in establishing the VA Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection. The Secretary may consider whether some or all of the functions are currently performed by an existing VA office, component, or program and to determine if certain administrative capabilities necessary to operate the office are redundant. Additionally, the Secretary may consider whether combining VA’s Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection with another VA office, component, or program may improve VA’s efficiency, effectiveness, or accountability. A copy of EO 13793 was published in the Tuesday, May 2, 2017, edition of the Federal Register. About the Author: 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 Executive Order for More Accountability at Department of Veterans Affairs appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

“Kinsley Gaffes” and Safe Workplaces

Journalist Michael Kinsley once said, “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” The same can now be said of unions talking about Executive Order 13673 regarding “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces.” Now, who could possibly object to fair pay and safe workplaces? Well, let’s let the Teamsters for a Democratic Union explain the obvious truth (that they aren’t supposed to say) about how the reporting and “blacklisting” aspects of that that innocuous sounding executive order will work in practice. In an August 22 blog post entitled Obama ‘Blacklisting’ Rule – New Leverage for Unions, the union posits the following scenario (complete with colorful dialogue): Consider a union that strikes an auto plant for a new contract. Soon after workers hit the bricks, the union president has the following conversation with the general manager. Morris, we are two weeks into this goddam strike and the company shows no sign of accepting a fair labor agreement. That is your prerogative, but I think you need to take a fresh look. For one thing, we have filed six ULP charges over the company’s failure to provide information, illegal surveillance, and intimidation on the picket line – and are getting ready to file three more. The NLRB investigator has indicated that he will be recommending complaints on at least four of our charges. You say that the NLRB is toothless but you are apparently unaware that the rules of the game have drastically changed. Under a new Order issued by the President, a federal contractor that incurs NLRB or other labor law complaints must report them to federal contracting agencies and face the prospect of losing existing and future contracts. Putting it plainly: unless you settle this strike within the next few days and the union withdraws its charges, you are likely to be marked as a “repeat labor law offender,” one of the highest categories of wrongdoing under the President’s Order. Check this out with your hotshot legal team. Counting all of its divisions, this corporation has federal contracts in the hundreds of millions. Do you really want to jeopardize this pot of gold to save a few hundred thousand dollars in the union contact? “Fair” indeed. And welcome, contractors, to the “obvious truth” that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order will be a powerful new tool for union organizing campaigns. About the Author: David Warner
Partner
David Warner is a seasoned counselor in the resolution and litigation of complex employment and business disputes. His practice is focused on the government contractor, nonprofit, and hospitality industries. David has extensive experience representing contractors in affirmative action, Davis-Bacon Act, and Service Contract Act compliance audits. He also represents businesses with regard to wage and hour compliance, DOL audits, and litigation.   The post “Kinsley Gaffes” and Safe Workplaces appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Centre Law & Consulting

 

Quick Guide to the Bid Protest Process

If you’ve ever encountered the need to file a bid protest, you may remember feeling lost or overwhelmed the first time through the process. Maybe you were just confused and unsure of what would happen as you progressed from one step to the next. If you’re in the middle of a bid protest or foresee the need to enter into one in the future, the quick guide below walks you through a potential scenario of what can be expected. SITUATION Your company just received a non-award letter or have been excluded from the competitive range. You know your team worked hard on the proposal and you have proof that there have been some serious procurement law violations. PROTEST GROUNDS There are two types of protest grounds: pre-award and post-award. Pre-award grounds include protests that solicitations were unduly restrictive, ambiguous, unfair, or biased. Post-award protest grounds include protests that agencies did not follow evaluation criteria; engaged in misleading discussions; or had conflicts of interest, unstated criteria, or unequal treatment. In some situations, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will also consider non-procurement protests when agencies did not follow their own rules and regulations. STRATEGY Step 1: Do you request a debriefing? Agency debriefings are mandatory in some but not all procurements. Centre
will assist you in determining whether the debriefing is mandatory, in drafting questions, and in preparing for it. The debriefing may reveal agency errors and procurement violations. Not all violations warrant filing a protest. Step 2: Decision Point Deciding whether to protest, at what level, and based on what protest ground(s) is critical. In such a case, Centre Law & Consulting will quickly conduct legal research and fact analysis to advise you on whether you should file a protest, where, and what relief could be expected. Step 3: Review the Agency Report Once you protest, a federal agency has 30 days to file its report along with additional documents relating to its source selection decision. Centre Law & Consulting will review all the documentation. In some cases, the report uncovers new protest grounds that were not apparent during the debriefing. Emails or other documents may also reveal agency bias, conflicts of interest, inaccurate calculations, misleading discussions, or improper evaluations. Step 4: Corrective Action or Outcome Prediction Once an agency realizes that it made serious mistakes, it may take corrective action. In other situations, the GAO may conduct an outcome prediction analysis. This allows all parties to get to the result quicker and cut costs. If everything else fails, the GAO will issue a decision either sustaining, denying, dismissing, or sustaining in part the protest within 100 days. Step 5: Cost Reimbursement Centre Law & Consulting will request cost reimbursement during the initial protest filing when appropriate. We will also document all costs associated with protest litigation to ensure that agencies reimburse the protester once the GAO recommends it. IMPACT The bid protest process is designed to ensure equal competition, fair evaluation, and prejudice to none. Successful protests ensure procurement integrity and result in favorable GAO recommendations including: Re-evaluation of proposals Corrective actions Re-solicitation Cost reimbursement Other remedies include contract termination, contract re-compete, or a new solicitation. The post Quick Guide to the Bid Protest Process appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Centre Law & Consulting

 

Protest Denial Stresses Need of Detail in Proposal Methodologies

A single weak link in a contractor’s proposal resulted in its highly praised proposal losing to one with fewer evaluated strengths. Seeking mission support services in its work to counter improvised threats, such as IEDs and other homemade explosives, the Joint Improvised-Threat Defense Organization (JIDO) recently issued a task order for subject matter expertise. Its award drew a protest from Sev1Tech, Inc. challenging JIDO’s choice of Amyx, Inc. for the task order. When evaluating the contractors’ proposals, JIDO stressed it was seeking a coherent discussion of how the offeror proposes to meet its requirements rather than a restatement of the requirements or a listing of what it proposes to do. The protesting contractor received heaps of praise for most of its methodologies, with the final evaluation resulting in Sev1Tech having nine strengths compared to Amyx’s six strengths. However, the lack of detail on just one technical requirement snowballed into a worry that the hypothetical flaw would negate all of Sev1Tech’s noted strengths. JIDO decided Sev1Tech had only provided general statements regarding what it was proposing to do to satisfy a specific technical requirement. As a result, the agency found that it was unclear how the protester would satisfy the requirements of the solicitation and assigned a “significant weakness” to the element in its evaluation. Even with this weakness, Sev1Tech still retained more strengths in its proposal, but the agency feared the risk of a flaw in this single section would compromise the entire task order. The protester insisted its technical rating was evaluated too low, given the numerous positive comments found in the evaluation, and that the awarded contractor’s evaluation was too high due to missing programs in its proposal. The General Accountability Office denied the protest after finding JIDO’s demand for details formed a reasonable basis to assign the technical rating. It also ruled the missing programs were not required in the solicitation and, therefore, could not be considered a material term. In sum, the decision should serve as a cautionary tale for providing not just what a contractor can perform, but exactly how it plans to do so. About the Author: 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 Protest Denial Stresses Need of Detail in Proposal Methodologies appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Incumbent Files Preaward Protest for Navy’s Failure to Release Incumbent’s Proprietary Data

Just when you think you have heard it all, along comes the preaward protest of Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC, B-414223, March 29, 2017. Fluor alleged that the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, solicitation was ambiguous. Fluor claimed that that offerors could not meaningfully price their proposals because of the ambiguous requirement it contained and that proposals received could not be meaningfully compared and evaluated. The interesting quirk was that Fluor was the incumbent, and they wanted to “level the playing field” so that all offerors were bidding to the same requirement and leaving no ambiguity. Fluor’s method of doing so was to have the Navy release Fluor’s proprietary data, after it waived its rights in the data. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) dismissed this ground of protest. They held that the protester failed to establish that it is an interested party to challenge the lack of data. This is legal speak for saying that Fluor cannot protest on behalf of other potential bidders. Fluor was not prejudiced by the failure of other offerors to see the Fluor proprietary data. It’s an interesting twist on a protest.
 
About the Author 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 Incumbent Files Preaward Protest for Navy’s Failure to Release Incumbent’s Proprietary Data appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Maureen Jamieson Quoted in Bloomberg BNA Article on Trade Agreements Act

Reproduced with permission from Federal Contracts Report, 105 FCR (May 11, 2016). Copyright 2016 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com GSA Sends Warning Letters to Contractors Over Origins of Products The General Services Administration (GSA) is clamping down on thousands of federal contractors to ensure that products sold to government agencies are made in the U.S. or are otherwise in compliance with the Trade Agreement Act (TAA), Bloombery BNA has learned. Regional GSA offices in Fort Worth, Texas, and Kansas City, Missouri, emailed letters dated May 5 to more than 2,800 schedule contract holders that directed vendors to “review their total offering of product” by submitting a spreadsheet that verified the countries of origin of each schedule contract product, as well as copies of a Certificate of Origin or other certification from the manufacturer on its letterhead for products made in the U.S. or in a TAA-designated country. “The continued reoccurrence of non-compliant product threatens the integrity of the [Multiple Aware Schedule] contracts and GSA Advantage! website which federal customers rely on to make daily purchases that are compliant with the Federal Acquisition Regular (FAR),” the GSA letter said. “This threat cannot be tolerated for the good for the federal procurement community, MAS business line, and continued success of a primary system you rely on to serve federal customers.” The letter provided to Bloomberg BNA was unsigned but included the name of a Fort Worth-based GSA contracting officer at the bottom. The letter, addressed to “Dear GSA Partner,” noted that over the past year, the Multiple Award Schedule program had responded to “numerous” congressional inquiries and Freedom of Information Act requests regarding allegations of failed compliance with the TAA and the Buy American Act. Made In America In January, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the GSA Advantage! website had listed products that were described as “made in America” but in fact were produced overseas. He said the GSA should review its website labels and excise products that are falsely listed. The Buy American Act, in place since 1933, and the regulation that stems from it significantly restricts the federal government from purchasing non-American-made products. The TAA stretches the law by allowing the purchase of end products from the U.S. or designated countries, which, according to GSA’s website, includes World Trade Organization government procurement agreement countries; free-trade agreement countries; least-developed countries; and Caribbean Basin countries. The designated country list, which includes 124 nations, excludes prominent U.S. trading partners China and India. The letter from the Great Southwest Region in Fort Worth ordered companies that have found products manufactured in non-TAA designated countries to remove all such products from their TAA contract; upload a new and revised catalog to GSA’s Schedule Input Program; and send an updated price list and terms and conditions to the National Schedules Information Center. The GSA gave companies that received the letter five days, until the close of business May 10, to respond. Businesses that didn’t reply in time face severe penalties, according to the letter, including, typed in bold letters, “the removal of your entire GSAdvantage file.” In a statement, a GSA spokesperson told Bloomberg BNA: “Once learning of products being offered on a Schedule contract that are potentially non-compliant with the Trade Agreements Act (TAA), or when the country of manufacture is otherwise misrepresented, GSA will conduct an immediate review an take swift action to ensure that vendors remove non-compliant products from Schedule contracts and GSA Advantage!.” Unmanned Vehicles According to the GSA spokesperson, 2,872 letters were emailed to contractors from the agency’s offices in Fort Worth and Kansas City. That included 308 emails sent to Schedule 51V Hardware Superstore contractors; 1,184 to Schedule 84 providers of security, facilities management, marine craft and emergency/disaster response-related goods; 641 to Schedule 56 makers of building materials and supplies and alternative energy solutions; 361 to Schedule 66 producers of test and measurement equipment, unmanned scientific vehicles and geographic environmental analysis equipment; and 378 emails to Schedule 7 makers of hospitality and cleaning equipment, sanitizers and toiletries. The spokesperson confirmed the GSA was targeting those specific schedules and products because of congressional and other complaints. “Those schedules are among the first group of targeted schedules with identified risk that GSA is reviewing,” the spokesperson said. Attorneys who represent contractors that received the emailed letter told Bloomberg BNA they are asking GSA for extensions to conduct necessary research into their product lines, and to complete all the needed paperwork. Maureen Jamieson, executive director of contracts and consulting at Centre Law & Consulting in Tysons Corner, Va., said she has heard from several clients concerned about the letter, including some based in Fort Worth and another that was contacted by GSA’s Kansas City office. She said GSA had not yet responded to her requests for an extension. “I’ve been hearing from clients of many years. They’re coming out of the woodwork,” Jamieson told Bloomberg BNA, adding that she was concerned about the tight turnaround time the GSA’s directive gave contractors. “If you’re going to do it right, it just requires more time, ” she said. Day One “It’s definitely been a scramble, I guess you could say,” Gunjan Talati, a Washington-based partner with Thompson Hine, told Bloomberg BNA. Talati said companies have been responsible for complying with the underlying requirements – that they adhere to the rules put forth in the TAA and Buy American Act – “since Day One.” But regardless of how diligent companies have been in fully adhering to those laws in the past, he said, “I look at this as a wake-up call.” Compliance with the TAA is often a complicated affair that can require “a detailed examination of the product’s manufacturing process,” Talati and fellow Thompson Hine Partner Lawrence Prosen wrote in a client advisory issued a day after GSA emails were sent. This includes a determination as to whether articles from one country have been “substantially transformed” into a new and different article of commerce that is distinctly different from the original item, they wrote.
  The post Maureen Jamieson Quoted in Bloomberg BNA Article on Trade Agreements Act appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Earning Only 78% Of What A Similarly Situated Male Employee Is Paid? Call Me!

Alas, I am not expecting my phone to start ringing off the hook. But the week of “Equal Pay Day” is as good a time as any for contractors to kick the tires on their pay practices to ensure observed pay disparities are supported by legitimate differentiators. Perhaps no employment statistic is bandied about so frequently in politics and the press than the “gender pay gap” whereby women are purported to earn only 78 cents for every dollar earned by men. With April 4 having been “Equal Pay Day,” much digital ink was getting spilled concerning female workers allegedly earning less than their male “counterparts.” Alas (again), most but not all of the click-bait tends to be hopelessly innumerate, failing to capture or account for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for observed differences in the aggregate data from which the 78% figure is derived. Despite the political hand-wringing, the law surrounding individual pay discrimination is robust and well delineated. Indeed, in addition to pay discrimination being actionable under Title VII, since 1963 the federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) has required that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work. All forms of pay are covered including salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock options, profit sharing, life insurance, vacation and holiday pay, allowances and reimbursement for travel expenses, and benefits. The jobs need not be identical in every respect, but they must be “substantially equal.” Rather than relying upon particular job titles, a claimant must show that she and her male counterpart performed substantially equal work in terms of skill, effort, and responsibility. A job will be considered unequal, despite having the same general core responsibilities, if the more highly paid job involves additional tasks which (1) require extra effort, (2) consume a significant amount of the time, and (3) are of an economic value commensurate with the pay differential. Federal contractors subject to EO 11246 are expected to routinely evaluate their compensation systems to ensure that they are not resulting in discriminatory outcomes. The applicable regulations require that such “self-audits” assess whether race or gender-based compensation disparities exist, that the audits occur periodically, and that results be reported internally to management. While the OFCCP does not require a particular methodology, its own compliance officers are generally directed to review individual data, group data into pay grades or job groups, and conduct summary analyses. The CO is also to assess quantitative factors such as the size of any overall average pay differences based on race (minority vs. non-minority) and gender (female vs. male), the number of job groups where average pay differences exceed a certain threshold, or the number of employees negatively affected within job groups. In addition to the individualized EPA factors mentioned above, data such as particular skill or certifications; education; work experience; the position, level, or function; tenure in a position; performance ratings; and other compensation-related inputs should be considered. For smaller contractors, simple Excel “table and sort” analyses may be sufficient. For more complex employers, more sophisticated statistical analyses, such as multiple regression, may be appropriate and more valuable. If contractors are not already routinely performing these sorts of analyses (preferably in conjunction with counsel for privilege purposes), they should. Again, it’s required by EO 11246; and innumeracy around the “wage gap” notwithstanding, pay discrimination can and does occur. It is far cheaper to identify and remedy unexplained disparities without the involvement of the DOL or the courts. About the Author: 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 Earning Only 78% Of What A Similarly Situated Male Employee Is Paid? Call Me! appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

End of Summer Employment Law Developments

For those of you enjoying these last few days of summer, here is a quick hit guide to recent employment developments to be aware of before you rush back into the full swing of things: Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order The Department of Labor (DOL) announced yesterday that the final regulations implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order will be published today. The regulations (which cover contractor self-reporting of labor law violations) will become effective October 25, 2016 and will be implemented in phases. Stay tuned for more on these important new regulations! Severance Agreements The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken the position that severance agreements that require employees to forfeit subsequent monetary awards for whistleblowing violate Federal securities laws. In 2011, the SEC adopted a rule prohibiting any action that impedes communication with the SEC about potential securities law violations. The SEC has increasingly been reviewing severance agreements and potential violations of this rule. This culminated in two six-figure settlements announced earlier this month with companies that required employees to waive their right to any individual recovery arising from communicating with a government agency. This is language that is permitted by other Federal agencies, so companies should review their standard severance agreements to ensure that they are not running afoul of the SEC’s rules. DOL Settles Overtime Lawsuit It is being reported that the DOL recently settled its own decade-long lawsuit with a union for $7 million in back overtime wages owed to various white-collar employees at the DOL. Keep in mind this is the DOL, the Agency responsible for enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) along with other wage and hour laws. A quick take away is that the overtime regulations and classification of employees are complicated – even for the DOL! Perhaps this is a good time to remind you that the salary thresholds for Federal overtime exemptions are changing effective December 1, 2016. Is your company ready? Updated Workplace Posters The DOL has updated the mandatory workplace posters covering the FLSA and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) effective August 1, 2016. The revised FSLA poster and EPPA poster are available from the DOL’s website. The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act poster was also recently updated in April. This may be a good time to review your workplace posters to ensure you have all the required and up to date postings. EEO-1 Due For employers with 100 or more employees or Federal Government contractors with 50 or more employees and covered contracts, don’t forget to complete your EEO-1 by September 30. The survey is now open. About the Author Marina Blickley
Associate Attorney
Marina Blickley is primarily focused in the Government Contracting and Non-Profit industries. She regularly assists clients in all aspects of employment and labor law including representation and defense of employers against claims of employment discrimination, harassment, retaliation/whistleblower, and wage and hour violations before administrative agencies and state and federal courts.   The post End of Summer Employment Law Developments appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Annual Review Speaker Lineup

ANNUAL REVIEW 2018: Hot Issues in Federal Contracting | Speaker Lineup   Threase Baker – Panel Discussion: Types of Contract Vehicles
Ms. Threase Baker is the President at ABBTECH Professional Resources, Inc. She joined ABBTECH in 2001 and has more than twenty-five years’ of experience in all areas of the staffing industry with particular emphasis on corporate recruiting, executive placement and staff augmentation. Her customer focus includes both the government and private sector. Prior to her current role at ABBTECH, Threase worked as a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System project manager which provided vital perspectives on the Information Technology (IT) industry and process.   Keith Nakasone – Panel Discussion: Types of Contract Vehicles
Mr. Keith Nakasone is the new Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Acquisition Management, within the Office of Information Technology Category (ITC) in GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). The Federal Acquisition Service provides buying platforms and acquisition services to Federal, State and Local governments for a broad range of items from office supplies to motor vehicles to information technology and telecommunications products and services.   William McCabe – Panel Discussion: Types of Contract Vehicles
Mr. William McCabe is the Chief Financial Officer and Director, Financial Management and Procurement Portfolio for the Program Support Center (PSC), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He brings a wealth of experience and expertise that helps to strengthen PSC’s efforts to provide services more efficiently and effectively. Prior to joining PSC, Mr. McCabe served as the Chief Financial Officer of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.   Joanne Woytek – Panel Discussion: Types of Contract Vehicles
Ms. Joanne Woytek is the Program Manager for the NASA SEWP Program, a premier Government-Wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) providing Federal Agencies access to the latest in Information & Communication Technology product solutions. From SEWP’s inception, twenty-five years ago, through to the present, Ms. Woytek continues to be the key figure in the continuing evolution of the program, and in the management of strategic direction, day-to-day operations, and planning of the SEWP program. Ms. Woytek is a 40-year veteran to Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt Maryland and is in her eighteenth year as Program Manager.       The post Annual Review Speaker Lineup appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Centre Law & Consulting Awarded CSOSA Contract for Employee Training

Centre Law & Consulting (Centre), a leading provider of acquisition services and training for both government agencies and federal contractors, is pleased to announce the award of a contract with the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA). Under the contract, Centre will develop and deliver an Executive Contracting Officer’s (COR) Training Program for a base period of one year with two one-year option periods. The training program will focus on increasing the knowledge of CSOSA’s acquisition and non-acquisition personnel in the areas of contract administration, planning, and management for procuring services and supplies in support of the CSOSA mission. “Centre is excited to have been to be selected by CSOSA to be their training provider, and it’s a testament to our long history of providing high quality acquisition and procurement education. We look forward to providing our expertise to CSOSA and to helping them achieve their goals,” said Barbara Kinosky, Esq., Managing Partner of Centre. “Our unique background in procurement law and regulations and focus on customization will ensure that CSOSA receives the greatest possible support for its COR training program.” Centre has a long history of working with a variety of government agencies, but this contract marks the first time it will partner with CSOSA. Centre was selected based on its experience in creating custom courseware that is tailored to an agency’s specific needs and for its day-to-day experience in advising acquisition professionals on compliance and implementation. The post Centre Law & Consulting Awarded CSOSA Contract for Employee Training appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article

Centre Law & Consulting

Centre Law & Consulting

 

VA Issues Proposed Rule Governing its Veteran-Owned Small Business Verification Program

By Wayne Simpson Comments must be submitted by March 12, 2018 In the Wednesday, January 10, 2018, edition of the Federal Register, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a proposed rule with request for public comment to amend VA’s regulations governing its Veteran-Owned Small Business Verification Program.  Public comments on the proposed rule must be submitted on or before March 12, 2018 (see below on how to submit comments). The proposed rule implements §1832 of Public Law 114-840, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017, which placed responsibility for issuing regulations relating to ownership and control for the verification of Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) with the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). VA’s proposed regulation will remove all references to ownership and control and seeks to add and clarify certain terms and references that are currently part of the VA’s verification process.  NDAA also provides, in certain circumstances, a firm may qualify as a VOSB or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) when there is a surviving spouse or an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). Click here to read the specific proposed changes to VA’s Regulations at 38 C.F.R. Part 74 Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted by clicking here. The post VA Issues Proposed Rule Governing its Veteran-Owned Small Business Verification Program appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Fraud Alert: SAM Website Hit Again

By Wayne Simpson, CFCM, CSCM Thousands of Registrants Potential Fraud Victims—Check Your Info!! Once again, the Federal Government’s System for Award Management (SAM) (www.sam.gov) was the target of fraudulent activity. SAM is the official website of the United States Government for entities to register to do business with the Federal Government. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), the Federal agency responsible for administering the SAM System, began notifying registrants on March 22, 2018, after discovering a third-party changed financial information in SAM for registrants. GSA’s Inspector General is investigating the cybersecurity breach. GSA advises “entities should contact their federal agency awarding official if they find that payments, which were due to their entity from a Federal agency, have been paid to a bank account other than the entity’s bank account.” As part of the steps GSA is taking to limit further fraud, GSA is now requiring an original, signed notarized letter identifying the authorized entity administrator for the entity associated with the DUNS number before a new SAM.gov entity will be activated. Most assuredly this will be administratively burdensome for new registrants, as well as GSA. It is unclear how many SAM registrants may be impacted by the most recent fraud perpetrated on them. Press accounts indicate GSA states only “a limited number” of contractors registered in SAM had their financial information changed. SAM registrants who have not been notified by GSA of fraudulent activity should log into their respective SAM accounts to review their financial information in SAM to ensure it is correct. Enjoy your freedom? Thank a Veteran!
Please consider donating to a Veterans Service Organization About the Author: Wayne Simpson
Consultant
Wayne Simpson is retired from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after 38 years of federal service. He served as the Executive Assistant to VA’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Logistics where he was the primary staff advisor to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, who serves concurrently as VA’s Senior Procurement Executive and Debarring Official. The post Fraud Alert: SAM Website Hit Again appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Barbara Kinosky Speaker at the 21st Annual Government Contracting Update

Mrs. Kinosky has been invited to speak during the “Enterprise Risk Management Session – Managing Fraud Risk through ERM and current trends with GSA Price Reductions” on Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 11:10am in Tysons Corner, VA. About Barbara Kinosky Barbara Kinosky is the Managing Partner of Centre Law and Consulting and has over twenty-five years of experience in all aspects of federal government contracting. Barbara 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. Prior to establishing Centre, Barbara was the head of a government contracts practice group at a major law firm. She started Centre is 2002 to provide integrated legal, GSA consulting and training services. About the 21st Annual Government Contracting Update “Doing business with the US Government is extremely challenging. This event has provided an annual update for the Government Contracting industry for the past 20 years. This year, we will be presenting the update utilizing different formats including panels and breakout sessions with DHG industry leaders, attorneys, and industry representatives who face and address contracting issues and challenges on a daily basis.” The post Barbara Kinosky Speaker at the 21st Annual Government Contracting Update appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

GAO Won’t Reconsider its Decision Upholding NASA’s Award of a $24.6 Million Contract

In a decision publicly released on May 30, 2017, Alphaport Inc. – Reconsideration, B-414086.3 (May 23, 2017), the GAO denied a request for reconsideration regarding a nearly $25 million contract. The GAO originally denied Alphaport, Inc.’s bid protest challenging the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) award of a contract to Banner Quality Management, Inc. for technical support services. The solicitation was awarded as a single cost-plus-fixed-fee contract based on best value, focusing on three evaluation factors: technical capability, cost/price, and relevant experience and past performance. Regarding the cost factor, the solicitation stated that evidence of an approved accounting system would be required for award of the contract. Evidence of the approved accounting system would be shown by submitting four specific documents. Alphaport initially challenged the award to Banner by alleging that the solicitation contained a material requirement to submit certain documentation to demonstrate the acceptability of the offeror’s accounting system. Despite NASA finding Banner’s accounting system acceptable, Banner only submitted three of the four required documents. Alphaport sought reconsideration after the GAO determined that the agency’s evaluation and selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Specifically, Alphaport argued that the GAO erroneously concluded that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable because the adequacy of an accounting system is generally a matter of responsibility. In denying the request for reconsideration, the GAO reminded Alphaport that its decision already addressed its allegation that the agency waived a material requirement of the solicitation when it concluded that the solicitation’s material requirement was for an acceptable accounting system rather than specific documentation. Indeed, the GAO noted that Alphaport did not actually challenge the adequacy of Banner’s accounting system but only that the agency did not comply with a material RFP requirement. The GAO found no error of law and instead found that Alphaport merely disagreed with its determination.   About the Author: 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 Won’t Reconsider its Decision Upholding NASA’s Award of a $24.6 Million Contract appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Dumpster Fire, Constitutional Crisis, or Perhaps Just Business as Usual

Say what one will about our still-new President (and I will), there appear to be very few among the chattering class who hold a “neutral” view about him. A little over 100 days into his administration and certain corners are already routinely beating the drum of impeachment. And the ink spilled over the Comey firing and recent reports concerning what was either a benign discussion of known intelligence information (from one perspective) or the revealing of “highly classified information” to his Russian puppet masters (from another) suggest that the fever pitch of commentary is not going to be lowering in volume any time soon. And yet, if one sets both ends of the partisan hyperbole aside, a funny thing appears to be happening on the way to the dumpster fire which is purportedly the Trump Administration – governance. For example, while conservatives may be chafed by having to accept Alexander Acosta in lieu of the more ideologue burger exec Andrew Puzder at the head of the Department of Labor, the much maligned “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order” is already history. Many expect that the even more maligned, revised and expanded EEO-1 form (requiring reporting of pay data) is likely to end up in the dust bin this summer. Similarly, the legislative wrangling around the Affordable Care Act continues apace as well. On judicial appointments, seen by many as one of the signature issues of the campaign, Trump is also widely perceived as delivering on his promises. With the judicial filibuster having been “nuked” to clear the path for Neil Gorsuch to join the U.S. Supreme Court, Trump has been active in identifying slates of candidates for lower court benches. Last week, the White House announced Trump’s “third wave” of judicial appointments (following Gorsuch and the nomination of Judge Amul R. Thapar of Kentucky to serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit). Notably, two of the ten nominees – Professor Amy Coney Barrett of Notre Dame University Law School and Justice Joan Larsen of the Michigan Supreme Court – are former law clerks of the late-Justice Antonin Scalia, and another – David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court – was a clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas. Of course, not everyone is pleased with the selections, but we do seem to have come a long way from thoughts of nominating his sister to the high court. While I’m not one to believe that Trump (or his predecessor for that matter) is a master of three-dimensional political chess, which the rest of us rubes simply can’t comprehend, sometimes the allegedly oncoming dumpster fire or ill-conceived tweet looks an awful lot like “stray voltage.” Or, rather, business as usual in Washington, D.C. About the Author: 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 Dumpster Fire, Constitutional Crisis, or Perhaps Just Business as Usual appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Centre Law & Consulting Awarded NRC Contract for Employee Training

Centre Law & Consulting (Centre), a leading provider of training and acquisition services for government agencies, is pleased to announce the award of a contract with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for NRC Acquisition Workforce Training. Under the contract, Centre will develop and deliver a structured training program which standardizes the education, training, and experience requirements for NRC acquisition professionals, while improving workforce competencies and performance. The instruction provided will include all levels of COR and acquisition courses related to FAC-C & FAC-COR certifications. Courses will be conducted at the NRC’s Professional Development Center and virtually across the United States. The contract covers a base period of one year with two option years. “It is an honor to be selected by the NRC as their new training provider, and we are excited to provide our expertise in developing integrated learning solutions for acquisition and procurement personnel,” said Barbara Kinosky, Esq., Managing Partner of Centre. “We look forward to delivering innovative curriculum and content that will strengthen the NRC workforce to align with the NRC’s performance goals.” Jeffrey Keen, Director of Federal Contracts and Training at Centre Law & Consulting, will serve as Program Manager. He will be the primary point of contact with the NRC and with Hemsley Fraser, a subcontractor that will assist Centre with extensive course customization. “Our training team is committed to helping the NRC improve the operational knowledge of its staff and we are dedicated to ensuring they receive the best possible support for their training initiatives. We look forward to customizing an education program that will elevate the performance of their employees,” Keen said. Centre has a long history of working with a variety of government agencies, but this contract marks the first time it will partner with the NRC. Centre was selected based on its experience in creating custom courseware, for its history of providing DAU-approved courses, and for its day-to-day experience in advising government personnel on acquisition and procurement matters. The post Centre Law & Consulting Awarded NRC Contract for Employee Training appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

New Federal Contractor Legislation

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
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
 

$650 Million in Small Business Awards Given to Fraudulent Companies

By Tyler Freiberger  In 2016 alone, the federal government spent $58.8 billion with minority or woman owned small businesses and another $16.3 billion with businesses run by disabled veterans. The vast majority of these prime contract awards were specifically not the result of open market, merit based competition. Rather, it was the result of the government openly steering more government dollars toward groups otherwise disadvantaged in society.  While there is some debate over the effectiveness of some of these programs, it clearly gives billions of reasons for the disadvantaged to start a small business and get a leg up on work with the government. A great gig if you can get it, right? So great, non-qualifying persons and companies are willing to defraud the government to take advantage of these programs. The methods for this crime can be very simple; some programs allow contractors to self-certify as disadvantaged small business with no third-party review. Contractors can simply falsely certify disadvantaged status and move ahead.  In contrast, some schemes require greater complexity; winning the award with a company owned by a qualifying person but then funneling the money and the work through a series of other non-qualifying entities. A recent string of high-profile arrests and seizures shows this may be a surprisingly large portion of the awards set aside for disadvantaged or veteran owned business. In October of 2017, four men plead guilty to participating in such a scheme to obtain construction contracts in South Carolina. According to the DOJ, for over a dozen years “the defendants hid the fact that construction companies were not controlled by minorities, veterans, women or the disabled in order to receive the lucrative contracts.” While the contracted work was performed properly, the scam took in over $350 million intended for minority or woman groups. A similar action is developing in Milwaukee, where the government has begun seizing the assets of a contractor they suspect has won almost $300 million in construction contracts meant for minorities and military veterans. The fact these frauds were ever discovered is almost as shocking as the amounts. Both examples involved minorities, women, or disabled veterans falsely claiming they owned a business in order to receive the government’s favor. However, the businesses were instead run by a spouse or friend that took the lion’s share of the profits. Without an insider blowing the whistle on this type of intimate activity, it is difficult to imagine how the government could ever detect it. In the above examples, one contractor is facing two years in jail, while the other has had his home and cars seized pending criminal charges. All this despite government agreement that the contracts were performed well, even some with honors. Regardless, this post-harm punishment seems to be the government’s only option for deterrence and is therefore justifiably harsh. The Small Business Administration works with the Justice Department to detect such abuse, but still primarily relies on reporting by whistle blowers or competitors. Until a more robust system of detection is organized, we will likely never truly know how big of a problem this fraud is.   About the Author: 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 $650 Million in Small Business Awards Given to Fraudulent Companies appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

How to Lose an Award in a Single Email Exchange

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
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
 

“Hot Take” Alert – Turns Out, Dads Are Parents Too!

By David Warner In August 2017, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought a class action lawsuit against cosmetics giant Estée Lauder alleging that the company violated federal law when it implemented and administered a paid parental leave program that automatically provides male employees who are new fathers lesser parental leave benefits than are provided to female employees who are new mothers. The suit alleged that, under the company’s parental leave program, in addition to paid leave already provided to new mothers to recover from childbirth, new mothers were provided an additional six weeks of paid child bonding leave for child bonding. In contrast, the plan only provided new fathers with two weeks of paid child bonding leave. Recently, the EEOC and Estée Lauder reached a settlement in the matter. While the terms of the settlement remain confidential, it is highly likely that the resolution required the company to equalize child binding leave as between mothers and fathers. This would be consistent with the EEOC’s guidance that, given the prohibition against gender-based discrimination under Title VII, if bonding leave is offered to employees men and women must be able to take equal amounts of that leave. While some commentators have suggested that parental leave policies should no longer have varying levels of benefits for “primary” and “secondary” caregivers, such distinctions would not appear to conflict with Title VII or the EEOC’s guidance so long as they are administered without regard to an employee’s gender. Further, greater leave for “disability” arising out of childbirth is similarly seen as legitimate and non-discriminatory even if it has the practical effect of providing greater leave benefits to bother as opposed to fathers. Parental leave policies are an attractive benefit for employees; but, given the EEOC’s recent success with Estée Lauder, employers are well counseled to review their policies to ensure that disability or maternity-related leave is clearly distinguished from bonding leave and that bonding leave, if provided, is equally available to both mothers and fathers.   About the Author: 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 “Hot Take” Alert – Turns Out, Dads Are Parents Too! appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Centre Staff Leading Breakout Sessions at 2017 NCMA World Congress

This July, several of the Centre staff were chosen from a competitive field to lead multiple breakout sessions at the 2017 World Congress in Chicago, IL. World Congress is the National Contract Management Association’s largest education event for contract management, procurement, and acquisition professionals. Individuals from government, industry, and commercial business come together for networking and training for all career levels. From pressing legal matters to the latest in GSA Schedule updates, come learn the information you’ll need to stay up-to-date in the federal contracting industry. Make sure these three breakout sessions are added to your “must-see” events on your conference schedule: MONDAY, JULY 24 (11:15am – 12:30pm)
Corporate Ethics: Lead from the Top or Pay Through the Nose
David Warner, Partner
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. TUESDAY, JULY 25 (11:15am – 12:30pm)
Protests Happen, so Now What?
Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., Managing Partner
James Phillips Jr, PMP, CFCM, Fellow, Acquisition Consultant
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. TUESDAY, JULY 25 (4:00pm – 5:15pm)
Lessons Gleaned from Successful Protests at GAO
Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., Managing Partner
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. WEDNESDAY, JULY 26 (9:45am – 11:00am)
SIP vs FPT, TDR/FAS Sales Reporting vs 72A, eOffer/eMod
Maureen Jamieson, Executive Director of Consulting
Julia Coon, Consultant
eOffer/eMod is GSA’s online tool to submit GSA offers and modifications that is only accessible to authorized negotiators with digital certificates. This session will show participants how to submit a GSA offer and modifications and other electronic forms. Hear about 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 TDR/FAS Sales Reporting and Formatted Product Tool.
 

  The post Centre Staff Leading Breakout Sessions at 2017 NCMA World Congress appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Update—New Rules

By Wayne Simpson, CFCM, CSCM On May 1, 2018, the General Services Administration (GSA) published FAC 2005-98 in the Federal Register, covering a number of FAR Cases with Final Rules effective May 31, 2018. The online version of the FAR (www.acquisition.gov) will not be updated until May 31, 2018. FAR Case 2017-007, Task-and-Delivery Order Protest; Final Rule, effective May 31, 2018.  This Final Rule amends FAR Part 16 and implements § 835 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114-328), which raises the protest threshold for task and delivery orders from $10 million to $25 million.  According to GAO, there are fewer than 10 protests per year of procurements between $10 million and $25 million, the higher threshold for protests of task or delivery orders for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard will result in savings for GAO and the affected Executive branch agencies, because there will no longer be protests of orders valued between $10 million and $25 million based on dollar value. FAR Case 2017-004, Liquidated Damages Rate Adjustment, Final Rule, effective May 31, 2018.  This Final Rule amends FAR Parts 22 and 52 and implements the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) interim final rule published in the Federal Register July 1, 2016, and the final rule published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017, and subsequent adjustments for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 2015.  The final rule specifically addresses violations and liability for unpaid wages (overtime) under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Statute. FAR Case 2015-039, Audit of Settlement Proposals, Final Rule, effective May 31, 2018.  This final rule to amends FAR Part 49 to raise the dollar threshold requirement for the audit of prime contract settlement proposals and subcontract settlements from $100,000 to align with the threshold for obtaining certified cost or pricing data, which is $750,000.  This final rule impacts contractors subject to audits of their termination settlement proposals and eliminates termination settlements audits between $100,000 and the threshold for obtaining certified cost or pricing data, currently $750,000. Contractors will save costs associated with the preparation and support for the termination settlement audits. This will also enable faster final settlement payments to contractors, thereby improving contractor cash flow. FAR Case 2017-008 (Item II), Duties of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), Final Rule, effective May 31, 2018. This final rule amends FAR Part 19 to reflect sections of NDAA 2017, P.L. 114-238, amends § 15(k) of the Small Business Act to provide additional duties for OSDBUs. These additional duties also apply to DOD Offices of Small Business Programs.  NDAA § 1812, § 1813, § 1821 of the NDAA for FY 2017 amend section 15(k) of the Small Business Act to add duties for OSDBUs and OSBPs. Section 1812 of the NDAA for FY 2017 amends the Small Business Act to specifically reference the existing duties of OSDBUs and OSBPs with respect to the various small business programs and consolidation of contract requirements. Section 1812 also requires OSDBUs and OSBPs review summary purchase card data for acquisitions above the micro-purchase threshold (e.g., $3,500)*, but below the simplified acquisition threshold (e.g., $150,000)*, to ensure these acquisitions are compliant with the Small Business Act and have been properly recorded in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). The revision to the FAR reflecting section 1812 of the NDAA includes flexibility for each OSDBU or OSBP to identify the best purchase card data available to their agency when implementing the statutory requirement. *Note: The micro-purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds were raised by NDAA 2018 to $10,000 and $250,000, respectively. A final rule has not been implemented (FAR Case 2018-004), but agencies have been authorized to implement Class Deviations to begin using the new thresholds before the Final Rule is promulgated (see Civilian Agency Acquisition Council Letter No 2018-03, dated February 16, 2018) Paragraph (a) of section 1813 requires OSDBUs and OSBPs to provide assistance to a small business prime contractor or subcontractor in finding resources for education and training on compliance with the FAR after award of their contract or subcontract. Paragraph (b) of section 1821 requires OSDBUs and OSBPs to review all required small business subcontracting plans to ensure that they provide maximum practicable opportunity for small business concerns to participate as subcontractors. Currently, acquisition-related duties of OSDBUs and OSBPs are found in FAR 19.201, General policy. The duties found in FAR 19.201 are based on the duties found in section 15(k) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(k)). Additional OSDBU and OSBP acquisition-related duties enacted before the NDAA for FY 2017 listed at 15 U.S.C. 644(k), which were not previously updated in the FAR, are also included in this rule. Additionally, this rule revises the OSDBU and OSBP duty at FAR 19.201(c)(5), which relates to increasing small business participation in solicitations that involve bundling. This revision reflects that OSDBUs and OSBPs perform much broader functions under those scenarios than what is currently listed in the FAR. FAC 2005-98 contains GSA’s introduction to the FAC, as well as the Small Entity Compliance Guide required by § 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.   About the Author: Wayne Simpson
Consultant
Wayne Simpson is retired from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after 38 years of federal service. He served as the Executive Assistant to VA’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Logistics where he was the primary staff advisor to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, who serves concurrently as VA’s Senior Procurement Executive and Debarring Official. The post Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Update—New Rules appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

Department of Labor Publishes Final Rule For OFCCP Sex Discrimination Guidelines

The U.S. Department of Labor issued a final rule revising its sex discrimination guidelines for federal contractors found at 41 CFR Part 60-20. The final rule is effective August 15, 2016, is the first significant change to the guidelines since 1970, and it clarifies DOL positions with respect to issues of compensation, pregnancy, and harassment among others. Unsurprisingly given recent amendments to EO 11246, the Rule also provides specific guidance with respect to issues regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. While it will take time for contractors and counsel to digest all 195 pages of the final Rule notice, one section of immediately accessible interest is the Rule’s appendix concerning “Best Practices,” which, while technically voluntary, provide insight into the DOL’s perspective and priorities with respect to sex discrimination. Specifically, the Rule states the following as best practices for contractors: Avoiding the use of gender-specific job titles such as “foreman” or “lineman” where gender-neutral alternatives are available Designating single-user restrooms, changing rooms, showers, or similar single-user facilities as sex-neutral Providing, as part of the broader accommodations policies, light duty, modified job duties or assignments, or other reasonable accommodations to employees who are unable to perform some of their job duties because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions Providing appropriate time off and flexible workplace policies for men and women Encouraging men and women equally to engage in caregiving-related activities Fostering a climate in which women are not assumed to be more likely to provide family care than men Fostering an environment in which all employees feel safe, welcome, and treated fairly by developing and implementing procedures to ensure that employees are not harassed because of sex. Examples of such procedures include: Communicating to all personnel that harassing conduct will not be tolerated Providing anti-harassment training to all personnel Establishing and implementing procedures for handling and resolving complaints about harassment and intimidation based on sex. While certain of the prescriptions fall squarely within the realm of “Personnel Management 101,” the recommendation regarding gender neutral restrooms and similarly facilities furthers the theme of 2016 as the “Year of The Restroom Wars”. Although the guidance is not intended to substantively change contractors’ legal obligations, contractors would be well counseled to take the opportunity to review their leave and benefit policies and practices to ensure that they are in line with the DOL’s regulations and its emphasis on gender neutrality with respect to all employment practices. About the Author: David Warner
Partner
David Warner is a seasoned counselor in the resolution and litigation of complex employment and business disputes. His practice is focused on the government contractor, nonprofit, and hospitality industries. David has extensive experience representing contractors in affirmative action, Davis-Bacon Act, and Service Contract Act compliance audits. He also represents businesses with regard to wage and hour compliance, DOL audits, and litigation.   The post Department of Labor Publishes Final Rule For OFCCP Sex Discrimination Guidelines appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
 

GSA Issues Presentation on Changes to Multiple Award Schedules

The GSA FAS Office of Acquisition Management is planning to refresh all Multiple Award Schedules to incorporate provision and clause updates. For Schedules that offer services, both professional and nonprofessional, the solicitation refresh and corresponding mass modification will also update the application of the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) to align with the U.S. Department of Labor’s SCLS compliance procedures. They recently issued a presentation that outlines the planned changes and updates in the modification. GSA Overview of Planned MAS Changes, courtesy of the GSA to learn more.
  The post GSA Issues Presentation on Changes to Multiple Award Schedules appeared first on Centre Law & Consulting.
View the full article
Sign in to follow this  
×