bob7947

I found the SCOTUS case too.  

UNITED STATES ex rel. POLANSKY v. EXECUTIVE HEALTH RESOURCES, INC.

I found this blurb a few moments ago.

Quote

U.S. District Judge Kathryn Mizelle on Monday deemed unlawful so-called qui tam enforcement of the False Claims Act, an 1863 law passed in response to defense contractor fraud during the Civil War. The qui tam provision lets private parties bring suits on behalf of the government. 

Case No: 8:19-cv-01236-KKM-SPF

12 hours ago, Mike Twardoski said:

Challenger: A True Story of Heroism and Disaster on the Edge of Space by Adam Higginbotham

The best book I've read all year.

You may also want to read:  Truth, Lies, and O-rings.

In the July issue, we told of a U.S. Army procurement of grounds maintenance services in which the agency conducted a simplified acquisition for commercial services, set aside for small businesses, to mow less than two acres of grass 18 times a year for one year with four one-year extension options. The work will include edging, trimming, pruning, and general cleanup at a small Army facility in suburban Virginia. We told how in order to do that the Army issued a 90-page Request for Quotations containing 105 Federal Acquisition Regulation and Defense FAR Supplement solicitation provisions and contract clauses and incorporating a 525-page Army grounds maintenance regulation as the standard of quality. See Simplification, Reform, Streamlining, and Innovation: The Government Is Immune to Those Things, 38 NCRNL ¶ 44.

Please read:  Postscript: Simplification, Reform, Streamlining by Vernon J. Edwards

Much is being said these days about the importance of lifelong (continuous) learning in the contracting profession. That’s a good thing, but what does it mean, and how should one go about it?

Please Read: Lifelong Learning, Cultivated Curiosity and Self-Interrogation - By Vernon J. Edwards

Rule 17 violation.

Rule 17 violation.

Rule 17 violation.

A Primer on U.S. Defense Procurement, 2 Upphandlingsrätt Tidskrift 87 (2024)

Daniel Schoeni, Space Systems Command; George Washington University - Law School, June 28, 2024

U.S. defense procurement is fiendishly complex; this article demystifies the system. It provides an introduction for nontraditional suppliers who may be reluctant to participate. To this end, it outlines the mechanics, details the legal framework, and assesses the system’s viability. The penultimate section advocates greater transatlantic participation, discusses barriers, and suggests how foreign suppliers can engage more effectively. If more robust competition is achieved, the potential payoff is immense for taxpayers, contractors, and not least the warfighter.

A Primer on U.S. Defense Procurement, 2 Upphandlingsrätt Tidskrift 87 (2024)

So, you think that Other Trasactions are exempt from bid protest jurisdiction at the Court of Federal Claims?  Not so fast.  

I posted this protest opinion on the Home Page on Friday.  If you handle Other Trasactions, you may want to take a look at the Opinion at Independent Rough Terrain Center, LLC v. U. S. and Taylor Defense Products, LLC, No. 24-160, July 16, 2024.  

Quote

In sum, the Solicitation here concerns an OT follow-on production contract for goods and services, and nothing in the OT statutes expressly removes OT follow-on contracts from the purview of this Court’s jurisdiction. The Court holds that it has jurisdiction to review a follow-on production contract that seeks to acquire property or services for the Government, whether the agency issued the follow-on solicitation under OT authority or under FAR authority. Accordingly, the Court denies the Government’s and Taylor’s Motions to Dismiss on Rule 12(b)(1) grounds because the Court finds it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the protest.

Independent Rough Terrain Center, LLC v. U. S. and Taylor Defense Products, LLC, No. 24-160, July 16, 2024.  

This is now and in our future.  Watch:  Unknown Killer Robots on Netflix.  If you still think The Magnificent Seven is only a cowboy movie - you have some catching up to do.  Also see Whoever leads in artificial intelligence in 2030 will rule the world until 2100

How's AT&T doing?

Yes!  I've been doing this for 26 years . . . before some of you have been born.

In addition to adding SCOTUS cases, there were changes to the Home and Forum Pages this past weekend.

Do you know what the changes were?

The reason I posted these 3 cases was to let you know that these cases exist and that they may affect contracting rules in the future.  Percipient may go away because it was issued by a 3-judge panel and all the circuit judges may want to take a look at it themselve (en banc).  At least you are aware of the now.  I served my purpose.

Here is a bunch of stuff from SCOTUS.  Maybe you can find where the money came from.  Also, why is it in federal court before a federal jury prosecuted by a federal prosecutor, etc.  

Snyder Docket

During the one year period ending October 2016, the City of Portage, Indiana, received benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal Program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, or other form of Federal assistance.  p. 1.

Yes, he was convicted by a federal jury for accepting a gratuity.  He appealed his conviction and the conviction was upheld by a court in the 7th circuit.

I assume the firetrucks were federally funded or partially federally funded.  Again, I assume that prosecutors used the gratuity provision to convict him because they didn't have enough to convict him of bribery.  I am not aware of any state court that went after him for either bribery or gratuity.

This is a 10-year old case from Northern Indiana.  The Chicago papers did cover the case but they want users to pay for a view.  

This was about $13,000.  As I mentioned, I believe the threshold for making this federal is too low.  

In simple terms, this opinion deals with interpretation of law.  Earlier, agencies that adminstered a law were authorized to interpret unclear parts of a law.  This opinion shifts legal interpretaion back to the courts and not agencies.  We know that agencies such as SBA, USDA, DOE, and EPA write regulations to implement laws for contracting.  How will that affect future regulations?  I don't know.  I added a blog entry that may help explain.

This entry is by Morrison Foerster LLP and entitled The End of Chevron Deference: What It Means for Government Contractors.

Joel and Neil:

Thank you for participating in this discussion.

On 7/5/2024 at 8:51 AM, joel hoffman said:

Why would the federal government define a uniform standard for post action gifts to non-federal employees when there are various non-federal standards or rules.

One of the things I do before posting any press release on the Home Page is to check if it involved federal funds.  If it doesn't, I may not post it unless the case threatened the United States or it angers me for another reason.  

18 U.S. Code § 666 (a)(1)(b) states

Quote

(b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance.

When you take funds from the federal government you follow the federal government's rules.  However, I think that $10,000 seems too low a threshold to be brought up on federal charges.  Maybe it should be $100,000 or much more.

18 U.S. Code § 666 (a)(1)(B) states

Quote

(a) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or

I disagree with the opinion of the Court.  In my opinion, the law includes gratuities.  Again, look at the $5,000. I woud raise it to $50,000 at least and we would never have heard of Portage, Indiana.

Quote

The government never established/proved that there was any action or agreement between Peterbilt and the mayor to establish a bribe or connected gratuity to influence the selection of Peterbilt.

James Snyder was convicted by a federal jury,  On appeal, the 7th circuit upheld his conviction.

This case involves James Snyder, who is the former mayor of Portage, Indiana. In 2013, while Snyder was mayor, Portage awarded two contracts to a local truck company, Great Lakes Peterbilt, and ultimately purchased five trash trucks from the company for about $1.1 million. In 2014, Peterbilt cut a $13,000 check to Snyder.

The FBI and federal prosecutors suspected that the payment was a gratuity for the City’s trash truck contracts. But Snyder said that the payment was for his consulting services as a contractor for Peterbilt. A federal jury ultimately convicted Snyder of accepting an illegal gratuity in violation of 18 U. S. C. §666(a)(1)(B). The District Court sentenced Snyder to 1 year and 9 months in prison. On appeal, Snyder argued that 18 U. S. C. §666 criminalizes only bribes, not gratuities. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Snyder’s conviction.

On June 26, 2024, the U. S. Supreme Court Justices, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. reversed the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. ____ (2024)

Quote

A special column by the Hon. Matthew H. Solomson, Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  Judge Solomson has served on the Court since 2020. He previously practiced Government contracts law in private practice, at the U.S. Department of Justice, and in-house. He is the author of COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS: JURISDICTION, PRACTICE, AND PROCEDURE, a legal treatise published by Bloomberg BNA in 2016.

Variety may be the spice of life, but in the law—and for trial courts, litigators, and anyone having to comply with particular legal rules—we crave uniformity, consistency, and predictability. Judges also try their best to get the correct outcome, although at least one party is almost certain to disagree that such goal has been achieved in any particular case. Since 2006, I have been on a journey to get the “interested party” standing question right. This is a threshold issue in so-called “bid protests” before our court. But my effort to understand and apply the law, as of late, has resulted in what one might call judicial whiplash. If you're guessing that my most recent source of neck pain is Percipient.ai, Inc. v. U.S., ——— F.4th ———, 2024 WL 2873163 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2024), you're right.

The winding road to our jurisprudential destination—and where are we, precisely?—is worth retracing as it illustrates the uncertainty the bench and bar often face when a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel decision breaks new ground or heads off in an unexpected direction.

Please read:  Take it to the Banc:  A General Plea for Increased Consistency and Clarification by Hon. Matthew H. Solomson, Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Recently, I read another example of courts expanding their involvement in the contracting process.  When I went back to post it here, I could not find the opinion.  Here is the gist of it.  It may have been the CAFC reviewing an opinion by the COFC.  Anyway, the court concluded that to protest a debarrment action, a protester must use a federal district court.  I didn't have time to check the judge's reasoning.  

My position is that all courts must be removed from the federal contracting process.  That is going to require sifting through the words in the Tucker Act, etc.  I believe there should be an opportunity to appeal any decision or opinion after we eliminate the courts from the process.

In the case of a GAO initial bid protest decision, it would go to GAO for reconsideration as an appeal - by another procurement attorney.  

I the case of a dispute, if goes from a contracting officer's final decision to one of the Boards of Contract Appeals for any appeal--and that's it.  Yeah, there is more than two BCAs but that's ok.  We don't need courts searching for more work for other courts.  

Once we get rid of the courts, we can put page limits on decisions/opinions.    

It is a longstanding belief that effective competition yields best value contract pricing and quality.  And it is generally believed that clear communication between buyer and prospective sellers is essential for effective competition. If those beliefs are true, then we must question whether the Government is getting effective competition and best value in its procurements. Let's consider a
simple case.

Please Read:  Simplification, Reform, Streamlining, and Innovation:  The Government Is Immune To Those Things by Vernon J. Edwards

I'm surprised this opinion has not drawn much attention here. It's 59 pages and is from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  

From an entry by Blank Rome LLP that explains the above opinion.  Open the Floodgates: Divided Federal Circuit Panel Expands Access to Court of Federal Claims.