Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Entries in this blog

Koprince Law LLC

A large business couldn’t demonstrate that it was eligible to pursue a bid protest challenging a VA SDVOSB sole source contract award.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that a protester, which was a large business under the NAICS code assigned to the SDVOSB sole source contract, had not demonstrated standing to challenge the contract award. The sole source contract in question wasn’t just any contract, either–but a contract to oversee the VA’s verification process for SDVOSBs and VOSBs.

The matter at issue in Loch Harbour Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1114C (2016) began when the VA issued a solicitation in June 2016, seeking proposals from contractors to oversee the VA’s verification process. After the solicitation was issued, a prospective offeror filed a pre-award protest with the GAO. In August, the VA cancelled the solicitation.

After cancelling the solicitation, the VA awarded a sole source contract to GCC Technologies, LLC, an SDVOSB and one of the incumbent contractors, to perform the verification services.  The VA supported its award by reference to the same federal statute at issue in the Supreme Court’s Kingdomware decision.  That statute, 38 U.S.C. 8127, allows the VA to make a sole source contract award to an SDVOSB when the anticipated price is below $5 million and certain other factors are met.

Loch Harbour Group, Inc. filed a protest with the Court, challenging the SDVOSB sole source award to GCC.  LHG asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction preventing GCC from performing the contract until LHG’s protest was resolved.

The Court wrote that in order to have standing to bring a viable bid protest, LHG was required to “prove it is either an ‘actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or failure to award the contract.'”  The Court noted that the June 2016 solicitation and the subsequent sole source award to GCC both designated the same NAICS code and size standard, and that “it is undisputed that LHG is not a small business” under that NAICS code.  (The Court’s decision doesn’t specify which NAICS code and size standard were assigned).  The Court continued:

Given this, it is reasonable to assume that this NAICS code would also apply to a new solicitation for this work and that LHG would be ineligible to compete for the award of that contract.  And so, LHG has not demonstrated thus far in the litigation that it has standing to bring its protest.

The Court also held that, even if it had standing to pursue the protest, LHG had not demonstrated that it was likely to succeed on the merits of the case.  The Court wrote that the VA’s justification for its sole source award specifically stated that the award complied with the SDVOSB sole source authority of 38 U.S.C. 8127, and that the record in front of the Court did not support LHG’s contention that the award didn’t comply with the statute.  The Court denied LHG’s request for injunctive relief.

The Court’s decision doesn’t necessary spell an end to LHG’s protest; it is conceivable that LHG could prevail on its case even after losing its motion.  But, should LHG continue to pursue its protest, it would seem to have an uphill battle, as the Court made it very clear that an ineligible large business ordinarily lacks standing to challenge an SDVOSB sole source award.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Kingdomware Technologies v. United States. As we’ve noted, this case was a monumental win for veteran-owned small businesses—it requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to set-aside solicitations for SDVOSBs or VOSBs where two or more such offerors will submit a proposal at a fair and reasonable price, even if that solicitation is issued under the Federal Supply Schedule.

A recent GAO decision suggests, however, that Kingdomware’s impact could be felt beyond the world of VA procurements. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s rationale in Kingdomware might compel every agency to set aside any FSS order (or any other order, for that matter) valued between $3,000 and $150,000.

In Aldevra, B-411752.2—Reconsideration (Oct. 5, 2016), the protester relied on Kingdomware to challenge a prior GAO decision that an agency is not required to set-aside an FSS order for small businesses. At issue in the initial protest was an Army National Guard Bureau solicitation under the FSS, seeking an ice machine/water dispenser (valued at $4300). According to Aldevra, the Small Business Act required the solicitation to be set aside for small businesses.

Under the Small Business Act,

Each contract for the purchase of goods and services that has an anticipated value greater than [$3,000] but not greater than [$150,000] shall be reserved exclusively for small business concerns unless the contracting officer is unable to obtain offers from two or more small business concerns that are competitive with market prices and are competitive with regard to the quality and delivery of the goods or services being purchased.

15 U.S.C. § 644(j); 80 Fed. Reg. 38294 (July 2, 2015) (increasing dollar amounts).

Because the solicitation was valued at more than $3,000 but less than $150,000, Aldevra argued that the Small Business Act required the Army to apply the “rule of two” under the Small Business Act.

GAO disagreed, and denied Aldevra’s initial protest. In doing so, it relied on Section 644(r) of the Small Business Act—that section, according to GAO, makes an agency’s use of set-aside procedures for FSS contracts discretionary. GAO further explained that the SBA’s regulations give contracting officers discretion—but do not command them—to set aside orders under multiple-award contracts.

Some eight months after GAO’s initial decision, the Supreme Court issued its Kingdomware decision, interpreting the effect of the Veterans Benefits, Healthcare, and Information Technology Act of 2006’s Rule of Two. According to the Act:

[A] contracting officer of the Department shall award contracts on the basis of competition restricted to small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans if the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that two or more small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price that offers best value to the United States.

38 U.S.C. § 8127(d).

The mandatory phrasing of the statute was crucial: the Court held that “Congress’ use of the word ‘shall’ demonstrates that [the Act] mandates the use of the Rule of Two in all contracting before using competitive procedures.” The Court, moreover, specifically found that FSS orders are contracts.

Aldevra jumped on the Kingdomware decision and sought to apply its logic to the Small Business Act. It asked GAO to reconsider its initial decision, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision compels GAO to find that Section 644(j) similarly required the Army National Guard’s solicitation to be set aside for small businesses.

GAO denied the request. But it did so on a technicality—it ruled that Kingdomware was not made retroactive by the Court, so it could not be applied to the prior decision in Aldevra’s protest. Thus, the issue of whether Section 644(j) requires all solicitations valued between $3,000 and $150,000 be reserved for small businesses is yet to be decided.

Aldevra has successfully advanced the interests of small businesses at GAO before—it was the first to challenge the VA’s failure to follow the Rule of Two, which ultimately led to the Kingdomware decision. Aldevra’s argument here could have the same reach: under Kingdomware’s logic, the Small Business Act might compel all solicitations valued between $3,000 and $150,000 be reserved for small businesses.

Aldevra isn’t alone in its belief that the FAR’s “rule of two” must be applied to orders under the FSS and other acquisition vehicles. The SBA agreed with Aldevra’s interpretation during both its initial protest and request for reconsideration. The support of the SBA–which has considerable discretion to interpret the Small Business Act–could be crucial in the future.

Because Aldevra was decided on a technicality, the important question Aldevra raised remains to be answered. But there is little doubt that before long, Aldevra or another protester will revisit this issue, in connection with a post-Kingdomware acquisition. What happens then could be every bit as important to small businesses as Kingdomware was for SDVOSBs and VOSBs.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

While we are diving into fall weather here in Kansas, my colleagues and I are thinking of everyone on the East Coast dealing with Hurricane Matthew.  We hope that everyone makes it through the storm safe and sound.

Hurricane Matthew is at the top of the news headlines this week, but there’s still plenty happening in the world of government contracting.  In this edition of SmallGovCon Week In Review, we bring you articles final FAR rule restricting awards to companies with unpaid tax liabilities, two separate cases regarding alleged discrimination by government contractors, a new beta version of a Freedom of Information Act Wiki was launched, a major expansion of the HUBZone program, and much more.

  • The FAR Council has adopted, without changes, an interim rule I reported on last year, which restricts most contract awards to companies with unpaid federal tax obligations. [Government Publishing Office]
  • The United States Department of Labor is suing a Silicon Valley firm, which handles $340 million of federal contracts, for allegedly discriminating against Asian job applicants. [Parent Herald]
  • Using a category management approach to optimize spending, the GSA’s Human Capital and Training Solutions Unrestricted contract is intended to increase access to 77 qualified vendors offering, efficient, cost-effective management and training support. [Federal Times]
  • The Small Business Administration is correcting a final rule that described the limitations on subcontracting that apply to set aside contracts. [Federal Register]
  • A Freedom of Information Act Wiki was launched that acts as a free and collaborative resource and allows a rapid account of new developments so everyone has the most up-to-date information about the law in a useful, online format. [CJR]
  • A global technology manufacturing company has been sued by the U.S. Department of Labor for compensation discrimination against female assembly workers who were found to be making less than their male counterparts. [The Salem News]
  • President Obama is being urged to issue a directive against anti-gay bias in federal contracting. [The Washington Post]
  • Oracle’s decision to abandon the GSA Schedules as a channel to sell its products might just be the tip of the iceberg of problems in the government market. [Washington Technology]
  • A new report shows that women-owned firms are 21 percent less likely to win government contracts. [Biz Journals]
  • In an important change that’s flown beneath the radar, the SBA removed what it said was an unnecessary requirement in the HUBZone program, allowing for a major expansion of the program. [Set-Aside Alert]

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

A North Carolina couple is heading to prison after being convicted of defrauding the SDVOSB and 8(a) Programs.

According to a Department of Justice press release, Ricky Lanier was sentenced to 48 months in federal prison and his wife, Katrina Lanier, was sentenced to 30 months for their roles in a long-running scheme to defraud two of the government’s cornerstone socioeconomic contracting programs.

According to the DOJ press release, Ricky Lanier was the former owner of an 8(a) company.  When his company graduated, Ricky Lanier apparently wasn’t satisfied with the ordinary routes that former 8(a) firms use to remain relevant in the 8(a) world, such as subcontracting to current 8(a) firms and/or becoming a mentor to an 8(a) firm under the SBA’s 8(a) mentor-protege program.

Instead, Mr. Lanier helped form a new company, Kylee Construction, which supposedly was owned and managed by a service-disabled veteran.  In fact, the veteran (a friend of Ricky Lanier) was working for a government contractor in Afghanistan, and wasn’t involved in Kylee’s daily management and business operations.

The Laniers also used JMR Investments, a business owned by Ricky Lanier’s college roommate, to obtain 8(a) set-aside contracts.  As was the case with Kylee, the Laniers misrepresented the former roommate’s level of involvement in the daily management and business operations of JMR.

If that wasn’t enough, “[t]he scheme also involved sub-contracting out all or almost all of the work on the contracts in violation of program requirements.”  In other words, not only were Kylee and JML fraudulently obtaining set-aside contracts, they were also serving as illegal “pass-throughs.”

Over the years, Kylee Construction was awarded $5 million in government contracts and JMR was awarded $9 million.  The Laniers themselves received almost $2 million in financial benefits from their fraudulent scheme.

People like the Laniers undermine the integrity of the set-aside programs and steal contracts from deserving SDVOSBs and 8(a) companies.  Here’s hoping that the prison sentences handed down in this case will not only punish the Laniers for their fraud, but help convince other potential fraudsters that the risk just isn’t worth it.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

The government can terminate a contract when the Department of Labor has made a preliminary finding of non-compliance with the Service Contract Act, even if the contractor has not exhausted its remedies fighting or appealing the finding.

The 3-0 (unanimous) decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Puget Sound Environmental Corp., ASBCA No. 58828 (July 12, 2016) is troubling because it could result in other contractors losing their contracts based on preliminary DOL findings–perhaps even if those preliminary findings are later overturned.

The Puget Sound decision involved two contracts under which Puget Sound Environmental Corporation was to provide qualified personnel to accomplish general labor tasks aboard Navy vessels or at naval shore leave facilities. Both contracts included the FAR’s Service Contract Act clauses.

Under that first contract, PSE ran into SCA issues. DOL investigated and PSE entered into a payment plan to remedy the alleged violations.

The Navy, knowing about the payment plan, nevertheless entered into another contract with PSE to provide similar services. The second contract, like the first, was subject to the SCA.

Early into the performance of the second contract (referred to as Task Order 9) during the summer of 2011, DOL began a new investigation into PSE. DOL’s investigation ultimately concluded that PSE owed its workers over $1.4 million on both contracts for failure to pay prevailing wage rates, and failing to provide appropriate health and welfare benefits and holidays to its covered employees. DOL made some harsh claims, including that PSE had classified skilled maintenance and environmental technicians as laborers and had issued health insurance cards to employees who were stuck with large medical bills after they found the cards were not valid.

During the investigation, on September 1, 2011, DOL wrote to the Navy contracting officer and informed the contracting officer of DOL’s preliminary findings. A week later, the contracting officer emailed PSE and told it that the Navy “no longer has need for the firewatch/laborer services provided under task order” 9, and that the Navy was terminating the contract for convenience. That same day, as would eventually come out in discovery, the contracting officer had written an internal email stating that he was concerned about awarding PSE another task order because of the supposed likelihood that PSE would “commit Fraud against [its] employees[.]”

Five days later, PSE agreed to allow the Navy to transfer funds due on Task Order 9 to DOL to be disbursed as back wages. Shortly thereafter, on September 15, PSE and the Navy mutually agreed to terminate the contract for convenience. The Navy issued no further task orders, but awarded a bridge contract for the same services to another contractor in October of that year.

Just under two years later, on May 17, 2013, PSE submitted a certified claim under the Contract Disputes Act, claiming lost revenue of $82.4 million (based on five years worth of revenue on the contract) and asked for 4% of that number, or $3.3 million in damages. The contracting officer never issued a final decision on the claim, so PSE treated this as a deemed denial and on August 9, 2013, appealed the decision to the ASBCA.

On May 12, 2014, DOL’s Office of Administrative Law Judges reviewed the findings of the DOL investigation and concluded that DOL was right to assess the $1.4 million in back pay. The Office of Administrative Law Judges determined that PSE should be debarred for three years. PSE appealed the decision to the Administrative Review Board, which affirmed the ALJ. PSE indicated that it would appeal the ruling in federal court, although it had not done so by the time the ASBCA ruled on PSE’s appeal.

At the ASBCA, both PSE and the Navy moved for summary judgment. PSE primarily argued that the Navy terminated the contract in bad faith. PSE said that the contracting officer rushed to judgment and that the termination for convenience was effectively a termination for default, relying on the use of the word “fraud” in the contracting officer’s internal email as evidence of animus.

The ASBCA said: “Whether fraud was the best word choice is not the issue before us; the undisputed facts show that the contracting officer had a good faith basis for concluding that PSE failed to pay its employees in accordance with the contracts and that it had deceived those employees by leading them to believe that they had health insurance when, in fact, they did not.” The ASBCA denied PSE’s motion for summary judgment, and granted the Navy’s motion.

While the facts of the case are interesting, they’re not all that unique; DOL investigates and prosecutes alleged SCA violations with some frequency. What’s troubling about the Puget Sound case is that the Navy unceremoniously terminated a contractor well before any of the new allegations were fully adjudicated and before PSE had the opportunity to contest DOL’s preliminary findings.

Although PSE could still prevail in federal court, the preliminary findings were confirmed by DOL’s ALJ and Administrative Review Board. But preliminary findings are just that–preliminary–and sometimes are overturned. The ASBCA’s decision therefore begs the question: what if a future contractor is terminated based on a preliminary DOL finding that is later overturned? Does Puget Sound Environmental mean that that contractor would have no remedy?

It’s certainly a possibility. That said, some there may be ways for other contractors to distinguish Puget Sound Environmental.

For one thing, PSE had already agreed to pay back wages on an earlier contract, of which the contracting officer was aware. That earlier settlement likely influenced the contracting officer’s decision; had the DOL’s preliminary findings on task order 9 stood in a vacuum, the contracting officer might have allowed things to play out.

Additionally, in reaching its conclusion, the ASBCA wrote that “PSE has not provided us with any evidence that DOL is wrong (and that the contracting officer’s reliance on DOL is actionable.” For example, the ASBCA said, “with respect to the allegation that PSE failed to pay health and welfare benefits, if DOL was wrong and PSE had paid for those benefits, it would have been relatively simple to establish this. But, PSE has failed to provide any such evidence.” In a case where DOL’s preliminary findings were overturned, the contractor would have strong evidence that those preliminary findings were wrong–and hopefully, that it was unreasonable for the contracting officer to rely on those findings.

There is an old legal adage that “hard cases make bad law,” which means that when judges allow themselves to be persuaded by sympathy, they make bad decisions. The same can be true when the parties involved elicit little sympathy, as may have been the case here–by not providing evidence that it had actually complied with the SCA, PSE wasn’t likely to win many points with the ASBCA’s judges.

That said, the next appellant who comes before the ASBCA with a similar issue may be able to demonstrate that it did, in fact, comply with the SCA, and that DOL’s preliminary findings were wrong. If so, it remains to be seen how the ASBCA will view the termination of that appellant’s contract.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

The SBA has released a sample template mentor-protege agreement, and accompanying application information, for its new “all small” mentor-protege program.

The template calls for the parties to select from up to six categories of assistance that the mentor may provide, and requires the parties to set forth specific details about the nature of the planned assistance, the timeline for providing it, and milestones for measuring success.  The application form, in turn, requires the protege to have a written business plan, and will require mentors and proteges to complete an online training module if they apply after November 1, 2016.

The template provides six categories of assistance that the mentor may provide the protege: (1) Management and Technical Assistance; (2) Financial Assistance; (3) Contracting; (4) Trade Education; (5) Business Development; and (6) General Administrative.  The protege may select “any or all that apply to your situation.”

Once the appropriate assistance is identified, the protege must then specify its needs within each selected area, what the mentor will do to support those needs, the timeline for meeting the needs, and how to measure whether each of the needs have been successfully met “in accordance with your business plan . . ..”  The SBA’s accompanying instructions confirm that the protege must have a written business plan–and that the business plan must be submitted to the SBA as part of the mentor-protege application.

The template requires the protege to identify any other federal mentor-protege programs in which it is currently participating, and sets forth a variety of other standard terms, such as those involving reports to the SBA, termination of the mentor-protege agreement, and so on.  The template mentor-protege agreement also includes a provision in which the mentor acknowledges that it may be penalized if it fails to provide the promised assistance.

The sample template agreement has been posted on the SBA’s all small mentor-protege program website, but two other documents–the application form itself, and the instructions for applying, have been made available only to those who requested them.  (A contact sent me both documents, which I’ve linked in this paragraph, but those interested in applying should not rely on my copies of the documents, which could become outdated at any time.  Instead, visit the SBA’s website for up-to-date instructions on applying.)

The application is largely straightforward, and repeats much of the substance of the mentor-protege template agreement, including the types of assistance sought.  The application, and the SBA’s online guidance, specify that prospective mentors and proteges will be required to complete an online training module as part of the application process.  However, “this requirement will be waived for October applications only, and until November 1.”  Those applying on or after November 1 will have to provide proof of completion of the online training module.

In October, the SBA will accept emailed electronic applications.  But those who apply in October will have to “finalize the administrative process” in November by creating a profile on certify.sba.gov and uploading the application documents to that website.  Beginning in November, it appears that all applications will be submitted using the certify.sba.gov website.

The SBA’s all small mentor-protege program is now “live.”  For contractors who hope to take advantage of this powerful new program, it may be time to get started.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

If you’ve been reading SmallGovCon regularly (and I certainly hope that you have!), the name Ian Patterson may ring a bell.  Ian has been a law clerk at Koprince Law LLC since May 2015, and has been credited as the primary author of many SmallGovCon blog posts during that time, including an important recent post on the Rothe Development 8(a) case.

I am pleased to announce that Ian has been admitted to the Bar and is now an Associate Attorney at Koprince Law.  Please feel free to browse Ian’s biography for more information about the latest addition to our growing team, and check back here soon for more of Ian’s writings on government contracts law.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

Fall is officially here, and that means that the leaves are turning color, it’s apple-picking season, and football is a big part of my typical weekend (both on TV, and chasing around my three-year-old son as he scores touchdown after touchdown in our living room).

But for those of us involved in federal government contracts, it’s hard to think of the fall without also thinking of the end of the government’s fiscal year, and all that it entails.  In this, the final SmallGovCon Week in Review of the 2016 Fiscal Year, we have stories on a large software vendor pulling out of the GSA schedule, Guy Timberlake’s unvarnished–and very important–commentary on a terrible change being proposed to small business goaling, and more.

  • One of the largest software vendors in the world is telling the General Services Administration, thanks, but we can live without you. [Federal News Radio]
  • An Army procurement initiative is pursuing a strategy of “ruthless prioritization.” [Federal News Radio]
  • The General Services Administration gave the go-ahead to 109 vendors who won spots on the Human Capital and Training Solutions unrestricted and small business contracts to begin promoting and selling against the governmentwide acquisition contract. [Federal News Radio]
  • The SBA seeks comments on a proposed amendment to its regulations governing the small business timber set-aside program so that appraisals on small business set-aside sales be made to the nearest small business mill. [Federal Register]
  • Guy Timberlake takes a look at rule changes that are being implemented that he feels will kill small business participation in federal contracting. [GovConChannel]
  • A commentator offers a warning about “one size fits all” procurement solutions. [Washington Technology]
  • Six industry associations are asking the government to delay the implementation of new rules around safe workplaces and fair pay for at least a year. [Federal News Radio]

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

An offeror’s failure to provide the type of past performance information mandated by a solicitation led to the offeror’s elimination from consideration for a  major GSA contract.

A recent GAO bid protest decision highlights the importance of fully reading and adhering to a solicitation’s requirements–including those involving the type of past performance or experience information required.

GAO’s decision in Dougherty & Associates, Inc., B-413155.9 (Sept. 1, 2016) involved the GSA “HCaTS” solicitation, which contemplated the award of multiple IDIQ contracts to provide Human Capital and Training Solutions across the federal government. The solicitation was divided into two Pools based on the offeror’s small business size status. The GSA established a target of 40 awards for each Pool.

The solicitation provided for award based on best-value, and included a requirement for past experience, which stated:

For an Offeror to be eligible for consideration under a given Pool, the Offeror shall have performed six Relevant Experience Projects [REP], with four of those Relevant Experience Projects under a NAICS Code that corresponds directly to a NAICS Code in the Pool being applied for… Each Relevant Experience Project shall meet the minimum requirements prescribed in Section L.5.2.2.

The solicitation also warned potential offerors that their experience “must be substantiated by ‘evidence within a verifiable contractual document,’ adding that an offeror ‘shall only receive credit…if the Government can validate the information,’” and that failure to meet the experience requirements “may result in the proposal being rejected.” Under the terms of the solicitation, an offeror could meet the experience requirements by “submitting for each relevant experience project: a single contract; a single task or purchase order, or a ‘collection of task orders’ that had been placed under a ‘master contract vehicle.”  Finally, the solicitation required for each project that an offeror submit either a single contract/task order/purchase order, or a combination of task orders, “but not both.” The solicitation stated that “if the Offeror submits the single contract and the task order(s)/purchase order(s) awarded against it, the single contract and the task order(s)/purchase order(s) shall not be considered.”

The GSA received 115 proposals. Dougherty & Associates, Inc. was one of the offerors; it submitted a proposal for both Pools. In supporting one of its required experience projects, DAI reference a subcontract between DAI and a prime contractor under an Office of Personnel Management contract. DAI also submitted three purchase orders that had been issued under the subcontract.

The GSA sought clarification from DAI regarding this experience project. The GSA noted that the project contained three separate purchase orders and “was not identified as a ‘collection of task orders’ … It’s unclear how these 3 orders are linked.”

DAI responded by stating that “[w]e did not submit this relevant project as a collection of task orders.” DAI explained that the prime contractor had used purchase orders throughout the period of the subcontract and that “[t]he purchase orders were submitted, as required by the RFP proposal submission instructions, as contractual documents to substantiate … DAI’s scope of work, [key service areas], relevancy, period of performance and project value.”

The GSA subsequently notified DAI that its proposal had been eliminated from consideration. GSA explained that the experience project in question “contains three separate purchase orders and was not identified as a ‘collection of task orders.'”

DAI filed a GAO bid protest. DAI argued that the GSA had improperly eliminated DAI based on an unreasonable reading of DAI’s proposal.

GAO explained that the solicitation required that for each of the six relevant projects “an offeror must submit either a single contract/task order/purchase order, or a collection of task orders–but not both.” GAO continued:

Here, notwithstanding these provisions, DAI submitted its OPM subcontract–along with purchase orders issued under that subcontract. Further, DAI acknowledges that the subcontract, itself, does not substantiate the various experience requirements . . .. Finally, DAI declined to comply with the solicitation requirements regarding a collection of task orders/purchase orders–despite the agency’s notification that it was unclear that the purchase orders DAI submitted were sufficiently related.

GAO denied DAI’s protest.

Dougherty & Associates, Inc. serves as a reminder to fully read and follow the specific requirements of a solicitation to a T–including those involving experience or past performance. While this is true in any solicitation, it is especially so in the case of a large multiple-award IDIQ like HCaTS with dozens (or hundreds) of offerors. In these cases, agencies may be trying to more easily whittle down the playing field, and may be all the more inclined to reject proposals for what seem like minor variances from the terms of the solicitation.


View the full article


Koprince Law LLC

After September 30, 2016, unsuccessful offerors will lose the ability to challenge some task order awards issued by civilian agencies.

With the House of Representatives and Senate at odds over the extent to which task orders should be subject to bid protests in the first place, it’s unclear whether that protest right will be restored.

Under the Competition in Contracting Act, a protest challenging a task order award issued by a civilian agency is not permitted unless it falls under either of the following exceptions:

(A) the protest alleges that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order was issued; or

(B) the protest challenges an order valued in excess of $10 million.

41 U.S.C. § 4106(f)(1).

The statute, however, provides that the second exception—allowing protests challenging orders valued at greater than $10 million—expires on September 30, 2016. After that date, an offeror’s ability to protest a task order issued by a civilian agency will be limited to only those protests alleging that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the underlying contract.

It is important to note that this expiration applies only to task orders issued by civilian agencies; offerors can still challenge task orders issued by the Department of Defense, so long as the awards meet the same $10 million minimum. See 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(3)(1).

Congress has started discussing how to address this issue. But the House and Senate remain worlds apart: the House proposes to allow civilian task order protests again, while the Senate wants to do away with task and delivery protests at GAO altogether and instead require the task and delivery order ombudsman to resolve any complaints. H.R. Rep. No. 114-537, § 1862 (p. 348)S. 2943, 114th Cong. § 819.

In fiscal year 2015 (the last year for which statistics are available), GAO closed 2,647 cases; only 335 of them arose from GAO’s special task order jurisdiction. And as we have reported, 45% of protests resulted in a favorable outcome for the protester, either through a formal “sustain” decision or by way of voluntary corrective action. It would be unfortunate to permanently eliminate GAO’s ability to decide protests regarding larger task orders when the statistics indicate that such protests aren’t pervasive and are often meritorious.

So what’s the bottom line? Unless Congress acts, unsuccessful offerors in civilian task order competitions will be able to protest only in very limited circumstances; these offerors must instead bring their complaints before the agency’s task order ombudsman. In the meantime, affected offerors might consider discussing the issue with their elected representatives.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

I am back in Lawrence after a great trip to Huntsville, Alabama, where I spoke at the Redstone Edge Conference.  My presentation focused on the recent major developments in small business contracting, including the changes to the limitations on subcontracting and the new universal mentor-protege program.

Many thanks to Courtney Edmonson, Scott Butler, Michael Steen, and the rest of the team at Redstone Government Consulting for putting together this impressive event and inviting me to participate.  A big “thank you” as well to everyone who attended the presentation, asked great questions, and followed up after the event.

Next on my travel agenda, I’ll be in Wichita this Friday for a comprehensive half-day session on joint venturing and teaming for federal government contracts, sponsored by the Kansas PTAC.  Hope to see you there!

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

The Department of Defense is proposing a major overhaul of the regulations governing its “pilot” mentor-protege program for small businesses.

The proposed rule, which was published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2016, makes a number of important changes, including adding new eligibility criteria, placing limits on the amount of time a protege can participate in the program, adding new required elements to mentor-protege agreements, and much more.

The DoD’s proposed rule responds to the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which called for the DoD to amend its mentor-protege program.  The proposed rule makes the following important changes:

  • Purpose.  The current DoD mentor-protege program regulations (which are found in an appendix to the DFARS), describe the primary purpose of the program as being to “provide incentives to major DoD contractors . . . to assist protege firms.”  The proposed rule switches the focus, stating that the primary purpose of the program is to “[e]nhance the capabilities of eligible small business concerns to perform as subcontractors under DoD contracts and other contracts and subcontracts . . ..”
  • Mentor Eligibility Expansion.  The proposed rule would expands the universe of potential mentors.  The current definition primarily covers large businesses operating under at least one approved subcontracting plan negotiated with DoD or another federal agency.  In contrast, the proposed rule would allow any eligible large business to serve as a mentor, regardless of whether the large business is operating under a subcontracting plan.  The proposed rule would also allow small businesses to serve as mentors, if approved by the DoD’s Small Business Programs office.
  • Protege Eligibility Expansion.  The proposed rule also expands the universe of potential proteges.  The current rule requires that a protege be a small disadvantaged business (SDB), a WOSB, a HUBZone, an SDVOSB, or an eligible entity employing the severely disabled.  The proposed rule adds: (1) an entity controlled an owned by an Indian tribe; (2) an entity controlled by a Native Hawaiian organization; (3) an entity owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (which sounds a lot like an SDB to me); (4) a so-called “non-traditional defense contractor,” which is defined as “an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed any contract or subcontract for DoD that is subject to full covereage under the cost accounting standards . . . for at least the 1-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by DoD for the procurement or transaction”; and (5) an entity that currently provides goods or services in the private section that are critical to enhancing the capabilities of the defense supplier base and fulfilling key DoD needs.
  • Protege Eligibility Limitations.  It isn’t all good news for prospective proteges, however.  The proposed rule adds two new restrictions on protege eligibility.  First, a protege must be less than half of the size standard under its primary NAICS code.  In my view, this is a poor policy choice; small is small, and I don’t like the thought of restricting eligibility in this manner.  Second, a protege must be “not owned or managed by individuals or entities that directly or indirectly have stock options or convertible securities in the mentor firm.”
  • Protege Term Limitations.  In addition to limiting the universe of potential proteges, the proposed rule limits the length of time a protege can participate in the mentor-protege program.  The proposed rule specifies that “a protege firm may not be a party to more than one DoD mentor-protege agreement at a time, and may only participate in the Program during the 5-year period beginning on the date the protege firm enters into its first mentor-protege agreement.”
  • Affiliation and Control.  The proposed rule would require the mentor-protege agreement to contain seven separate “assurances” regarding affiliation and control, such as a statement that “the mentor firm does not share, directly or indirectly, with the protege firm ownership or management of the protege firm” and that “the mentor firm does not have an agreement, at the time the mentor firm enters into a mentor-protege agreement, to merge with the protege firm.”  Some of these requirements, however, appear to go too far and/or misunderstand the SBA’s rules.  For example, the DoD requires the parties to certify that they have not been parties to a joint venture during the 2-year period before entering the mentor-protege agreement “unless such joint venture was approved by SBA prior to making an offer on a contract.”  However, the SBA only approves joint ventures for 8(a) contracts; joint ventures for all other contracts (including small business, SDVOSB, HUBZone, and WOSB set-asides) are not pre-approved by SBA.  The DoD’s proposal, as written, would appear to exclude parties who have joint ventured for these types of contracts, even under the SBA’s new “all small” mentor-protege program.  Further, even under the 8(a) Program, the SBA doesn’t approve joint ventures “prior to making an offer on a contract,” but rather need only approve the joint venture before award of the 8(a) contract.  Here’s hoping DoD takes a closer look at these portions of its proposal before they become final.
  • Joint Ventures.  The new rule doesn’t prevent DoD mentors and proteges from forming joint ventures (although it doesn’t provide an exception from affiliation to allow them to do so; a large mentor would only be able to joint venture with its protege for set-aside contracts under the SBA’s all small mentor-protege program or 8(a) mentor-protege program).  However, the proposed rule specifies that “DoD may not reimburse any fee to the mentor firm for services provided to the protege firm . . . or for business development expenses incurred by the mentor firm under a contract award to the mentor firm while participating in a joint venture with the protege.”
  • Progress Reports.  The proposed rule expands on the current requirements for the mentor’s semiannual progress report.  For example, the new rule requires the mentor to specify whether there were any loans to the protege or any joint ventures between the mentor and protege.
  • Name. The proposed rule doesn’t eliminate the term “Pilot” from the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protege Program.  This “Pilot” program was created by the 1991 NDAA, so perhaps it’s time for Congress to drop that particular word from the program’s name.

The SBA’s new all small mentor-protege program has been getting all of the press recently, including on this blog.  But even when that program is up and running over the next few months, the DoD mentor-protege program will continue to offer a separate and viable way for mentors and proteges to come together–and may be of special benefit to small businesses who are more interested in serving as DoD subcontractors than as small prime contractors themselves.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

The SBA’s new “all small” mentor-protege program will begin accepting applications on October 1, 2016–but applicants will have to contact the SBA for an application form.

After November 1, 2016, the SBA will be processing electronic applications through its certify.sba.gov website.

Earlier this fall, the SBA announced that it would begin processing mentor-protege applications on October 1.  The SBA’s official website for its all small mentor-protege program now provides the following instructions:

The SBA will begin accepting applications for the All Small Mentor Protégé Program on October 1, 2016.

If you would like to apply during the month of October, please send your request for an application to allsmallmpp_request@sba.gov.  An application and instructions will be emailed to you.  In November, 2016, you will be required to finalize the administrative process by adding your profile to certify.sba.gov and uploading your application and documents into that repository.

After November 1, applicants will be instructed to go directly to certify.sba.gov to begin and complete the application process.  Watch this site for updates.

It sounds to me like the SBA won’t really be “accepting” applications on October 1, so much as providing applicants the forms to complete and be submitted in November.  For those intending to apply to the program, it would make a lot of sense to email the SBA in early October, use the next several weeks to negotiate and complete the mentor-protege paperwork, and be one of the first to submit electronically in November.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

I am wrapping up a great trip to Huntsville, Alabama, where I gave a presentation yesterday the Redstone Edge conference. As I make my way back home, it’s time for our weekly roundup of government contracting news and notes.

In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, fourth quarter spending is actually down this year, Congress takes aim at the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” executive order, and much more.

  • The federal equivalent of Black Friday isn’t what it used to be: a new analysis of federal contracting data shows that Q4 spending is declining after years of elevated levels, with more agencies spending earlier in the year. [Government Executive]
  • Supporters of President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” order are now fighting a tough new obstacle–a Congressional proposal to severely curtail the order’s scope. [Forbes]
  • The Defense Department spending on research and development has suffered historic declines during the budget drawdown that has been in progress since 2009. [Federal News Radio]
  • The General Services Administration is trying to ease industry concerns about its new transactional data requirement. [Federal News Radio]
  • A VA Inspector General audit has discovered flaws in the way the VA awarded its major PC3 contracts. [VA OIG]

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

Before deciding whether to set-aside a solicitation for small businesses under FAR 19.502-2, should the contracting officer first determine whether those small business will be able to provide the needed services while, at the same time, complying with the limitation on subcontracting?

No, according to a recent GAO bid protest decision. Instead, an agency’s determination whether a small business will comply with the limitation on subcontracting should be made as part of its award decision (following the evaluation of proposals), not during its initial set-aside determination.

Under FAR 19.502-2(b), a procurement with an anticipated dollar amount greater than $150,000 must be set-aside for small businesses where there is a reasonable expectation that offers will be received from at least two responsible small businesses and that award will be made at fair market prices. Though orders under FSS contracts (issued under FAR part 8.4) are exempt from these small business programs, a contracting officer nonetheless has discretion to set-aside FSS orders for small businesses.

In InfoReliance Corporation, B-413298 (Sept. 19, 2016), GAO considered a protest challenging the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ decision to set aside an FSS order for cloud computing services to small businesses. The contracting officer’s market research identified at least eight small businesses that were authorized re-sellers of the Amazon Web Services sought under the order.

InfoReliance, a large businesses, challenged the set-aside decision, arguing that no small businesses would be able to perform the solicited services while complying with the limitation on subcontracting. According to InfoReliance, the small businesses were thus not responsible, and the set-aside decision was unreasonable.

GAO disagreed with InfoReliance. It noted that contracting officers have discretion to set-aside FSS orders for small business concerns, and that InfoReliance did not show BOP violated any law or regulation in exercising its discretion under this solicitation.

GAO also denied InfoReliance’s argument that BOP was required to verify each small business’s responsibility before deciding to set-aside the solicitation. Before setting-aside a solicitation, an agency “need only make an informed business judgment that there are small businesses expected to submit offers that are capable of performing.” An agency need not conduct a formal responsibility analysis before setting-aside a procurement.

Neither was BOP required to analyze the offerors’ potential compliance with the limitation on subcontracting before setting-aside the solicitation. GAO bluntly said:

This argument, however, puts the cart before the proverbial horse: an agency’s determination whether a small business concern will comply with a solicitation’s subcontracting limitation is to be made as part of the award decision, and based on the particular quotation submitted.

GAO denied InfoReliance’s protest.

InfoReliance serves as a reminder that, in deciding whether to issue a solicitation as a small business set-aside, an agency is not required to prospectively evaluate offerors’ potential proposals. This makes sense: because the rule of two analysis is conducted before a solicitation is issued, an agency cannot evaluate yet-to-be-submitted proposals for compliance with subcontracting limits. To do so would, in GAO’s words, put the cart before the horse.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

When multiple unsuccessful offerors protest a solicitation, the GAO ordinarily will dismiss any and all bid protests associated with the procurement in the event one unsuccessful offeror takes its case to federal court–even if some protesters would prefer to remain at the GAO.

As one federal contractor recently learned in Colleague Consulting, LLC—Reconsideration, B-413156.18 (Sept. 12, 2016), the GAO’s jurisdictional rules prevent it from deciding protests when the outcome of the protest could be affected by a pending federal court decision.

Colleague Consulting involved a competition for a GSA contract. Colleague Consulting, LLC was eliminated from the pool of successful offerors because its proposal was deemed technically unacceptable. After learning of its exclusion, CCL filed protest with the GAO.

Separately, another unsuccessful offeror under the same solicitation filed a bid protest before the GAO challenging the GSA’s decision not to conduct discussions. After a time, that second unsuccessful offeror withdrew its protest from the GAO and refiled it before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

One of the goals of the GAO protest process is to give government contractors an administrative alternative to pursuing their bid protests in federal court. The GAO process, by design, is typically faster and less expensive than pursuing a protest in court (though not always). Despite this option, contractors also are afforded the opportunity to pursue bid protests at the Court of Federal Claims.

Because both the GAO and the Court of Federal Claims are authorized to decide bid protests, there is the possibility that different adjudicators will come to differing—and potentially contradictory—conclusions. To prevent such an outcome, the GAO’s jurisdictional regulations, at 4 C.F.R. § 21.11(b), state that “GAO will dismiss any case where the matter involved is the subject of litigation before, or has been decided on the merits by, a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Returning to Colleague Consulting, after the GAO received notice of the Court of Federal Claims protest, determined that “disposition of the COFC case could render a decision by our Office on CCL’s protest academic.” The GAO dismissed CCL’s protest, citing 4 C.F.R. § 21.11(b).

CCL filed a motion for reconsideration, urging the GAO to reverse its decision and continue hearing its protest. CCL argued that the word “matter” within  4 C.F.R. § 21.11(b) should be construed narrowly to mean that the GAO must dismiss a protest only where the arguments before the GAO and Court are similar. In this case, CCL argued, the arguments were entirely dissimilar: CCL was protesting its technical evaluation whereas the other unsuccessful offeror was protesting the GSA’s decision not to hold discussions.

The GAO disagreed.  It wrote:

While the word ‘matter’ is not defined, there is nothing in the language of the regulation, or elsewhere, to suggest that it is meant to apply to the exact narrow issue involved in the protest before our Office. Instead, the matter before the court can properly be characterized as a dispute over which companies should have remained in the competition under the GSA solicitation. While that matter remains before the [federal court], GAO will not also decide the question.

GAO denied CCL’s request for reconsideration.

In today’s contracting environment, it is not uncommon for more than one offeror to pursue a protest over the same procurement. With each offeror being able to choose where it wants to file (i.e. GAO or the Court of Federal Claims), an offeror wishing to use the GAO’s administrative processes may nonetheless be out of luck if a competitor chooses the Court.

Ian Patterson, a law clerk with Koprince Law LLC, was this post’s primary author.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

The Department of Labor has announced a new “preassessment” initiative, under which a government contract can voluntarily ask the DOL for an assessment of the contractor’s record of labor law compliance.

The preassessment program is designed to help contractors discover if they may have any trouble with their mandatory disclosures under the new Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order, which will take effect beginning on October 25. Voluntary use of the preassessment program may be a good idea for any contractor with a history of labor issues, but I wonder what will be more likely–contractors choosing to use it on their own, or being pushed to use it by prospective teammates?

In August, the FAR Council released its final rule implementing the Fair Pay Executive Order.  Under the final rule, contractors bidding on contracts over $500,000 must certify as to whether they have been subject to any judgments or determinations within the preceding three-year period under a variety of labor and employment laws, including the Davis-Bacon Act, Service Contract Act, and many others.  The information provided is to be used by the Contracting Officer as part of the overall responsibility determination. For subcontracts over $500,000, subcontractors are required to provide similar information directly to the DOL.

Effective September 12, contractors can now apply for preassessment.  The DOL explains the preassessment program as follows:

Independent of a specific acquisition, any current or prospective government contractor may voluntarily contact the Department of Labor to request an assessment of their record of labor law compliance. Using DOL Guidance, the Department will assess whether any of the prospective contractor’s violations are serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive; and whether a labor compliance agreement may be warranted. If a contractor that has been assessed by the Department of Labor subsequently submits a bid, and the contracting officer initiates a responsibility determination of the contractor, the contracting officer and the Agency Labor Compliance Advisor (ALCA) may use the Department’s assessment that the contractor has a satisfactory record of labor law compliance unless additional labor law violations have been disclosed.

To participate in the preassessment program, a contractor must fill out a short intake form on the DOL’s website, and wait for contact from the DOL. Even though the program is beginning now, DOL confirms that it is an ongoing initiative, and “does not end when the FAR Rule takes effect on October 25, 2016.”

The effectiveness of the preassessment program will depend on how it is implemented, but if it is done well, it could prove useful for contractors willing to voluntarily go through it. But as someone who works every day with teaming agreements and joint ventures, I wonder what is more likely: contractors voluntarily agreeing to go through the program, or being pushed to do so by prospective teammates?

If nothing else, it wouldn’t surprise me to see teaming agreements and joint venture agreements begin to require certifications related to the Fair Pay Executive Order. For prospective teammates who cannot certify to a “clean” record, the next step may be obvious: “if you want to team with us, go through preassessment.” We’ll see.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

For many sports fans, it’s now football season, but I’m still focused on baseball, with my Chicago Cubs clinching the Central Division title last night.  There are still more regular season games to be played, but I’m looking forward to the start of the playoffs, where the Cubs will try to end a 108-year World Series drought.

Of course, baseball isn’t the only thing on my mind these days–especially this close to the end of the government’s fiscal year.  As always, I’ve been keeping a close eye on government contracting news.  This week, SmallGovCon Week In Review includes stories on the latest developments in the Alliant 2 procurement process, insightful commentary by Guy Timberlake on a terrible new proposal for small business goaling, a major bid protest filed by Delta Air Lines, and much more.

  • According to Deltek’s Angie Petty, the pending change in administrations seems unlikely to affect federal IT contract spending. [ExecutiveBiz]
  • At the end of the fiscal year, lots of companies get the good news: “you’ve won!” One commentator offers a list of five things to do after winning a federal contract. [Washington Technology]
  • Guy Timberlake hits back at a recent proposal to count subcontracting dollars toward the government’s 23% small business goal–a move Timberlake says would “put the screws to America’s small businesses.” He’s right.  [GovConChannel]
  • The U.S. Government Accountability Office announced it will create a Center for Advanced Analytics to bring a more data-driven approach into its work. [govfresh]
  • Delta Air Lines is protesting a contract that it says undermines the “Fly America Act” that requires taxpayer-funded travel to take place on domestic carriers. [Reuters]
  • The General Services Administration is sprinting to launch four new categories of specialized cybersecurity offerings for agency purchase October 1 on the government’s largest IT services acquisition vehicle. [fedscoop]
  • Alliant 2 Unrestricted and Alliant 2 Small Business extended the due date again without the GSA giving a reason as to why. [Aronson Fed Point]
  • Contractors are urging the next President to mandate a change to improve the services acquisition process. [Government Executive]

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

To be timely, a GAO bid protest challenging the terms of the solicitation must be filed no later than the proposal submission deadline.

A recent GAO decision affirmed that, at least in some cases, this deadline applies to an offeror’s elimination from competition based on an organizational conflict of interest. Because the offeror knew of its potential conflict and the agency’s position on its eligibility before its proposal was submitted, its post-evaluation protest was untimely. GAO dismissed its protest.

The facts in A Squared Joint Venture, B-413139 et al. (Aug. 23, 2016) are relatively straightforward. A Squared Joint Venture (“A2JV”) was a joint venture formed by two companies, including Al-Razaq Computing Services. Al-Razaq was the incumbent contractor under a contract for acquisition and business support services at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (“MSFC”).

Al-Razaq’s contract allowed it access to MSFC’s procurement-related information and, in some cases, required it to be involved with MSFC’s acquisition efforts. So its contract included a limitation on future contracting that, among other things, prohibited Al-Razaq and any of its subcontractors from performing or assisting with the performance of any other contract issued by MSFC during the performance of the incumbent contract.

In February 2016, NASA issued the follow-on solicitation to Al-Razaq’s incumbent contract. The solicitation sought many of the same acquisition support functions that Al-Razaq was currently performing, and also included an identical limitation on future contracting clause.

Later in February, Al-Razaq’s Acquisition Team Lead met with the contracting officer to discuss whether Al-Razaq personnel performing the incumbent contract could assist with the preparation of the offeror’s proposal. The contracting officer told Al-Razaq that it needed to implement a firewall to separate both the information and personnel associated with its incumbent performance from those personnel preparing the proposal.

A2JV submitted its offer on March 18. But contrary to the contracting officer’s instruction, its proposal was hand-delivered to the MSFC contracting activity by (then-) current and former Al-Razaq program managers under the incumbent effort. In fact, Al-Razaq’s program manager “informed agency officials that he had been involved in the preparation of the A2JV proposal, and had spent 10-12 hours a day for the last two weeks working on the proposal.”

NASA eliminated A2JV’s proposal from competition on May 9, citing its organizational conflict of interest—specifically, its unequal access to information. Explained by GAO, “an unequal access to information OCI exists where a firm has access to nonpublic information as part of its performance of a government contract, and where that information may provide a firm a competitive advantage in a later competition for a government contract.”

Justifying A2JV’s exclusion, the contracting officer explained that Al-Razaq’s incumbent performance includes its support of MSFC procurement activities, and allows Al-Razaq “access to the full breadth of sensitive contractual and financial information necessary for the administration of MSFC contracts.” Al-Razaq was required to screen new business opportunities to avoid a conflict of interest, yet failed to do so. Its use of the existing program manager created an impermissible OCI.

A2JV protested its elimination, challenging the determination that it had unequal access to information and was required to firewall its employees. NASA, in its response, argued that the protest was untimely because it was not filed before the deadline to submit proposals.

GAO agreed with NASA. It explained that “Al-Razaq (and A2JV) was fully aware prior to closing of the fundamental ground rules by which the [] competition was being conducted.” To this point, it said “prior to the closing time for the receipt of proposals, A2JV was aware of the operative facts regarding the existence of an actual or potential OCI involving itself, as well as the agency’s position on the offeror’s eligibility to compete[.]” If A2JV believed that a firewall was not necessary, it should have protested that requirement prior to the RFP’s closing date.

A2JV’s untimely protest was dismissed.

Knowing the deadline to file a bid protest can be tricky. If a protest challenges the ground rules of a solicitation, it must be filed by the time proposals are due. As A Squared Joint Venture confirms, GAO will dismiss any protest that does not meet the filing deadline–including, potentially, one involving the government’s position on an alleged OCI.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

When the SBA evaluates a size protest, it is not required to investigate issues outside of those raised in the size protest itself.

A recent decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals demonstrates the importance of submitting a thorough initial size protest–and confirms that the SBA need not investigate issues outside of the allegations raised in the protest.

OHA’s decision in Size Appeal of K4 Solutions, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5775 (2016) involved a TSA procurement.  The TSA acquisition in question contemplated the award of a single BPA to a business holding a GSA Schedule 70 contract.  The RFQ was issued as a total small business set-aside.

After evaluating quotations, the TSA announced that Systems Integration, Inc. was the apparent successful offeror.  K4 Solutions, Inc., an unsuccessful competitor, then filed a size protest.  K4 alleged that SII had been acquired by Rimhub Holdings, Inc. in 2014, and thus was affiliated with Rimhub.  The size protest did not address the question of whether SII had been required to recertify its size under its Schedule 70 contract upon the acquisition by Rimhub.

The SBA Area Office dismissed the size protest as untimely.  The Area Office stated that, for a long-term contract like Schedule 70, a size protest may be challenged at three points in time: (1) when the long-term contract itself is initially awarded; (2) when an option is exercised; or (3) upon the award of an order, if the Contracting Officer specifically requests size recertification in conjunction with the order. (OHA has held in an earlier case that merely bidding on a set-aside order does not constitute a recertification under this rule).

In this case, the TSA had not requested a recertification in connection with the order, and there was no option at issue.  Therefore, the Area Office determined, “size was determined from the date of SII’s self-certification for the GSA Schedule Contract,” and there was “no available mechanism for [K4] to challenge SII’s size in connection with” the TSA RFQ.

K4 filed a size appeal with OHA. K4 argued that, under 13 C.F.R. 124.404(g)(2), SII had been required to recertify its size within 30 days of being acquired by Rimhub. K4 argued that its protest was timely because it was filed within five business days of when K4 learned that SII had continued to represent itself as a small business following the acquisition.

OHA wrote that an Area Office “has no obligation to investigate issues beyond those raised in the protest.”  In this case, the recertification issue raised by K4 on appeal “was not raised in [K4’s] underlying size protest.”  Accordingly, “given that [K4’s] protest did not allege that SII was required to recertify its size . . . the Area Office could reasonably choose not to explore this issue n the size determination, and [K4] has not demonstrated that the Area Office committed any error in its review.”

OHA denied K4’s size appeal.

An unsuccessful offeror doesn’t have much time to file a size protest–just five business days from receiving notice of the prospective awardee, in most cases.  But even with such a short time frame, a size protester must submit the most thorough protest possible.  As the K4 Solutions case demonstrates, the SBA has no obligation to investigate an issue that the protester didn’t raise.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

The 8(a) Program has survived a major challenge to its constitutionality–but the legal battle over the 8(a) Program’s future may well continue.

On Friday, a two-judge majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the statute that creates the 8(a) Program is not unconstitutional. While the D.C. Circuit’s decision is a big win for proponents of the 8(a) Program, the limited scope of the ruling–and a sharp dissent from that ruling–signal that the fight over the future of the 8(a) Program may not be over.

Rothe Development, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Defense, No. 1:12-cv-00744 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 9, 2016), involved the question of whether the Department of Defense could set aside certain procurements exclusively for 8(a) Program participants. Rothe Development, Inc., which is not an 8(a) participant, brought suit against the DoD, arguing that it had been improperly precluded from competing for these contracts.

Rothe challenged the constitutionality of the 8(a) Program itself. Rothe attacked the statutory provisions establishing the 8(a) Program, claiming that the underlying 8(a) Program statute “contains a racial classification that presumes that certain racial minorities are eligible for the program,” while denying such a presumption to those who are not members of those groups. Rothe argued that this classification system violated its right to equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

When a court reviews an equal protection challenge, the court will apply a certain “standard of review.”  The standard of review sets forth the burden that the government must meet in order to demonstrate that the challenged law is constitutional. For equal protection purposes, the Supreme Court has established three standards of review: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Think of these as low, medium, and high scrutiny (or tall, grande, and venti, if you prefer Starbucks terminology).

Rational basis is the lowest threshold, and applies to the review of most laws. To survive a rational basis review, a statute merely must be bear some reasonable relation to some legitimate government interest.

Strict scrutiny, on the other hand, is the highest level of review. A court must apply strict scrutiny in certain circumstances, such as where a statute, on its face, is not race-neutral. To pass strict scrutiny, the government must show the statute is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. That, of course, can be a very difficult burden for the government to meet; when strict scrutiny is applied, the court often rules against the government.

Turning back to the case at hand, the two-judge majority, after closely reviewing the 8(a) Program’s underlying statute, determined that “the provisions of the Small Business Act that Rothe challenges do not on their face classify individuals by race.” The majority continued:

Section 8(a) uses facially race-neutral terms of eligibility to identify individual victims of discrimination, prejudice, or bias, without presuming that members of certain racial, ethnic, or cultural groups qualify as such. That makes it different from other statutes that either expressly limit participation in contracting programs to racial or ethnic minorities or specifically direct third parties to presume that members of certain racial or ethnic groups, or minorities generally, are eligible. Congress intentionally took a different tack with section 8(a), opting for inclusive terms of eligibility that focus on an individual’s experience of bias and aim to promote equal opportunity for entrepreneurs of all racial backgrounds.

The majority noted that “in contrast to the statute, the SBA’s regulation implementing the 8(a) program does contain a racial classification in the form of a presumption that an individual who is a member of one of five designated racial groups (and within them, 37 subgroups, is socially disadvantaged.” Importantly, however, Rothe “elected to challenge only the statute,” not the regulation. Therefore, the court determined, “[t]his case does not permit us to decide whether the race-based regulatory presumption is constitutionally sound.”

Having determined that the statute was race-neutral on its face, the D.C. Circuit majority applied the rational basis test, not strict scrutiny. The majority found that “[c]ounteracting discrimination is a legitimate interest,” and that “the statutory scheme is rationally related to that end.” The D.C. Circuit held that the 8(a) Program’s statutory provisions did not violate the Fifth Amendment.

Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson dissented in part from the majority’s ruling. Judge Henderson pointed out that just about everyone who had looked at the issue previously–Rothe, the government’s counsel, and the lower court–had concluded that the statute did, in fact, contain a racial classification.

Judge Henderson wrote that that “section 8(a) contains a paradigmatic racial classification,” and that the court “should apply strict scrutiny in determining whether the section 8(a) program violates Rothe’s right to equal protection of the laws.” Judge Henderson did not say, however, whether she would find the 8(a) Program to be unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny test.

There is no doubt that the D.C. Circuit’s decision is a big win for proponents of the 8(a) Program. Not only was the 8(a) program found to pass constitutional muster, the applicable standard of review was determined to be rational basis—the easiest test for a statute to pass.

But some of the coverage I’ve seen of the D.C. Circuit’s decision makes it sound like the issue of the 8(a) Program’s constitutionality has been fully and finally resolved. I’m not so sure.

As the majority noted, Rothe specifically disclaimed any challenge to 13 C.F.R. 124.103, the SBA regulation establishing who is–and is not–deemed “socially disadvantaged” for 8(a) Program purposes. The majority was very clear that it believes that the regulations themselves are not race-neutral, meaning that any future challenge to the regulations would likely be decided under the much-higher strict scrutiny standard.

Additionally, there is no guarantee that the Rothe case itself is over and done. While the Supreme Court doesn’t take many government contracting cases, the recent Kingdomware decision demonstrates that the Court is willing to take on an important contracting case. And in Rothe, the D.C. Circuit’s internal disagreement over what level of scrutiny to apply, coupled with the Court’s willingness to tackle cases involving alleged race-based classifications>, might mean that Rothe ends up on the Supreme Court’s docket.

For 8(a) Program proponents, there is good reason to cheer the D.C. Circuit’s Rothe decision, but don’t break out the champagne just yet.

Ian Patterson, a law clerk with Koprince Law LLC, was this post’s primary author.


View the full article


Koprince Law LLC

Happy Friday! Here at Koprince Law, we’ve been busy posing for pictures for our new firm website (coming soon) and enjoying our annual trip to the Taste of Lawrence event last night, where we were able to enjoy food from local restaurants, hear live music and interact with the community.

Even with all that fun we have managed to bring you this edition (albeit a little later in the day) of SmallGovCon Week In Review. In this week’s edition, we bring you the latest on the ENCORE III bid protest, a look at the how a continuing resolution will affect contractors, underfunding of efforts to investigate whistleblower claims, and more.

  • A $5 billion, ten-year agreement with a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin was rescinded due to concerns over the sale of the subsidiary to Leidos. [Defense News]
  • The Government Accountability Office detailed its rationale in the ENCORE III bid protest, saying that the reason for the “sustain” decision wasn’t that the Defense Information Systems Agency wanted to award spots on the ten-year contract on a lowest-price technically acceptable basis. [Federal News Radio]
  • Federal contracting companies have come to terms with the fact that the new fiscal year will begin next month with a congressional stopgap budget measure. [Washington Business Journal]
  • A memorandum entitled Commercial Items and the Determination of Reasonableness of Price for Commercial items has been rescinded and new guidelines have been issued in its place. [Office of the Under Secretary of Defense]
  • The Pentagon’s acting inspector general told Congress this week a chronic underfunding of his office played a major role in the extensive delays surrounding its investigations into whistleblower reprisal claims. [Federal News Radio]
  • The GSA has issued a proposed regulation to incorporate Other Direct Costs into the Multiple Award Schedule program. [GSA]
  • Intelligence agencies are increasingly turning to contractors for talented information specialists and scientists as the in-house talent pool wanes. [Federal News Radio]

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

A contractor successfully challenged an adverse size determination that found affiliation under the newly organized concern rule, by establishing that its president and chief executive officer was not a former key employee of its supposed affiliate.

In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals clarified the definition of “key employee” under the newly organized concern rule, by noting that such a former employee’s title was not conclusive—instead, to be a key employee, that person had to have influence or control over the operations of the business as a whole.

Size Appeal of Human Learning Systems, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5769 (2016) involved an appeal challenging a size determination that found the contract awardee—Human Learning Systems (“HLS”)—to be “other than small” under the operative NAICS code. The underlying solicitation was issued by the Department of Labor, seeking the administration of a Jobs Corps Center in Tucson, Arizona. Serrato Corporation filed a size protest challenging HLS’s award, claiming that HLS was affiliated with various large businesses, including ResCare, Inc.

In response to Serrato’s protest, the SBA Area Office found HLS and ResCare to be affiliated under the newly organized concern rule. In essence, that rule is designed to prevent a large business from avoiding size standards by creating a spin-off firm to perform as a small business. To find affiliation based on the newly organized concern rule, four conditions need to be met:

  • Former key employees of one concern organize the new concern;
  • The individuals who formed the new concern will serve as its key employees;
  • The new concern is in the same or a related industry as the other concern; and
  • The new concern will be provided with contracts, financial or technical assistance, indemnification or bonding assistance, or facilities, by the other concern.

HLS’s president and chief executive officer—Benjie Williams—formerly worked as a Jobs Corps Center Director for ResCare. His résumé, moreover, said that he was responsible for oversight of four Jobs Corps Centers, and provided support to other Center Directors across the country. He also provided technical assistance and training to Center Directors, and participated in annual reviews for all centers. According to the Area Office, this work made Mr. Williams a key ResCare employee: “he obviously had significant influence and control of a Jobs Corps Center and later of Jobs Corps Operations.” Given Mr. Williams’ prior work for ResCare, and considering that the companies had worked together on previous procurements, the Area Office said that HLS and ResCare were affiliated by the newly organized concern rule.

HLS appealed the size determination, specifically challenging the Area Office’s determination that Mr. Williams was a key employee of ResCare. A key employee, the OHA noted, “is one who, because of his position in the concern, has a critical influence or substantive control over the operations or management of the concern.” Such influence or control must be over the operations of a concern as a whole—supervision over a relatively small portion of the company is not sufficient. “A key employee, then, is not merely an employee with a responsible position or a particular title. A key employee is one who actually has influence or control over the operations of the concern as a whole.”

Mr. Williams was not a key ResCare employee, according to HLS. Despite his “Vice President” title, Mr. Williams was not higher than the fifth tier of authority at ResCare. Mr. Williams was not in charge of any department at ResCare, nor did he supervise any employees. He had no authority to bind ResCare to any contracts, control its revenue, or make any substantive decisions.

OHA agreed that Mr. Williams was not a key ResCare employee. It noted that the segment of ResCare’s business relating to Jobs Corps Centers (under which Mr. Williams worked) amounted to roughly 8% of ResCare’s receipts. This small amount meant that Mr. Williams could not have influenced or controlled ResCare as a whole. And even within that business segment, Mr. Williams’ role was not controlling: though he “provided support” to Center Directors, he did not supervise them. Providing support “is not supervision,” according to OHA. Neither was Mr. Williams’ status as a Vice President evidence of control—“As a Vice President, Mr. Williams was outranked by at least six Senior Vice Presidents, four Executive Vice Presidents, the COO and eight other C-level officers, and the CEO.” Mr. Williams simply did not influence or control ResCare as a whole in a manner sufficient to find him a key employee.

The OHA held the Area Office clearly erred when it found HLS and ResCare to be affiliated under the newly organized concern rule.

As Human Learning Systems makes clear, the question of whether an employee is a “key employee” for affiliation purposes is fact-intensive. SBA will look beyond titles and examine the employee’s role in the organization, to determine whether that person had influence or control over the whole company’s operations.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

NAICS code appeals, while little known, can be an extraordinarily powerful tool when it comes to affecting the competitive landscape of government acquisitions.

Case in point: in a recent NAICS code appeal decision issued by the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, the appellant prevailed–and obtained an order requiring the contracting officer to change the solicitation’s size standard from 500 employees to $15 million.

OHA’s decision in NAICS Appeal of Hendall Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5762 (2016) involved an HHS solicitation for support for its public engineering platform.  HHS issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside under NAICS code 511199 (All Other Publishers), with a corresponding 500 employee size standard.

Here’s where many small businesses would throw in the towel: “500 employees?  I can’t compete with that.  I’m moving on to the next solicitation.”

But Hendall Inc. understood that a prospective small business offeror has the right to file a NAICS code appeal directly with OHA.  So Hendall filed a NAICS code appeal, arguing that the HHS had assigned an incorrect NAICS code.  Hendall made the case that the appropriate NAICS code was 561422 (Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers), with a corresponding $15 million size standard.

The incumbent contractor–which presumably was small under the 500-employee size standard, but not under the $15 million size standard–intervened in the case.  The incumbent argued that HHS’s original NAICS code designation was correct.

OHA evaluates NAICS code appeals primarily by comparing the solicitation’s statement of work to the NAICS code definitions in the Census Bureau’s NAICS Manual.  In this case, OHA noted that the NAICS Manual defines NAICS code 511199 as establishments “generally known as publishers,” who “may publish works in print or electronic form.”  NAICS code 561422, in contrast, comprises “establishments engaged in operating call centers that initiate or receive communications for others via telephone, facsimile, email, or other communication modes . . ..”

After examining the statement of work, OHA wrote that “the Contractor will not be writing, editing, or in any other way producing publications for [HHS].”  Because “the Contractor will not be engaged in activities which constitute publishing . . . the CO’s designation of a publishing NAICS code for this procurement is clear error.”

Having found the original NAICS code to be erroneous, OHA then turned to the question of what NAICS code was appropriate.  This second part of the analysis is as important as the first; OHA is under no obligation to accept the appellant’s proffered NAICS code even when OHA agrees that the original NAICS code was incorrect.  In many cases, OHA has assigned a third code–one that neither the appellant nor the agency wanted.

In this case, however, OHA wrote that “the operating of the Contact Center appears to be the major part of this procurement.”  The Contact Center, in turn, “responds to inquiries by telephone, email, fax and postal mail.”  Thus, while Hendall’s suggested NAICS code might not be the “perfect fit,” OHA concluded that NAICS code 561422 “best describes the principal purpose of the instant acquisition . . ..”

OHA granted Hendall’s NAICS code appeal.  OHA issued an order requiring HHS to “amend the solicitation to change the NAICS code designation from 511199 to 561422.”  And just like that, the solicitation’s size standard changed from 500 employees to $15 million.

The Hendall NAICS code appeal, on its surface, is a fact-specific case about a particular HHS solicitation.  But beyond that, the Hendall case is an example of the potential power of a NAICS code appeal.  By successfully appealing the solicitation’s NAICS code, Hendall dramatically affected the competitive pool for the solicitation–including, potentially, excluding the incumbent as an eligible offeror.

View the full article

Koprince Law LLC

An SDVOSB set-aside contract was void–and unenforceable against the government–because the prime contractor had entered into an illegal “pass-through” arrangement with a non-SDVOSB subcontractor.

In a recent decision, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals held that a SDVOSB set-aside contract obtained by misrepresenting the concern’s SDVOSB status was invalid from its inception; therefore, the prime contractor had no recourse against the government when the contract was later terminated for default.

Bryan Concrete & Excavation, Inc., CBCA 2882, 2016 WL 4533096 involved a U.S Marine Corps veteran with a 100% disability rating, Jerry Bryan. Mr. Bryan owned and operated a construction company, Bryan Concrete & Excavation, Inc., which he started in 1999. In 2006, BCE was hired as a subcontractor on a number of projects overseen by Arthur Wayne Singleton.

After learning of Mr. Bryan’s service disabled status, Mr. Singleton urged BCE to start bidding on SDVOSB set-aside contracts. Mr. Singleton offered to assist BCE in getting qualified as an SDVOSB, bidding on federal projects, and managing those projects. During this time, Mr. Bryan and Mr. Singleton entered into a teaming agreement, which stipulated Mr. Singleton would perform all of work on the set-aside contracts for BCE and BCE would pay Singleton for the direct costs and overhead plus 90 percent of the anticipated gross profit. Despite the impermissible pass-through arrangement, BCE self-certified in the VA’s SDVOSB database (this was before the formal verification process required today).

In 2010, the VA issued an SDVOSB set-aside solicitation for chiller and air handling equipment upgrades. BCE submitted a bid, which was alleged to contain a forgery of Mr. Bryan’s signature by Mr. Singleton.  Further complicating matters, Mr. Singleton misrepresented himself to the VA as Mr. Bryan, during discussions of the proposal. BCE was the awarded the contract.

A number of performance issues hampered the of the contract and the VA ultimately terminated the contract default. BCE filed an appeal with the CBCA, seeking to overturn the termination.

During the course of the appeal, the VA learned for the first time that the teaming agreement between Mr. Singleton and Mr. Bryan compromised BCE’s eligibility as an SDVOSB. The VA subsequently moved for the CBCA to grant summary relief for the VA on the ground that BCE’s contract was void from the start and therefore unenforceable because it was obtained by misrepresenting BCE’s SDVOSB eligibility status to the VA.

As the CBCA explained, for the VA to prevail on its motion, it had to demonstrate that BCE had obtained the contract by knowingly making a false statement. The CBCA concluded the VA had met its burden because BCE had received a VA contract by misrepresenting its SDVOSB status. Since the misrepresentation occurred before the contract was awarded, the entire award was tainted from the beginning and thus void ab initio—from the beginning.

BCE countered that even if the contract was void from the start, subsequent dealings with the VA had created implied contracts that BCE had rights under. The CBCA was not impressed by these arguments and concluded:

While BCE may believe that it has the right to enforce a new agreement that ‘adopts the terms of the agreement that has been deemed void,’ whether through equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel, or other legal theories, the law does not work that way. ‘No tribunal of law will lend its assistance to carry out the terms of an illegally obtained contract.’

BCE’s case highlights just how little tolerance there is for concerns who misrepresent themselves to gain SDVOSB set-aside contracts. Not only can the government impose fines, jail terms, and other penalties, but the underlying contract can be considered void from the outset.

Oh, and speaking of jail time–Mr. Singleton was sentenced to two years in prison back in 2013.

Ian Patterson, a law clerk with Koprince Law LLC, was the primary author of this post.

View the full article

Sign in to follow this