Search the Community
Showing results for tags '[]'.
-
GovCon FAQs: How do I Show Service-Disabled Veteran Status for SBA?
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
Many federal contractors are familiar with or have heard of the Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) program. It is currently run by the SBA, but previously was administered by the VA. Due to the nature of the program being around for a while, and shifting from one agency to another in the past few years, undoubtedly there are some requirements that have changed, but contractors may not realize it. One of the requirements that has experienced change is one of the most basic: how you establish that you are a Service-Disabled Veteran. In this installment of our GovCon FAQs series, we tackle, how do you show or prove your Service-Disabled Veteran Status, now that the SDVOSB program is under the SBA? As the popular saying goes, sometimes to move forwards, you have to go backwards first. So, before answering this GovCon FAQ, we need to briefly discuss how an individual used to show they were a Service-Disabled Veteran when the VA was in charge of the SDVOSB program. As readers over the past few years likely remember, originally the SDVOSB program was administered by the VA, and then shifted over to the SBA. Naturally, when that occurred, the VA’s SDVOSB eligibility regulations were phased out or replaced by other regulations, while SBA created its own. Most of the SBA’s SDVOSB regulations are very similar to what the VA had. But one that did change, and may cause issues for federal contractors, is how to show you are a service-disabled veteran. (For more information on the basics of SDVOSB eligibility, check out our Back to Basics on SDVOSBs and Top Five Things About SDVOSBs) Back when the VA administered the SDVOSB program it defined “Service-Disabled Veteran” as a “veteran who possesses either a valid disability rating letter issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs” or “a valid disability determination from the Department of Defense or is registered in the Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator Subsystem maintained by Department of Veterans Affairs’ Veterans Benefits Administration as a service-disabled veteran.” This definition was removed at the end of 2022. Pay close attention to the parts in bold as we move forward. Also note, this regulation was removed and replaced with a size recertification regulation, so you must look to the SBA’s current regulations for SDVOSB eligibility questions. With that in mind, we come to today’s GovCon FAQ: How do I show Service-Disabled Veteran Status for SBA? The current SBA SDVOSB regulations define “Service-Disabled Veteran” as “a veteran who is registered in the Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator Subsystem or successor system, maintained by Department of Veterans Affairs’ Veterans Benefits Administration as a service-disabled veteran.” Notice how much shorter this is than the previous now-defunct VA definition, and removes the parts in bold referenced earlier in this post. Previously, a Service-Disabled Veteran could submit a letter from the Department of Defense or the VA, and meet the requirements for being a “Service-Disabled Veteran.” However, now a veteran must make sure its VA information is up to date and reflects accurately whether they were a Service-Disabled Veteran. According to that regulation, the SBA will interface with the VA’s system to determine Service-Disabled Veteran status, not simply request or rely on documents from the applicant. Simply submitting a Department of Defense letter or VA letter will not suffice. This may come as a surprise to some, as accepting such letters was the typical practice for many years, and logically, there is no reason for the SBA to doubt the veracity of a Department of Defense or VA letter. However, the regulation’s silence on such letters speaks volumes. You must make sure your VA information is up to date, as even such outside information and letters will no longer be accepted for SDVOSB certification. So, be careful when prepping your SDVOSB application to the SBA and do not assume that the same documentation that was expected by the VA (or that logically should show Service-Disabled Veteran status, such as a letter from the Department of Defense) will be accepted by the SBA. Instead, make sure to check in with the VA to ensure its files show you as a service-disabled veteran, as that is exactly what the SBA will look at. Also, make sure to reach out to a federal government contracts attorney, such as ourselves, for any questions on the SDVOSB program and eligibility requirements, because as you can see, there are lots of nuances to be careful of in pursuing SDOVSB status. If you have questions, please email us. If you need legal assistance, call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up here for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post GovCon FAQs: How do I Show Service-Disabled Veteran Status for SBA? first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
SmallGovCon Week in Review: February 10-14, 2025
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
Happy Valentine’s Day! Well, our KC Chiefs just couldn’t pull off that third Super Bowl win but it sure was a fun football season, all the same. Looking forward to what might be in store for next season. Now we can start leaning into March Madness, which will be just around the corner! Hope you have a wonderful Valentine’s Day and enjoy the weekend. Now here’s what’s happening in federal government contracting, including stories about agency restructuring, impacts on federal personnel, and strategies for contractors. HUBZone Program Updates and Clarifications, and Clarifications to Other Small Business Programs; Correction How USAID employees were blocked from making payments Industry laying low as DOGE digs into agencies Congress seems frozen by the Trump administration bulldozer Valadao, Turner introduce bill to end human trafficking in federal contracting Indian Affairs chair seeks protection for tribal programs amid policy changes Why contractors are fuming at what’s going on at USAID GSA ‘losing too many people,’ as leaders pursue cuts to personnel, office space and contracts State Department Removes Tesla’s Name From Planned $400M Contract Amid Musk Scrutiny Elimination of the Federal Executive Institute – Contract Implications IMPCT Group Shares Strategy for Government Contractors & Alaska Native Corporations at National 8(a) Conference GSA looks to terminate probationary employees Federal judge orders HHS, CDC, FDA to restore webpages, datasets The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: February 10-14, 2025 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
It doesn’t take too long to find a blog post where we’ve discussed SBA’s Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) full-time devotion requirement. For a service-disabled veteran (SDV) to meet the SDVOSB control requirements, the SDV must control “the management and daily business operations” of the SDVOSB. This requires the SDV to be fully devoted to the SDVOSB. As a quick refresher on the full-time devotion requirement, a qualifying veteran “may not engage in outside employment that prevents [them] from devoting the time and attention to the concern necessary to control its management and daily business operations.” Further, the veteran must be able to “devote full-time during the business’s normal hours of operation” or SBA will assume lack of control. 13 C.F.R. 128.203(i). The same rule applies for the WOSB and 8(a) programs. In past decisions, SBA was OK with a veteran juggling multiple jobs as long as the hours didn’t overlap. But a recent decision shows that it may be possible to overcome this assumption. In the past, SBA has primarily focused on “normal hours of operation” to satisfy full-time devotion. We’ve touched on a few of these cases in our blog. In one decision, the full-time devotion was met when SDV’s second job did not overlap with the SDVOSB’s normal operation hours. And here, the SDV’s second full-time job at a brewery was allowed because he worked there only on nights and weekends, not during the SDVOSB’s normal business hours. Based on these cases, it’s safe to assume that SBA will find the full-time devotion requirement satisfied when SDVOSB’s normal business hours do not overlap with the second job. However, recently, OHA considered an awardee’s assertion that its qualifying veterans were fully devoted to the SDVOSB, even though the second job had the same normal hours of operation as the SDVOSB. In Data Monitor Systems, Inc., SBA No. VSBC-423-P (Jan. 16, 2025), the protestor challenged the SDVOSB status of ELK Solutions, Inc. (ELK) in connection with DLA solicitations set aside for SDVOSBs. Relevant here is the protestor’s argument that ELK’s qualifying veterans could not devote full-time work to the SDVOSB. The protestor alleged that ELK’s involvement with a subcontractor company (Subcontractor) prevented ELK’s SDVs from the management and daily business operations that the SDVOSB required. The protestor argued that the qualifying veterans could not possibly devote full-time to ELK because of their commitments working at Subcontractor. ELK and Subcontractor were in the same line of business and had the same primary NAICS code. Thus, the protestor alleged that the two companies likely had the same normal hours of operation, meaning the qualifying veterans could not devote full-time to the SDVOSB during the normal operating hours, while also managing the day-to-day operations as Subcontractor. In response, ELK pointed out that even though the two firms shared a NAICS code, the business operations of the two were different. Subcontractor was formed in 2007, while ELK formed in 2024. This set of solicitations was the first for ELK in the federal contracting industry. Subcontractor’s experience, ELK argued, showed that Subcontractor was not dependent on the SDVs’ ongoing involvement in Subcontractor’s operations. Unlike the cases touched on in previous blogs, the normal hours of operation for the SDVOSB and Subcontract do overlap here. However, the full-time devotion rule is a rebuttable presumption (or assumption in SBA’s current wording) that can be challenged. “When a qualifying veteran claiming to control a business concern devotes fewer hours to the business than its normal hours of operation, SBA will assume that the qualifying veteran does not control the business concern, unless the concern demonstrates that the qualifying veteran has ultimate managerial and supervisory control over both the long-term decision making and day-to-day management of the business.” 13 C.F.R. § 128.203(i)(2) (emphasis added). The normal hours of operation presumption can be rebutted if the SDVOSB “demonstrates that the qualifying veteran has ultimate managerial and supervisory control over both the long-term decision making and day-to-day management of the business.” Further, because ELK was a new business, ELK argued it was reasonable to conclude the SDVOSB required less than full-time attention. Additionally, one of ELK’s SDVs had since resigned from Subcontractor and worked full-time for ELK. OHA agreed with ELK, noting that the regulation does provide that even if the SDVOSB devotes fewer hours to a business than its normal hours of operation, the SDVOSB can still meet the control requirement if the “concern demonstrates that the qualifying veteran has ultimate managerial and supervisory control over both the long-term decision making and day-to-day management of the business.” Here, “the record establishes that the SDVs have ultimate managerial authority under the Operating Agreement and have control over both the long-term decision making and day-to-day management of ELK, and so their other employment does not disqualify ELK as an SDVOSB.” ELK’s Operating Agreement established that the SDVs had ultimate managerial authority and control over both the long-term decision making and day-to-day management of the SDVOSB. Therefore, OHA concluded that their other employment with Subcontractor did not disqualify ELK as an SDVOSB. This case is a good reminder that, in some cases, the full-time devotion rule can still be met even when there is outside employment. It suggest SBA may look more kindly on SDVOSBs that are startups where other work is required to keep the business afloat. Considering the similar language, this concept should also apply to the 8(a) and WOSB programs. It also highlights the importance of providing SBA with documentation that clearly demonstrates the qualifying veteran has control over the SDVOSB. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Fully Devoted or Just Rebuttable? Qualifying Veterans Overcome Full-Time Devotion Rule first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
Touted as a “game-changer” when it was first introduced in 2016, the U.S. Small Business Administration’s All Small Mentor-Protege Program isn’t new anymore. Known now as simply the “SBA Mentor-Protege Program, it is still extremely powerful for large and small contractors alike. In this webinar, seasoned government contracts attorneys, Shane McCall & Gregory Weber from Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC, will explain the ins and out of the SBA Mentor-Protege Program, covering the program’s eligibility requirements, its potent benefits (including the ability to form special mentor-protege Joint Ventures), the application process, and common misconceptions and pitfalls. Target Audience: Small Businesses (SDVOSB, WOSB, HUBZone, 8(a), SDB) and large businesses interest in doing business with the federal government. Register here The post Webinar Event! February 26, 2025, The SBA Mentor Protege Program in Collaboration with Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC, 10:30-12:30pm EST first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
GovCon FAQs: How Should a Joint Venture Allocate Profits?
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
It is a fairly standard business practice to divide profits according to ownership ratio. And a joint venture made up of only small business venturers only pursuing small business set-asides can follow this business practice—or any business practice—to divide up its profits (limited only by any applicable state, local, or Tribal law). But SBA does have specific and strict requirements for allocating the profits of any joint venture (1) between a small business protégé and its SBA-approved large business mentor, and (2) that qualifies for and pursues socioeconomic set-asides (i.e., 8(a) Program, WOSB/EDWOSB, HUBZone, VOSB/SDVOSB) and includes non-similarly situated entities. Indeed, the SBA’s small business joint venture regulations allow a joint venture to pursue small business set-aside opportunities “so long as each concern is small under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract,” or if the joint venture is between a small business protégé and its SBA-approved mentor. For the former, the rules state, “[a] joint venture agreement between two or more entities that individually qualify as small need not be in any specific form or contain any specific conditions in order for the joint venture to qualify as a small business.” But for mentor-protégé joint ventures with an other-than-small mentor, the rules contain a long list of provisions the joint venture agreement must include and requirements the joint venture must follow. Among the required joint venture agreement provisions is one: Stating that the small business participant(s) must receive profits from the joint venture commensurate with the work performed by them, or a percentage agreed to by the parties to the joint venture whereby the small business participant(s) receive profits from the joint venture that exceed the percentage commensurate with the work performed by them, and that at the termination of a joint venture, any funds remaining in the joint venture bank account shall be distributed according to the percentage of ownership[.] And among the general requirements for such joint ventures, it states: For any contract set aside or reserved for small business that is to be performed by a joint venture between a small business protégé and its SBA-approved mentor authorized by § 125.9, the joint venture must perform the applicable percentage of work required by § 125.6, and the small business partner to the joint venture must perform at least 40% of the work performed by the joint venture. Each of the socioeconomic program joint venture regulations contain provisions echoing these as well. For example, the 8(a) Program joint venture regulations require a provision: Stating that the 8(a) Participant(s) must receive profits from the joint venture commensurate with the work performed by the 8(a) Participant(s), or a percentage agreed to by the parties to the joint venture whereby the 8(a) Participant(s) receive profits from the joint venture that exceed the percentage commensurate with the work performed by the 8(a) Participant(s); And they state, “[t]he 8(a) partner(s) to the joint venture must perform at least 40% of the work performed by the joint venture.” The Woman-Owned Small Business Programs, Veteran-Owned Small Business Programs, and Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program joint venture regulations all contain corresponding provisions. But keep in mind, both the profit distribution requirement and 40% performance of work requirement set minimum requirements only. All of the above-referenced rules for mentor-protégé joint ventures and socioeconomic status qualifying joint ventures state that the qualifying protégé and/or WOSB/EDWOSB, VOSB/SDVOSB, and/or HUBZone venturer must collect either the ratio of profits commensurate with work performed or a higher amount. And they all state that the qualifying protégé and/or WOSB/EDWOSB, VOSB/SDVOSB, and/or HUBZone venturer must do at least 40% of the work. So, the parties to a mentor-protégé joint venture or socioeconomic status qualifying joint venture can certainly agree to a different division of work and profits–even one in ratio to ownership percentage–provided they meet the regulatory minimums. But it is always wise to include language in a joint venture agreement assuring any agreed-up division of work and/or profits will always comply with the applicable regulations for the set-aside work being pursued. If you have questions, please email us or if you need legal assistance, give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up here for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post GovCon FAQs: How Should a Joint Venture Allocate Profits? first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
Federal contracting rules and laws are complicated, and the rules aren’t always intuitive. Many contractors make legal mistakes routinely, involving everything from completing SAM profiles to calculating small business size to communicating with government contracting officers. Federal government contracts attorneys, Shane McCall & Annie Birney of Koprince McCall Pottroff, will discuss the top 21 most common legal mistakes that contractors make time and time again. You will learn what these common mistakes are and how to avoid them. Please join us for this free webinar hosted by the Oklahoma APEX Accelerators. Register here. The post Webinar Event! 21 Mistakes in Government Contracting, February 21, 2025, 11:00am-12:00pm CST first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
SmallGovCon Week in Review: February 3-7, 2025
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
Happy Friday! Are you all ready for the Super Bowl this Sunday? Maybe it can be a time of unity amidst uncertainty. Enjoy your favorite snacks and cheer on the commercials (I mean the Chiefs!). Have fun watching the game and have a wonderful weekend! And now for this weeks news in federal government contracting. Stories included the role of DOGE, revamping federal agencies, and the new administration’s actions. Musk’s role as ‘special government employee’ raises ethics questions Disaster Contracting: Opportunities Exist for FEMA to Improve Oversight DEI, a mid-air crash, the federal workforce wrecking ball USAID takeover is unconstitutional, lawmakers say Senate Democrats raise concerns about Musk team access to Treasury payment systems Native leaders press Trump admin, Congress to preserve tribal nations’ political status amid federal changes Federal court blocks funding freeze in 22 states, tribal impact unclear Musk’s DOGE efforts pose a ‘constitutional crisis,’ experts warn Cutting Costs Alone Won’t Make Government More Efficient House Dem proposes bill named after Musk ending federal contracts for special government employees Date: February 18, 2025, 2025 Midwest Matchmaker The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: February 3-7, 2025 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
Executive Order for Nondisplacement of Federal Workers Rescinded
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
Indeed, Executive Order (EO) No. 14055, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, was only one of many predecessor EOs rescinded by the Trump administration shortly after taking office. But its removal has significant impacts on federal government contracting. As explained in EO No. 14055, its requirements sought to promote skilled worker retention in the federal workforce by placing requirements on contractors (and subcontractors) to provide the service employees from predecessor service contracts an essential right of first refusal of employment in successor or follow-on contracts. But EO No. 14055 has now been officially rescinded as part of the new administration’s stated policy to lift any orders it felt were “replacing hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy.” For a brief history of EO No. 14055, it was most recently signed into action by President Biden in November 2021. As for purpose and policy, it explained, at the expiration of a service contract and award of its follow-on service contract “for the same or similar services,” the government’s “procurement interests in economy and efficiency are best served when the successor contractor or subcontractor hires the predecessor’s employees, thus avoiding displacement of these employees.” It further explained: Using a carryover work force reduces disruption in the delivery of services during the period of transition between contractors, maintains physical and information security, and provides the Federal Government with the benefits of an experienced and well-trained work force that is familiar with the Federal Government’s personnel, facilities, and requirements. As for its basic requirements and their enforcement, it required that all agencies “to the extent permitted by law, ensure that service contracts and subcontracts that succeed a contract for performance of the same or similar work, and solicitations for such contracts and subcontracts, include” the “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers” clause. And it required contractors and their subcontractors to make a good faith offer of the “right of first refusal of employment under [a follow-on] contract in positions for which those employees are qualified” to all service employees under the predecessor contract and its subcontracts. It further detailed the specific process for determining the number of employees necessary for the follow-on contract and making express offers of employment to the predecessor contract’s workers before acquiring any employees elsewhere. It also contained “Location Continuity” requirements for agencies to analyze whether performance of a follow-on contract “in the same locality or localities” as the predecessor contract “is reasonably necessary to ensure economical and efficient provision of services[.]” And finally, EO No. 14055 covered exclusions for certain contracts and exceptions that could be authorized by agencies. But as of a couple weeks ago, these requirements were effectively removed from the (still very long) list of federal government contract requirements applicable to both contractors and contracting agencies. On January 20, 2025, the new administration issued EO No. 14148, “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” ordering a massive revocation of predecessors’ EOs, including EO No. 14055. The purpose and policy of the massive EO rescission is stated follows: The previous administration has embedded deeply unpopular, inflationary, illegal, and radical practices within every agency and office of the Federal Government. The injection of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) into our institutions has corrupted them by replacing hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy. Orders to open the borders have endangered the American people and dissolved Federal, State, and local resources that should be used to benefit the American people. Climate extremism has exploded inflation and overburdened businesses with regulation. To commence the policies that will make our Nation united, fair, safe, and prosperous again, it is the policy of the United States to restore common sense to the Federal Government and unleash the potential of the American citizen. The revocations within this order will be the first of many steps the United States Federal Government will take to repair our institutions and our economy. So, what exactly does this mean for federal contractors? As the Department of Labor website explains in the notice it issued under the final rule for EO No. 14055: “Pursuant to section 3(a) of EO 14148, the Department will take steps to rescind 29 CFR part 9 to fully implement and effectuate the revocation of EO 14055.” So, it seems we can expect to see the regulatory changes soon to follow–also meaning, contractors can expect to see the implementing contract clauses of the Federal Acquisition Regulations removed from federal government solicitations and contracts as well. On a positive note, federal contractors will have significantly less restrictions on whom they can hire for contract performance. On a negative one, there is no longer any systematic job security for federal contractor employees at the end of their contracts’ terms–no matter how skilled they are or how many years of experience they’ve accumulated. But keep in mind, President Biden’s 2021 issuance of EO No. 14055 was not the first time a President implemented these nondisplacement requirements. Nor was this the first time the subsequent President lifted such requirements–in fact, I previously blogged on the 2020 removal of the requirements from the FAR. Indeed, the requirements of EO No. 14055 have faced a lot of back and forth between previous administrations over the years. So, is it gone forever? Only time will tell. If you have any questions about this or any other government contracting matter, please email us or give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Executive Order for Nondisplacement of Federal Workers Rescinded first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
End of the Line for Transmutation Agreements in 8(a) Program
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
We at SmallGovCon have analyzed a number of key updates from the recent SBA final rule concerning HUBZone Program Updates and Clarifications, and Clarifications to Other Small Business Programs. But, with the rule covering many issues, there are aspects we didn’t cover everything. One small change could impact a number of companies seeking 8(a) Program certification or existing 8(a) Program Participants changing their ownership. The change affects married business owners in community property states and removes the requirement for transmutation agreements. The SBA regulations used to have requirement stating: Community property laws given effect. In determining ownership interests when an owner resides in any of the community property states or territories of the United States (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin), SBA considers applicable state community property laws. If only one spouse claims disadvantaged status, that spouse’s ownership interest will be considered unconditionally held only to the extent it is vested by the community property laws. A transfer or relinquishment of interest by the non-disadvantaged spouse may be necessary in some cases to establish eligibility. 13 C.F. R. § 124.105(k). As SBA described this rule, “a transmutation agreement, or other such document, may be necessary for the purposes of establishing 51% unconditional ownership of the applicant firm.” Similarly, the SBA 8(a) Standard Operating Procedure said that “If the non-disadvantaged spouse’s community property interest in the applicant concern is 50 percent, evidence that the non-disadvantaged spouse has waived enough of his or her interest in the community property (that is, through a transmutation agreement) that the disadvantaged spouse unconditionally owns 51 percent or more of the applicant concern. See Matter of Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. & Associates, SBA No. BDP- 197, at 3-5 (2003) (transmutation agreement not required to prove disadvantaged husband’s 51 percent ownership of applicant concern if his combined separate and community property interest in applicant concern totaled at least 51 percent).” For most married applicants living in the pertinent states, this created confusion and additional steps for the applicant by drafting such an agreement. But no more. SBA has seen the light and removed this requirement, which will make applications for these types of applicants a bit easier to put together. Why did SBA do this? SBA said that the goal was “to align the 8(a) BD ownership requirements with those applicable in the WOSB and VetCert programs.” SBA noted it received 6 comments that all supported the proposal. “One commenter also questioned SBA’s authority to require transmutation agreements (i.e., agreements between spouses relinquishing some percentage of his or her community property ownership rights in an applicant or Participant), and believed that even if that could be done it is a better policy not to require them since the commenter believed there was no specific statutory requirement for transmutation agreements. SBA adopts the proposed language as final in this rule.” There you have it. SBA applicants no longer need to know what a transmutation agreement is, and neither do applicants for SBA’s other programs. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post End of the Line for Transmutation Agreements in 8(a) Program first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
SmallGovCon Week in Review: January 27-31, 2025
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
It’s Friday and time for another week in review, on this last day of January. We are so excited that our Kansas City Chiefs will be playing, once again, in the Super Bowl. We’re looking forward to the championship game against an impressive Philadelphia Eagles team, and a chance for the Chiefs to become the first team in NFL history to win three in a row. It should be a fun game. And now we turn from football to this week in federal government contracting news, there is news of many executive orders, fundings freezes, and turnover of inspector generals. And when we say orders, freezes, and turnovers, we’re not talking about getting the snacks ready for next Sunday. Inspectors general may be fired, but that’s not the end of the story Breakneck pace of executive orders and lagging, unclear guidance leave contractors guessing Musk visits and asserts growing influence at GSA Confusion over Trump funding freeze continues as court weighs new restraining order Virginia Contractor to Pay Over $2.6M to Settle Allegations of Falsely Obtaining Small Business Contracts Defense contractor executive pleads guilty to bribery scheme involving $100 million in government contracts Small Business Webinar “Do’s and Don’ts of preparing a GSA Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) Offer” Department of Defense Statement Clarifying Defense Contracting Agency contracting goals instruct certain federal agencies in how much of their contracting dollars should be awarded to small businesses. Contracts For Jan. 29, 2025 Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: January 27-31, 2025 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
Federal contracting rules and laws are complicated, and the rules aren’t always intuitive. Many contractors make legal mistakes routinely, involving everything from completing SAM profiles to calculating small business size to communicating with government contracting officers. Federal government contracts attorneys, Nicole Pottroff & Annie Birney of Koprince McCall Pottroff, will discuss the top 21 most common legal mistakes that contractors make time and time again. You will learn what these common mistakes are and how to avoid them. Please join us for this free webinar hosted by the Alaska APEX Accelerators. Register here. The post Webinar Event! Top 21 Legal Mistakes in Federal Government Contracting, February 13, 2025, 12:00pm-1:30pm CST first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
Back in 2017, in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Congress passed a limited program for GAO protests of Department of Defense contracts where certain large contractors would have to reimburse the DoD for the cost of processing unsuccessful GAO protests. We reviewed that rule here. Congress repealed that provision with the 2021 NDAA. Now, the “losing protester pays” system is back with a vengeance. The 2025 NDAA creates a similar provision, but now the language appears to apply to all businesses that bring an unsuccessful GAO protest on a DoD contract. Coupled with enhanced pleading standards and an increase to the task order value jurisdiction requirement, this will make GAO protests of DoD contracts more burdensome on federal contractors. With that said, it is important to note: The 2025 NDAA only orders that the GAO and DoD produce a proposal that addresses the above for review by Congress. It does not absolutely mandate that the government then adopt said proposal. We look at these changes in this post. Section 885 The 2025 NDAA came into effect on December 23, 2024. This bill, as it is each year, is massive, but we are going to focus on Section 885, “Proposal for Payment of Costs for Certain Government Accountability Office Bid Protests.” This provision notes that, within six months of the passing of the 2025 NDAA, the head of GAO and the Secretary of Defense must prepare a proposal for some new rules for GAO protests of DoD contracts. Note that the use of term proposal leaves some room for the committee to consider, alter, or reject said proposal prior to enactment. First, the elephant in the room: the proposal must include a process for an unsuccessful protester to pay the government and the awardee’s costs in a GAO bid protest of a DoD contract. The provision explains that GAO and DoD must prepare a chart of the average costs that the government incurs for a protest of a DoD contract relative to the value of that contract. In other words, the government has to figure out how much it loses on average from a protest for larger contracts as opposed to smaller contracts and basically create a sliding scale. Then the GAO and DoD have to determine the lost profit rate that results from a protest for DoD contract awardees that are protested, during the period of stay for the protest. Finally, GAO and DoD must come up with a system for how an unsuccessful protester will need to pay these costs to the government and awardee, based on the charts they produce. What’s notable here is that, unlike the old system that was repealed, it does not matter what size the protester is: This applies to small businesses as it does large businesses. Second, this proposal must include “enhanced pleading standards.” The language in the 2025 NDAA on this matter is quite vague: The process for enhanced pleading standards described in this subsection is a process under which the Comptroller General shall apply enhanced pleading standards, as developed by the Comptroller General in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, to an interested party with respect to a covered protest submitted by such interested party for which such interested party is seeking access to administrative records of the Department of Defense, prior to making a determination with respect to such access. There is no description as to what these enhanced pleading standards will entail, just that, apparently, it increases the burden for protesters seeking access to administrative records of the DoD. It is safe to say it will be more difficult to get DoD records in GAO protests once these standards are prepared, but, how much more difficult is not clear at this time unfortunately. Given that in some cases it was already difficult to get records at GAO, this might not change the average protester’s experience in a GAO protest. Finally, the task order jurisdiction bar for GAO protests of DoD task orders is increasing from $25,000,000 to $35,000,000. This amends 13 U.S.C. § 3406. Under that statute, you can only bring a protest of a DoD task order to GAO (and cannot bring such a protest at COFC) if A) the task order is valued over the figure in the statute or B) if the protest is that the order goes beyond the scope, period of performance, or maximum value of the underlying main contract. What this means is that if the task order in question has a value of less than $35,000,000, GAO will not hear any protests of that award unless the protest is that the order essentially goes beyond the underlying contract. We have explored how this rule works, both for DoD awards and for civilian awards (which have a threshold of $10,000,000 and fall under 41 U.S.C. § 4106) in some previous posts. Observations One important thing to note first: This all only applies to DoD contracts. If the contract in question isn’t from DoD or the military, these changes will not affect such contracts. So, if and when these rules are finalized, do not panic if the contract you’re looking at protesting is from, say, the Department of Agriculture or the Department of the Interior. With that observation out of the way, we must respectfully question the plan to have protesters pay the costs of unsuccessful GAO protests of DoD contracts. First, the fact it applies to all businesses regardless of size means this system will be far more burdensome on small businesses than large businesses, as the latter can much more easily afford such costs. This will disproportionately discourage small businesses from protesting. Similarly, we note that this cost rule does not discriminate based on how valid the protest is. When it comes to recovering costs for a successful protest, GAO only awards those to a protester when the protest is “clearly meritorious.” This is a high standard that basically means that if the government’s position was nonetheless reasonable despite losing, no costs will be awarded to the protester. But, with this new rule, even protests that raise serious arguments on previously undecided issues will be treated the same as frivolous protests when it comes to forcing the protester to pay if the protest is unsuccessful. Coupled with the unclear “enhanced pleading standards” and higher task order jurisdiction bar, this feels like the use of a sledgehammer to crush an ant. Again, one final reminder: The 2025 NDAA only orders that the GAO and DoD produce a proposal that addresses the above for review by Congress. It does not absolutely mandate that the government then adopt said proposal. As such, there is a possibility that Congress reviews said proposals and rejects or alters the same. When this proposal is submitted, we advise contractors to get their thoughts to Congress as soon as possible to get a say on the same. Questions about this post? Email us. Legal assistance needed for a federal government contracting issue? Call us at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Making Unsuccessful Protesters Pay? Enhanced Pleading Standards? A Look at Proposed Changes to GAO Protest Rules Under the 2025 NDAA first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
The FAR Council recently published a final rule dealing with small business certification issues, effective on January 17, 2025. SBA had updated its recertification rules as discussed in this SmallGovCon.com blog. This final rule came about to ensure that certain parts of the FAR and SBA rules are consistent. The change? Adding additional circumstances that require an awardee to rerepresent its size and/or socioeconomic status for orders placed under a multiple-award contract (MAC) per FAR 52.219-28(c) Postaward Small Business Program Rerepresentation. With this revision, a contractor that represented its status before contract award, will be required to rerepresent its size and/or socioeconomic status for an order placed under a MAC, in circumstances where rerepresentation was not previously required, to ensure that orders set aside for small businesses are awarded to qualified small businesses. This means that an entity that no longer qualifies as small under the applicable NAICS code associated with an order, or that no longer qualifies for a particular socioeconomic category, will not be eligible for orders placed under certain multiple-award contracts where the MAC was not originally restricted to the same small business certification as the order. The prior language of FAR 52.219-28(c) only required rerepresentation of size and/or socioeconomic status when the contracting officer requested it for task orders under MACs set aside for any of the SBA’s programs mentioned in FAR 19.000(a)(3). FAR 52.219-28(c) will now state the following: If the Contractor represented its status as any of the small business concerns identified at 19.000(a)(3) prior to award of this contract, the Contractor shall rerepresent its size and socioeconomic status according to paragraph (f) of this clause or, if applicable, paragraph (h) of this clause, for the NAICS code assigned to an order (except that paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this clause do not apply to an order issued under a Federal Supply Schedule contract at subpart 8.4)— (1) Set aside exclusively for a small business concern identified at 19.000(a)(3) that is issued under an unrestricted multiple-award contract, unless the order is issued under the reserved portion of an unrestricted multiple-award contract ( e.g., an order set aside for a woman-owned small business under a multiple-award contract that is not set-aside, unless the order is issued under the reserved portion of the multiple-award contract); (2) Issued under a multiple-award contract set aside for small businesses that is further set aside for a specific socioeconomic category that differs from the underlying multiple-award contract ( e.g., an order set aside for a HUBZone small business concern under a multiple-award contract that is set aside for small businesses); (3) Issued under the part of the multiple-award contract that is set aside for small businesses that is further set aside for a specific socioeconomic category that differs from the underlying set-aside part of the multiple-award contract ( e.g., an order set aside for a WOSB concern under the part of the multiple-award contract that is partially set aside for small businesses); and (4) When the Contracting Officer explicitly requires it for an order issued under a multiple-award contract, including for an order issued under a Federal Supply Schedule contract (see 8.405-5(b) and 19.301-2(b)(2)). Due to this change, contracting officers will be required to verify the size and/or socioeconomic status of a small business concern prior to issuing an order under multiple-award contracts, but only in those specific situations subject to this rule. However, this will not affect the common scenario where the order and the MAC have the same small business set-aside, such as where both are SDVOSB. And, notably, the agencies will no longer be able to continue counting awards of task orders on MACs towards their small business or socioeconomic contracting goals when awarded to an awardee that does not meet the size and/or socioeconomic status at the time of offer submission for the task order. This change has the potential to cause contracting officers to set-aside contracts to look further into the future when choosing awardees. For example, there may be a negative impact on awarding contracts to participants that are nearing completion of their time in the 8(a) Program, because the agency would no longer be able to count the award to an 8(a) Program participant after the awardee graduates from the 8(a) program. This could also affect awards to contractors that are close to the size limit on the contract, because any order awarded after the awardee exceeds the size limit of the contract would not count towards the agency’s small business subcontracting goal. Items of note: This revision expands rerepresentation requirements to acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold ($250k), acquisitions for commercial products (including commercially available off-the-shelf items), and acquisitions for commercial services. This revision only applies to solicitations for contracts issued on or after the effective date of the final rule. That means, awardees of any solicitation that is issued prior to January 17, 2025 for a MAC will not be required to rerepresent their size and/or status. Exceeding the size limit, or losing a socio-economic status after initial awards of the MAC will not disqualify an offeror from award of an order except in the specific scenarios outlined above. “A small business concern awarded a multiple-award contract that was set aside for small businesses may continue to perform under such a contract as a small business concern throughout for the life of those contracts (e.g., for the base period and up to four additional option years).” Contracting officers will still have the discretion to require verification of size and/or socioeconomic status on orders for MACs that fall outside of this rule. This will apply to competitive acquisitions set aside under and of the SBA’s programs, including small business, 8(a) Program participants, HUBZone small businesses, SDVOSBs, WOSBs, and EDWOSBs. It does not apply to GSA Schedules, as the rule states: “except for an order issued under a Federal Supply Schedule contract.” This rule has no impact on sole-source awards. It will be interesting to see if this amendment causes any changes in the way that MACs are awarded, whether for an initial award or for orders. There is certainly potential for a negative affect on offerors close to size limits, or in danger of losing their socioeconomic status. But there is also great potential for this to ensure that awards set aside for small businesses or any socioeconomic status go to businesses that meet those requirements. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the updated SBA rule to make its way into the FAR. What are your thoughts? Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post DoD, GSA, and NASA Establish New Size and Status Rerepresentation Rules first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
SmallGovCon Week in Review: January 20-24, 2025
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
Happy Friday, Readers! We hope you had a great week and are ready for the weekend. We are looking forward to our weather finally warming up and melting off some of this snow in the next few days. The respite from the very cold temperatures will be a nice change. Have a good weekend in your neck of the woods! This week in federal government contracting… SBA Administrator Guzman Outlines New MySBA Digital Experience Transforming How Business Owners Interact with SBA A regular Federal Drive guest departs for a job in the new administration Trump will require agency plans to slash workforce as he lays out hiring freeze details Military contractor to pay $1.2 million to United States to settle False Claims Act allegations GovCon Index Marks 1st Weekly Win in 2025, Posts 7th Consecutive Daily Gain Hiring Freeze GSA will ‘recommit’ to ‘founding purpose,’ says acting administrator Contractors and agencies alike await a new Trump reality Trump administration directs all federal diversity, equity and inclusion staff be put on leave Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity Trump revives executive order aiming to strip some federal employees of civil service protections OPM creates email account to report suspected diversity and inclusion initiatives The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: January 20-24, 2025 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
GAO Says: Solicitation + Q&A = Material Requirements
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
Recently, GAO sustained a bid protest, finding that the awardee did not meet the material requirements of the solicitation. The GAO held that the requirements of the solicitation included an agency’s answer during the question and answer (Q&A) period. In ATP Gov, LLC, the United States Air Force (the Agency) issued a solicitation for portable satellite terminals, related equipment, and associated services. Two of the solicitation’s requirements are relevant here. First, the terminals were required to “provide auto-tracking/auto-acquire functionality” that offerors would verify through demonstration. Second, the terminal assembly was required to be Wideband Global Satellite Communications (WGS) certified. The certification would be verified upon inspection. During the Q&A period, one offeror sought clarification on the timeline for the WGS certification. The offeror asked, “[d]oes the terminal need to [be] WGS certified at time of proposal submission?” The Agency responded, “Yes.” The awardee proposed a base terminal that was WGS certified at the time of proposal submissions. However, the terminal would need modifications to provide the required auto-tracking capability. The Agency found that the awardee’s proposal met the solicitation’s requirements at the time of submission. ATP Gov, LLC (the protester) filed a protest, claiming that the awardee’s proposed terminal did not meet the material requirements of the solicitation because modifications to the terminal would require WGS re-certification. Understanding the protester’s argument requires a bit of a breakdown of the facts. But–stay with me here. Consider this your brain exercise for the day! Protester’s Argument If the awardee’s terminal is not modified, then it will not be able to later meet the solicitation’s requirement for auto-tracking capabilities. If the terminal is modified, then WGS re-certification is required. If WGS re-certification is required, then the awardee’s proposed terminal was not WGS certified at the time of proposal submission, as required by the Q&A. The main point of contention in this protest was the relationship between the material requirements in the solicitation and the Agency’s answer during the Q&A period. Requirements Solicitation required auto-tracking capability verified through demonstration Solicitation required WGS certification verified upon inspection Agency’s answer during Q&A required WGS certification at the time of proposal submission The Agency argued that the solicitation was silent on when the terminal was required to be WGS certified. Rather, the solicitation only noted that the WGS certification would be verified by inspection. The Q&A, the Agency stated, did not change the solicitation’s underlying requirement that the certification was only required at the time of inspection. If the solicitation only required verification by inspection, then the awardee’s proposed base terminal was acceptable because it did not have to be WGS certified at the time of submission. GAO found the Agency’s reading of the solicitation and its requirements unreasonable, stating: “[t]he agency’s answer formed part of the solicitation and clearly explained to offerors that the solicitation’s requirements that the terminal assembly be WGS certified must be met at the time of proposal submission.” GAO made it clear that Q&As amount to amendments to the solicitation, and thus form part of the solicitation’s requirements. Further, GAO found that the Q&A was not inconsistent with the solicitation. The terminal was required to be certified both at the time of submission AND would be verified through inspection. Ultimately, GAO concluded that the Agency made an award to an offeror that was ineligible for award because the awardee’s proposed modified terminal assembly was not certified at the time of proposal submission. Therefore, it did not meet the material requirements of the solicitation. We’ve made it through the facts and reached a simpler – but informative – lesson: An agency’s response during the Q&A period could include crucial information for meeting material requirements of a solicitation – even if it wasn’t included in the original solicitation document. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post GAO Says: Solicitation + Q&A = Material Requirements first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
When contractors think of GAO Bid Protests, most think of the process from the perspective of the protester. However, the contract awardee is not without a voice in the bid protest process at GAO. While the agency will generally defend the contract award decision regardless, the awardee itself can also have a seat at the table. In this installment in our “Why File” series, we will explore why a contractor would want to file an intervention in a GAO Bid Protest. First, what even is an intervenor in a GAO bid protest? The GAO’s bid protest regulations define “intervenor” as: “an awardee if the award has been made or, if no award has been made, all bidders or offerors who appear to have a substantial prospect of receiving an award if the protest is denied.” So, you can “intervene” in a Bid Protest if you are an awardee or could get an award if the bid protest is denied (i.e., the protester loses). You typically cannot intervene when a protester challenges solicitation terms, though. That brings us to the question on everyone’s mind, why file as an intervenor at GAO? There are a multitude of reasons a contractor would file as an intervenor at GAO, but the biggest reasons are: Access to Documents; Ability to File Pleadings; and Ability to Assist Agency Counsel. Access to Documents As you likely know, typically, bid protests will contain protective orders. Thus, most, if not all, of the pleadings and information involved in the bid protest will not be releasable to the public, at least not without redactions. However, if a contractor who has been designated for an award, (or is in line for an award), wants to view confidential protest-related information, the contractor can file an intervention request with GAO. Intervenor attorneys can then apply to be admitted to the protective order. Once GAO admits the intervenor counsel to the protective order, admitted counsel can review all the documents and filings immediately without redactions. Of course, they can’t share those documents or protected information with their clients or those not admitted, but they will be able to represent the intervenor’s interests with the full information involved. Without intervening, this would not be possible. File Pleadings An intervenor is not just a silent participant. Under GAO regulations, intervenors (along with the agency) can ask for dismissal of a protest . GAO regulations also don’t limit who can file comments on the agency report, simply saying “Comments on the agency report shall be filed within 10 days after the agency has filed the report.” This gives the intervenor the ability to argue for dismissal of the protest, and a way to directly argue against the protest allegations and in support of the agency’s evaluation in the comments stage of the bid protest. Consequently, not only does an intervenor have a seat at the table, but they also have the ability to directly combat the protester in filings. Absent intervention, an awardee or potential awardee has no right to be heard in the protest. Assisting Agency Counsel Finally, while not as direct as filing a pleading in response to the protest, intervenors can still impact the agency as it works to protect its award decision. Intervenors, once admitted to the protective order, can discuss the protest with agency counsel. The goal of these communications is to discuss arguments against the protest, previous filings, protest grounds, the planned agency report, and overall bid protest strategy. This often will allow the agency to focus on arguments it deems the strongest, and potentially have the intervenor spend more time on additional portions of the protest the agency may not have as much time to work on by itself. Or, the intervenor can simply provide its opinion to the agency on potential next steps from the perspective of a contractor. The bottom line is, that when there is an intervenor, the defense of the agency’s contract award decision now has even more parties to help brainstorm and fight against the protest, as well as to provide awardee’s input on arguments. While these are all great advantages and reasons to file as an intervenor at GAO, there are some other items to keep in mind. First is timing. Often, intervenors will wait too long to file, and miss out on the timelines to file pleadings, such as comments or dismissals. So, intervening is something that can squander its advantages if you wait too long to be an intervenor. Additionally, this concept is not unique to GAO bid protests. The United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) also includes the ability to intervene, and those intervenors also get to access filings and agency documents, and to draft pleadings. Hopefully, next time you hear that your contract award may be protested at GAO, you can now answer the question of “why should we file as an intervenor?” And once you answer that question, if you do want to intervene, make sure to reach out to a federal contracting attorney, such as ourselves, to discuss the process further and get your seat at the bid protest table. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Why File: A GAO Bid Protest Intervention first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
The proposed OCI rule implementing the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act has just dropped. We started discussing the Act back in early 2023 after it was passed in late 2022, and I outlined my predictions at the Court of Federal Claims judicial conference. This 108-page rule will propose some major changes for organizational conflicts of interest. Here is a summary of some of the big changes proposed in this new rule. Stay tuned for more updates on SmallGovCon. The proposed rule was published on January 15, 2025 with comments due on March 17, 2025. Here are some initial thoughts on some of the important changes proposed in this rule, as well as a recap of the original statute and my earlier predictions. The OCI Statute The Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act was made effective on December 27, 2022. The entire law, however, was less than two pages. It focused on a few key aspects: Examples. Congress would really like the FAR to focus on additional examples Definitions. the FAR must update “definitions related to specific types of organizational conflicts of interest, including unequal access to information, impaired objectivity, and biased ground rules.” OCI Disclosures and Procedures. New rules were requested to “update such procedures as needed to address agency-specific conflict of interest issues.” As well as add more procedures to require contractors “to disclose information relevant to potential organizational conflicts of interest.” Private Sector. The law specifically required “an example of the awarding by a Federal regulatory agency of a contract for consulting services to a contractor if employees of the contractor performing work under such contract are permitted by the contractor to simultaneously perform work under a contract for a private sector client under the regulatory purview of such agency.” Professional Standards. One other specific update was for the new rules to “take into consideration professional standards and procedures to prevent organizational conflicts of interest to which an offeror or contractor is subject.” Predictions for New Rules Here was my earlier prediction on some ways in which the FAR Council might implement these updates. Definitions. Incorporating definitions of the various categories of OCIs from existing case law. Private Sector. The current examples in FAR 9.508 don’t address the specific issue of work involving a “private sector client.” One likely update is that agency OCI solicitation clauses will now specifically require disclosure and mitigation of potential conflicts involving private sector clients. And there should be additional examples dealing with this type of scenario, as the current examples only refer to a specific licensing situation. Professional Standards. Current FAR 9.506 simply commands contracting officers to review OCIs, but with little guidance for agencies. While it’s hard to know exactly what Congress is referring to, it could mean professional standards such as those established by industry groups including public accounting rules. Those standards are already applicable to review of certain financial statements for publicly traded companies under 17 C.F.R. § 210.10-01. Other sources of standards could include business standards, legal, IT, and other professional groups. Will the proposed rule specifically list examples, or will it leave it up to federal contractors to address how professional standards fit into their OCI mitigations plans? The New Proposed OCI Rule Revamping of the FAR and General Policy Interestingly, there was a proposed OCI issued back in 2011, but it was withdrawn ten years later due to “the amount of time that had passed since publication of the proposed rule.” This rule proposes to move the entire OCI regulatory scheme from current FAR subpart 9.5 to a new subpart in FAR part 3. It will also change the title of the part from “Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest” to “Business Ethics and Conflicts of Interest.” While OCI “requirements are applicable to most procurements, acquisitions below the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) and those for commercial products are exempt, as well as subcontracts for commercial products or commercial services.” Interestingly, the “rule directs contracting officers to explore all available methods to address an OCI based upon unequal access to information before selecting disqualification of an offeror to alleviate unfair competitive advantage. The rule will note that “Incumbent contractors may have a natural advantage that is not unfair when competing for follow-on contracts because of knowledge and expertise developed during contract performance.” Definitions The proposed rule will expand the list of definitions to include definitions of ““unequal access to information, impaired objectivity, and biased ground rules” and these will generally follow the accepted definitions from the case law. These definitions will be added to the general FAR definition section in FAR 2.101. We predicted this, and it makes sense for contractors not to have to sift through examples and case law to find the pertinent categories of OCIs. There is a new definition for firewall, stating: Firewall means a barrier against the unauthorized flow of information. Firewalls may consist of a variety of elements, including organizational and physical separation; facility and workspace access restrictions; information system access restrictions; independent compensation systems; and individual and organizational nondisclosure agreements. Examples The rule will provide “illustrative examples” for potential OCIs that could result from “relationships of contractors with public, private, domestic, and foreign entities” at new section 3.1204. The rules will focus on impaired objectivity and unfair competitive advantage. Unequal access to information and biased ground rules are both subsets of unfair competitive advantage. Many of these examples look quite similar to the existing examples found in FAR 9.508. The old rule had 9 examples and the new rule has about 15 examples. Here are a few that appear different from the old ones: “A contractor is assisting an agency in developing policies or regulatory procedures and the contractor or one of its affiliates may, at some future point, be governed by or subject to (or be a subcontractor or consultant to an entity governed by or subject to) such policies or regulatory procedures.” “A contractor is providing consulting services to an agency that is responsible for regulating an industry and the contractor is performing work under a contract for a public or private sector client that is regulated by that agency. Organizational conflict of interest is more likely to occur if the contractor’s employees are simultaneously performing work under both contracts.” “A contractor is providing support to an agency involving a subject area or issue while it is also performing work for other entities with a competing interest involving the same subject area or issue. For example, a contractor assisting an agency with implementing legislation or regulations may have a conflict if the contractor is also assisting industry with compliance on that same legislation or regulations.” “A contractor is providing enforcement support to an agency (e.g., cost recovery, litigation) while also assisting or representing parties subject to those activities. In addition, when a contractor supports enforcement activities for an agency, and those enforcement activities continue beyond the life of the contract, such conflicting client relationships could continue to jeopardize enforcement actions for a time even after the contract ends, especially if the contractor had access to sensitive information about the agency’s enforcement or litigation strategy.” “A contractor is conducting research for an agency, but that contractor or its researchers has financial or non-financial ties to a foreign entity that seeks capability or advantage related to the topic of that research and is likely to exert undue influence on the contractor. Undue influence in this context describes a situation in which an entity that is not party to a contract, through financial support, position of authority, or other ties, persuades the contractor to take actions that it would not have taken otherwise, such as taking the research in a certain direction or engaging in unauthorized information-sharing with other parties.” “A contractor is providing services to an agency related to national security or foreign policy matters, but that contractor is also providing similar services to a foreign government or other foreign entity (e.g., foreign state-owned or private enterprise) with a competing or opposing interest in those matters, which could result in the foreign entity having undue influence on the contractor’s performance on the contract.” “A contractor is providing a product or service to the Government and employs a former Government employee who was involved in developing the requirement for the product or service as part of such employee’s Government job.” Methods and Responsibilities The FAR council describes methods to address OCIs: “OCIs and their associated risks may be addressed by means of avoidance; limitations on future contracting; mitigation; and/or the Government’s assessment that the risk inherent in the conflict is acceptable.” Drafting the solicitation can help to avoid OCIs: “such as developing a statement of work that does not require contractors to utilize subjective judgment and, when required, soliciting advice from more than one contractor rather than relying on the advice of a single contractor.” Limitations on future contracting to address OCIs can be needed when “the contractor’s work on a current contract could be impaired by virtue of its expectation of future work” but there should be a “reasonable duration” and “a specific end date for the limitation.” A new requirement is for mitigation plans to become part of a contract, and the proposed rule will require that “the offeror-submitted and Government-approved mitigation plan be incorporated into the contract.” “The mitigation plan should provide sufficient details commensurate with the complexity of the organizational conflict of interest and the value of the acquisition.” Mitigation techniques can include things like Using a team member to perform some portion of work but there must be “controls to ensure that the entity with the organizational conflict of interest has no input or influence on how the party without the organizational conflict of interest performs the work.” Use of “structural or behavioral barriers, internal controls, or both.” “However, a firewall intended to limit the sharing of information may not adequately address an organizational conflict of interest regarding an affiliate.” Where an agency weighs the risk of an OCI, it must “assess whether some or all of the performance risk is acceptable because the risk is outweighed by the expected benefit of having the offeror perform the contract, and whether the performance risk is manageable.” For the contracting officer, there are guidelines for evaluating OCIs and managing them. “While existing case law requires the contracting officer to determine that a conflict has been adequately mitigated, the proposed rule allows the contracting officer to accept a risk when the conflict results from impaired objectivity and the risk to performance is low.” A contracting officer will have to consider OCIs at time of award and when issuing an order. The CO may review aspects such as (1) “extent to which the contract requires the contractor to exercise subjective judgment and provide advice”; (2) “whether it is expected to occur only once or twice during performance or to impact performance throughout the entire contract”; (3) agency oversight controls; (4) “risk of awarding to a contractor with significant financial ties to or other interests in that same industry”; (5) how “how professional standards or the contractor’s operating procedures” can reduce OCI but that professional standards are not sufficient by themselves. Clauses A new FAR clause at at FAR 52.203-XX, Potential Organizational Conflict of Interest—Disclosure and Representation, will “provide notice to offerors that the nature of the work described in the solicitation is such that OCIs may result from contract performance.” The clause will require an offeror to: (1) Disclose all relevant information regarding any OCI (including active limitations on future contracting and specific clients or industry relationships that may create OCI if identified by the contracting officer); (2) Disclose any professional standards to which it is subject, or any procedures it has in place, to prevent OCIs; (3) Represent, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it has disclosed all relevant information regarding any OCI; (4) Explain the actions it intends to use to address any OCI ( e.g., submit a mitigation plan if it believes an OCI may exist or agree to a limitation on future contracting); and (5) Update their disclosure(s) for new information not previously disclosed or if there is a change to any relevant facts relating to a previously disclosed OCI. There will also be clauses for Postaward Disclosure of Organizational Conflict of Interest. Mitigation of Organizational Conflicts of Interest. Limitation on Future Contracting. Unequal Access to Information—Representation, “which requires the offeror to identify, prior to submission of its offer, whether it or any of its affiliates had unequal access to any information that could provide an unfair competitive advantage.” It will be interesting to see how these rules are implemented and how courts interpret them. Be sure to comment by the March 17 deadline if you have concerns. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post New OCI Rule Contains Big Changes first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
SmallGovCon Week in Review: January 13-17, 2025
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
Happy Friday! We hope you had a great week. We are already halfway through January and looking forward to see if the Chiefs can finish the three-peat! The federal landscape has been busy, with updates spanning Buy America, small business dollars, and procurement complications, including Polaris protests. You can read more about these topics in the articles below. Have a great weekend! Buy America Requirements for Manufactured Products GSA awards $210 million contract for new energy conservation measures at multiple facilities in the National Capital Region Small businesses receive record $183B in fed contracts from Biden-Harris Administration Minnesota Construction Company Agrees to Pay $5.9M to Resolve False Claims Act Violations 4 Steps to Boost Government Efficiency Through Process Automation FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Administration Advanced Gender Equity and Equality at Home and Abroad GSA secures landmark agreement with Microsoft to enhance federal IT acquisition Polaris protests hit double digits The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: January 13-17, 2025 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
If you’re interested in winning more B2G business through the bid process, but need some answers, join this live forum and talk about this market with people who have helped hundreds of companies win government contracts. This month’s co-hosts are Koprince McCall Pottroff’s own Nicole Pottroff and Stephanie Ellis. The event host, Nick Bernardo, President & Founder of MyGovWatch.com, has over 20 years of experience helping companies of all sizes figure out how to find, compete for, and actually win government contracts. Sign up now to join this free opportunity to speak with experts including some of your favorite SmallGovCon authors. Anyone who joins and asks a question qualifies for a 30-day free MyGovWatch trial to hear about relevant bids and RFPs. Register here. https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NRuUzYXuQE2KzI9VhHvbnQ#/registration The post Event! MyGovWatch Live: The B2G Roundtable, January 22, 2025, 12:00pm CDT first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
SmallGovCon Week in Review: January 6-10, 2025
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
It’s Friday and time for another week in review! We hope you have had a great week and are safe from the extreme weather conditions the country seems to be experiencing right now. We are still digging out from the blizzard sent our way by the polar vortex. We also hope that our readers in California are safe and well. Our thoughts go out to all of you that are dealing with those devastating wildfires. This week in federal government contracting news had some interesting stories including withdrawals of federal regulations on contractor greenhouse gas emissions and pay equity, as well as opportunities for federal contractors in 2025. Federal Acquisition Regulation: Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate-Related Financial Risk; Withdrawal Defense Contracting: DOD is Taking Steps to Restrict Mandatory Arbitration, but Additional Action Needed US government contractor to pay $1m over allegations of fraudulent bids Congress, GSA Focus on VA Acquisition Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting DOJ Issues Solicitation for Potential $36M FPMS Software Contract GSA Awards Polaris IT Contract to 102 Small Businesses MyGovWatch Live The B2G Roundtable Key Opportunities for GovCons in DOD’s FY25 Budget What to expect at the General Services Administration under Trump Two Federal Agencies Propose Cybersecurity Workforce Framework in Contracting Rules The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: January 6-10, 2025 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
Steven Koprince, Govology legal analyst and retired founder of Koprince McCall Pottroff will be presenting this webinar. In this course he provides a big-picture overview of small business certifications in the government marketplace and you will learn about various federal small business certification programs, including Small Business Self Certification, Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) & 8(a), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone), Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB), and Economic Disadvantaged Woman-Owned Small Business (EDWOSB). This course has been updated to reflect recent changes set forth in two SBA regulations released in late 2024. He will also touch on state and local certification programs and provide information on additional training and resources you can use to develop a deeper understanding and get help with any federal, state, and small business certification program. Register here. The post Govology Webinar: An Introduction to Government Small Business Certifications (2025 Update), January 21, 2025, 1:00 pm EST first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
Thanks to Michael LeJeune for hosting me on his podcast, Game Changers for Government Contractors. It’s always great talking to Michael and this is a very pertinent topic for a lot of contractors. The Rule of Two is undergoing some changes in proposed rules and federal contractors need to be aware of those changes. In this episode, I discuss what the Rule of Two is, how it impacts small business set-asides, and the recent changes affecting task orders under multiple award contracts (MACs). We also discuss valuable insights on the differences between the SBA’s Rule of Two and the VA’s version, key exceptions, and how small businesses can respond if they see non-compliant procurements. If you’re a small business looking to leverage the Rule of Two to win more contracts, this episode is packed with actionable strategies and expert advice to help you navigate these changes effectively. To listen on your favorite podcast platform, click below: FA: https://federal-access.com/ep-352-understanding-the-small-business-rule-of-two/ Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3y4sNdA Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3SPTZoB To watch, click here: https://youtu.be/xDeoiIEpBeI Questions? Email us. Need legal assistance? Call us at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Game Changers for Government Contractors: Understanding the Small Business Rule of Two first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
Year in Review: Top SmallGovCon Posts of 2024
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
Happy New Year, SmallGovCon readers! As we look forward to the new updates, decisions, and commentary in 2025, it’s also a good time to reflect on the important and well-read posts from 2024. This post revisits our most popular blog posts from 2024. Below, we summarize the blogs written in 2024 that were the most visited as well as the perennial favorites from years past that were the most viewed in 2024. It’s a good chance to look back on the important articles from 2024, and those topics of continuing interest to federal contractors. Here are the top 10 blog posts that were posted in 2024. As usual, our readers were interested in changes to SBA’s rules, including changes to the HUBZone Program, WOSB Program, and related small business changes, as well as our Common Misconceptions and Back to Basics series focusing on issues such as the SBA mentor-protege program and similarly situated entities. Top Posts Published in 2024 News Flash: SBA Issues Proposed Rule with HUBZone and Small Business Changes. This post looked at an SBA rule that is going into effect on January 16, 2025, and included changes to both the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program and other small business updates including certification rules after an acquisition. SBA Issues Final Rule to Streamline WOSB Program Rules. This post looked at rules intended to take the WOSB regulations and make them more consistent with the other types of set-aside programs offered by the SBA. The SBA published its Final Rule, effective January 3, 2025. SBA Confirms GSA Schedule-Holders Who Outgrow Size Standard Can Still Get Awarded Set-Aside TOs and Options. This decision confirmed that, even if a business changes size after being awarded a GSA schedule contract, it can still compete for small business task orders from a Blanket Purchase Agreement awarded under its GSA schedule contract. This outcome has been altered in some cases under the rule discussed in number 1 of this list. Common Misconceptions: SBA’s Mentor-Protégé Program (Part II – Participation Rules & Limits). The MPA program is a very popular topic for our readers and this post explains many aspects of it. It included this common misconception: “An SBA-approved protégé may not have an additional SBA mentor-protégé agreement in place at the same time.” SBA Proposed Rule: Joint Venture Past Performance. This proposed rule discussed how SBA thinks agencies should review past performance for joint ventures. GAO Says: SBA’s Rules for Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture Experience Evaluations May Limit Solicitation Terms. This decision provided further guidance on the interplay of solicitation terms for experience evaluations and SBA’s rules for evaluating mentor-protégé joint ventures’ experience. GAO: Don’t Slip Up on SAM Registration, Even for One Day. This decision looked at the trap of having your SAM registration lapse during a procurement. The rule this decision discusses has been updated in a FAR rule change discussed here. The new rule said that “the offeror must be registered at time of offer submission and at time of contract award, but would not be required to be registered at every moment in between those two points.” 8(a) Program’s Two Years in Business Rule: Requirement or Suggestion? This post took a closer look at the potential for success requirement’s two year business revenue rule, and any alternatives. Back to Basics: Similarly Situated Entities. Contractors are wise to know what a similarly situated entity is, and this blog walks them through the definition. Apparent Conflict: Appearance of Impropriety Enough to Exclude a Contractor from Federal Contract. If the federal agency finds an appearance of impropriety, that is enough, and no actual impact to the procurement need be found. A recent case discussed this important conflict rule for federal contractors. Top Posts Viewed in 2024 from All Time “In Scope” vs. “Out of Scope” Modifications: GAO Explains The Difference. This is the famous inflatable craft decision from 2017. In it, GAO explained with some detail on how far an agency can modify a contract before it becomes, essentially, a new contract that can be protested at GAO. FedBizOpps is Almost Gone. There must be a lot of folks nostalgic for FedBizOpps and not so happy with sam.gov, based on the popularity of our post saying goodbye to FBO. Back to Basics: Teaming Agreements. Teaming agreements are not well-defined in the FAR. This post walks you through the key basics for putting a teaming agreement together, and when you need one. Back to Basics: Limitations on Subcontracting. A post from 2022 that is becoming very popular. With the renewed focus on limitations on subcontracting, it’s always good to know how to stay compliant. SAM Registration: What The Heck Is An “Immediate Owner?”. The SAM definition of “immediate owner” still creates questions for a lot of federal contractors. FAR Final Rule: Increased Micro-Purchase and Simplified Acquisition Thresholds. The FAR was updated to increase the micro-purchase threshold and the simplified acquisition threshold, effective August 31, 2020. Based on recent inflation trends, these numbers are going up, as discussed in our post here. News Flash: SBA Issues Proposed Rule with HUBZone and Small Business Changes. This is the most popular post from 2024 and made it into this top 10 list as well. SBA Issues Final Rule to Streamline WOSB Program Rules. This post is also from 2024. Back to Basics: Veteran-Owned Businesses and SDVOSB Eligibility. This post from 2022 has plenty of good information on the basics of the SBA’s programs for veteran-owned businesses. Stay tuned to our blog for many more updates on SDVOSBs and VOSBs. SBA Confirms GSA Schedule-Holders Who Outgrow Size Standard Can Still Get Awarded Set-Aside TOs and Options. Also a popular post from 2024. All of our attorney-authors at SmallGovCon are excited about bringing you the best commentary and news in federal contracting for 2024. I’m sure there will be much to talk about. Make sure to keep up to date on SmallGovCon for all the latest. Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Call us at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Year in Review: Top SmallGovCon Posts of 2024 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article -
Many of the SBA’s small business programs have restrictions on what are commonly referred to as “extraordinary circumstances” or “extraordinary actions.” It’s a topic that we have discussed many times before, including this blog post discussing a case at SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, reviewing extraordinary circumstances in the context of control and operating agreements. SBA often discusses extraordinary circumstances in the context of joint venture control, where the managing venturer must control decisions except for those considered to be extraordinary. But there is a different meaning in the context of an entity seeking certification under an SBA socioeconomic program, where the qualifying individual must have control over all actions and circumstances except for those determined to be extraordinary. This post will focus on the latter situation. And, as any knowledgeable small business federal government contractor can attest to, knowing what actions are and are not extraordinary, is very important to maintain eligibility for the SBA’s programs. Unfortunately, as many small business federal government contractors can also likely attest to, it is not as simple as looking at a regulation to know whether a certain action or circumstance is extraordinary or not. After all, across the SBA’s programs, including the WOSB, SDVOSB, and 8(a) programs, it is not exactly black and white. Thankfully, SBA seems to have acknowledged that fact, as evidenced by the upcoming final rule that, as part of many revisions, directly updates this issue. Knowing what actions are and are not considered extraordinary is extraordinarily important. (Ha! see what I did there?) Why? Well, it all comes down to control. When looking at the SBA’s programs, the qualifying individual, meaning the person upon whom eligibility for any given SBA program is based, must have control over the business. This is a basic building block of all SBA programs which is stated in 13 C.F.R. § 124.106 for 8(a) Program participants, 13 C.F.R. § 127.202 for WOSBs, and 13 C.F.R. § 128.203 for SDVOSBs. The HUBZone program is based on location and employees, not the qualifying individual, so it works differently. Well, SBA will now clear up some of the uncertainty with its new rule, effective January 16, 2025. The old version of 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(3) states: [c]ontrol may be affirmative or negative. Negative control includes, but is not limited to, instances where a minority shareholder has the ability, under the concern’s charter, by-laws, or shareholder’s agreement, to prevent a quorum or otherwise block action by the board of directors or shareholders. With the upcoming change, 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(3) will include a list of what is considered extraordinary circumstances: Control may be affirmative or negative. Negative control includes, but is not limited to, instances where a minority shareholder has the ability, under the concern’s charter, by-laws, or shareholder’s agreement, to prevent a quorum or otherwise block action by the board of directors or shareholders. However, SBA will not find that a minority shareholder has negative control where such minority shareholder has the authority to block action by the board of directors or shareholders regarding the following extraordinary circumstances: (i) Adding a new equity stakeholder or increasing the investment amount of an equity stakeholder; (ii) Dissolution of the company; (iii) Sale of the company or all assets of the company; (iv) The merger of the company; (v) The company declaring bankruptcy; (vi) Amendment of the company’s corporate governance documents to remove the shareholder’s authority to block any of (a)(3)(i) through (v); and (vii) Any other extraordinary action that is crafted solely to protect the investment of the minority shareholders, and not to impede the majority’s ability to control the concern’s operations or to conduct the concern’s business as it chooses. The addition of (c)(i)-(vii) helps to clear up some questions that have been lingering about what a minority shareholder is permitted to do, and what SBA considers negative control. SBA will be updating the WOSB and 8(a) program rules, and clarifying the SDVOSB rule, along these same lines, in sections 124.106(h), 127.202(h) and 128.203(j)(6). Similar to the small business rule, here is what the new 8(a) rule will say at 13 C.F.R. § 124.106(h): (h) Exception for extraordinary circumstances. SBA will not find that a lack of control exists where a socially and economically disadvantaged individual does not have the unilateral power and authority to make decisions regarding the following extraordinary circumstances: (1) Adding a new equity stakeholder or increasing the investment amount of an equity stakeholder; (2) Dissolution of the company; (3) Sale of the company or all assets of the company; (4) The merger of the company; (5) The company declaring bankruptcy; (6) Amendment of the company’s corporate governance documents to remove the shareholder’s authority to block any of paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this section; (7) Any other extraordinary action that is crafted solely to protect the investment of the minority shareholders, and not to impede the majority’s ability to control the concern’s operations or to conduct the concern’s business as it chooses. Thankfully, these actions appear to be in line with what earlier OHA decisions have held. In its commentary, SBA agreed with a comment asking “that SBA adopt language stated in OHA size appeal cases that super majority provisions crafted to protect the investment of the minority shareholders, and not to impede the majority’s ability to control the concern’s operations or to conduct the concern’s business as it chooses should be permitted.” This appears to bring in the various decisions over the years that have defined extraordinary actions. I know that I, for one, appreciate the new transparency as it gives small business federal government contractors a clear line to follow in a topic that was, at best, a bit foggy. These changes will go into effect on January 16, 2025. Questions about this post? Email us Need legal assistance for a federal government contracting matter, give us a call at 785-200-8919. Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook. The post Less Extraordinary: Revised SBA Rule Gives Clear Guidance on Extraordinary Circumstances first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article
-
SmallGovCon Week in Review: December 30-January 3, 2025
Koprince Law LLC posted a blog entry in SmallGovCon.com
Happy Friday and Happy New Year to all of our SmallGovCon readers! We hope you all had a wonderful holiday season and are looking forward to 2025. As we look forward to the new year and close out the old, there are sure to be lots of developments in the federal contracting space. So, as you batten down the hatches for the polar vortex, it’s time for a nice, warm fire, maybe some hot cocoa and the latest in federal contracting news. Stories included a new law on custom software, and rules on small business representation and debarments. What will 2025 bring for CISA? Agencies required to share custom software under new law Federal Acquisition Regulation: Rerepresentation of Size and Socioeconomic Status Federal Acquisition Regulation: Improving Consistency Between Procurement and Nonprocurement Procedures on Suspension and Debarment Congressional and Presidential Transition IG Raises Further Concerns with Collection of Tax Debt by Contractors Biden Orders Agencies to Close January 9 as Day of Mourning for Carter DOJ Issues Final Rule for Enhancing Data Security EO NIH’s acquisition arm launches online educational courses for IT contracts Here comes AI: How federal contractors are preparing DoD’s multi-billion dollar moving contract faces another legal challenge The post SmallGovCon Week in Review: December 30-January 3, 2025 first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog.View the full article