Federal Construction Contracting Blog : Federal Construction Contracting Law Firm : Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC : Construction Law, Dredging and Claims

A seminar on “How to Win Federal Construction Contracts with Teaming Arrangements” is being held on February 23, 2010, at the Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress Hotel in Orlando, Florida. The program is scheduled to take place from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and the seminar fee is $195, with a fee of $95 for additional people from the same company.

As contractors are well aware, the world of federal construction contracting has changed. Sealed bidding has largely given way to contracting by negotiation (“best value’), and the government is using task order contracts for construction more frequently. These large dollar value multi-year procurements are often beyond the economic reach of many small and medium-sized contractors. The negative effect on small businesses has not gone unnoticed.

The way to survive and thrive in this new world of federal construction contracting is to engage in various forms of teaming arrangements. These include joint ventures, committed subcontracting, large and small business teaming agreements, and small business subcontracting. In fact, the government often includes provisions in solicitations that encourage and promote teaming and joint ventures. These provisions permit small and medium-sized businesses to compete for contracts they would otherwise be deemed ineligible.  To further foster small business participation, the government also uses set-aside procurements that limit competition to HUBZone business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned firms, or 8(a) concerns.

This seminar is being presented by the law firm of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman and the Chairman of the Firm’s Federal Construction Practice Group, Michael H. Payne, will address the following topics:

* What is a teaming arrangement?

* What should be included in a teaming agreement?

* What types of joint ventures are permitted in federal construction contracting

 * What are the requirements for a joint venture agreement?

* How can large business concerns benefit from small business set-asides that seem to exclude them from participation in many federal projects?

* Are there any circumstances where a large business can affiliate with a small business concern?

* What happens if two or more small businesses join to form a team?

* How can Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, HUBZone contractors, and 8 (a) firms leverage their size status and preferential status to maximize participation in larger dollar value procurements?

* How can a prime contractor take advantage of the past performance of a team member to increase its competitive position? hatever your experience level is with teaming arrangements, this seminar will provide you with the tools compete in the new landscape of federal government contracting.

To register, please respond by February 18, 2010 by clicking here.  For questions, please contact Crystal Garcia at (215) 564-1700 or email cgarcia@cohenseglias.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By: Edward T. DeLisle

On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, President Obama signed a presidential memorandum directing the Internal Revenue Service to conduct an audit of all federal contractors.  As reported by Nextgov.com, the audit is designed to identify those federal contractors that have failed to pay taxes and prevent them from obtaining additional federal work.  The IRS is required to issue a report on its findings within ninety (90) days.

Calling out “deadbeat companies” that are being awarded government contracts while delinquent in their taxes, President Obama’s memorandum is intended to stop these companies from collecting government contracts while they are “gaming the system.”  Studies by the Government Accountability Office have identified tens of thousands of such companies that, collectively, owe more than $5 billion in back taxes, the president said.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By: Michael H. Payne and Edward T. DeLisle

In order to qualify as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (“HUBZone”) contractor, a firm must be a “small business” based on the size standards provided by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS); the firm must be at least 51% owned and controlled by citizens of the United States; the firm's principal office (where the greatest number of employees perform their work, excluding contract sites) must be located in a designated HUBZone; and at least 35% of the firm's total workforce must reside in a designated HUBZone. In construction, a company does not need to include its field labor force among the 35% of its employees who must reside in a HUBZone.   (See the SBA's HUBZone regulations).

The program encourages small businesses to locate in and hire employees from economically disadvantaged areas. Small firms participating in the program can receive competitive advantages in winning federal contracts. The government generally expects approximately three percent (3%) of all federal contracting dollars to be awarded to HUBZone firms annually. As reported by the HUBZONE Contractors National Council, as of January 8, 2010, there were 9,255 HUBZone-certified small business concerns specializing in the following major industries:

• Construction - 2,984 firms (32% of total)
• Services - 4,176 firms (45.1%)
• Research & Development - 879 firms (9.5%)
• Manufacturing - 1,675 firms (18.1%)
(Numbers total more than 9,255 because some firms appear in more than one industry category.)

Many HUBZone-certified firms are also certified in other set-aside programs. 12.2% of HUBZone firms are also 8(a) small businesses (minority-owned); 8.0% are Service Disabled Veteran-owned firms; and 0.9% are qualified in all three set-aside programs.

The mission of the HUBZone program, as expressed by the SBA, is “to promote job growth, capital investment, and economic development to historically underutilized business zones by providing contracting assistance to small businesses located in these economically distressed communities.” See the SBA’s HUBZone website for more details. In order to apply for HUBZone status, companies are encouraged to apply using the electronic application on the SBA website.
 

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group. Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Practice Group. He is a available to assist federal contractors on a whole range of small business issues including HUBZone certification, 8(a)compliance issues, Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business formation, and teaming arrangements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By: Michael H. Payne and Craig A. Schroeder

Acceleration is defined as a directive to increase efforts in order to complete performance on time, despite excusable delay.  If the government does not agree that the contractor is entitled to acceleration costs, a contractor must file a request for an equitable adjustment (“REA”), or a claim under the Contract Disputes Act.  Although different formulations have been used in setting forth the elements of constructive acceleration, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has generally described the requirements to include the following elements, each of which must be proved by the contractor: (1) that the contractor encountered a delay that is excusable under the contract; (2) that the contractor made a timely and sufficient request for an extension of the contract schedule; (3) that the government denied the contractor's request for an extension or failed to act on it within a reasonable time; (4) that the government insisted on completion of the contract within a period shorter than the period to which the contractor would be entitled by taking into account the period of excusable delay, after which the contractor notified the government that it regarded the alleged order to accelerate as a constructive change in the contract; and (5) that the contractor was required to expend extra resources to compensate for the lost time and remain on schedule.  It is important to note that the contractor must prove that the costs claimed were actually incurred as a result of actions specifically taken to accelerate performance.

A contractor may accelerate on his own initiative to assure completion within the contract schedule or for other purposes. A contractor is, in fact, entitled to finish ahead of schedule, so long as he does not "tread upon the interests of others, or violate his contract."  The contractor cannot compel the Government to aid him in finishing ahead of schedule, however, or to recover the costs of acceleration unless the Government has actually or constructively ordered the effort. No compensation is due where a contractor voluntarily accelerates performance for his own purposes.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and may be contacted to discuss constructive acceleration or federal construction matters generally. Craig A. Schroeder is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By: Michael H. Payne and Craig A. Schroeder

There has been a great deal of interest in the potential liability that a government contractor has for harm to third parties during or following the performance of a federal construction project.  Although the government frequently enjoys sovereign immunity, the transfer of the government’s immunity to a contractor is certainly not automatic and, when it applies, it is generally the result of what has come to be known as the “Government Contractor Defense.”  The applicability of that defense to a federal construction contractor is an open question that is beyond the scope of this article, however, but two recent cases have been decided in New Orleans that address the subject of contractor immunity from third party suits.  These new cases both arise from the same construction project, the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (the “MRGO”).

The first case, In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation, was heard in The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Six plaintiffs sought compensation from the government based upon alleged negligence of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) with respect to the maintenance and operation of the MRGO for damages incurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  Before trial, the District Court had found that the Corps was shielded from liability as to the design and construction of the channel due to the discretionary function exception under the Federal Tort Claims Act (the “FTCA”).  Notably, no government contractors or subcontractors were named in the suit.

Plaintiffs argued that the Corps’ negligent operation and maintenance of the MRGO – whereby, over time, the channel expanded to two to three times its design width – caused the breach of an important levee and produced catastrophic flooding.  The District Court agreed that the Corps had, in fact, been negligent in its maintenance and operation of the MRGO and that, as a result, flooding had occurred to some of the plaintiffs’ property.

The government raised defenses as to its negligence under the Flood Control Act of 1928 (which was summarily dismissed as inapplicable), the FTCA’s “Due Care” exception and the FTCA’s “Discretionary Function” exception.  The District Court found that the Corps could not invoke these statutory defenses.  This was because the Corps had known about the potential expansion of the channel width due to erosion that ultimately caused the flooding.  Hence, the Corps had not used “due care.”  The Corps’ actions were also found to be in direct contravention of a mandate of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to file an Environmental Impact Statement on its MRGO project. Thus, the Corps could not seek protection under the FTCA’s “discretionary function” exception.  In the end, the court assessed damages for the plaintiffs for a total amount of $719,698.25.

The second case concerned an appeal of two class action matters that had been consolidated by the District Court, Ackerson, et al. v. Bean Dredging LLC, et al. and Reed v. United States.  The District Court had found for the defendants and the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As in In Re Katrina, the plaintiffs alleged that dredging activities caused environmental damage to protective wetlands in the MRGO and that the government project caused an amplification of the storm surge in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, ultimately causing flooding.  Unlike in In Re Katrina, however, the plaintiffs here sought recovery mainly against the government’s contractors (“Contractor Defendants”) who had performed the work.

The Contractor Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the District Court concluded that they were shielded by government-contractor immunity under the holdings of Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940) and Boyle v. United Technologies Corp, 487 U.S. 500 (1988). The Appeals Court affirmed this decision, also citing Yearsley and Boyle extensively. Specifically, the Appeals Court affirmed that the only ways for an agent or officer of the government to be liable to a third-party for injury is if the agent exceeded his authority or that the authority used had not been validly conferred to that agent.  In doing so, the Appeals Court further held that no specific agency relationship needed to be alleged by government contractors to receive government-contractor immunity.

These are encouraging decisions for contractors performing hurricane protection projects in New Orleans.  The applicability of the government’s immunity to a contractor, through operation of the Government Contractor Defense or any other legal theory, however, is dependent on the facts of the case and may vary depending upon the jurisdiction.  Specific legal advice should be sought in assessing the risk associated with the performance of a federal project that involves third party liability issues.  These decisions by the courts in Louisiana, unfortunately, may not be regarded as the final word on the applicability of the Government Contractor Defense to current projects in New Orleans, or to federal construction generally.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and may be contacted to discuss third party liability issues or federal construction matters generally. Craig A. Schroeder is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By: Lane F. Kelman

As opportunities in the private sector remain, at best, stagnant, the public sector has become increasingly competitive. The desire to gain a competitive advantage, however, must be tempered by compliance with ethical obligations. When attempting to gain a competitive advantage, it is crucial to avoid the appearance that your advantage is unfair. A recent decision by the GAO, Health Net Federal Services, LLC, highlights the balance that must be had when you seek a competitive advantage and the risk if the balance is not maintained.

On November 9, 2009, the GAO sustained the bid protest of Health Net Federal Services, LLC (HNFS) of the award of a contract to Aetna Government Health Plans, LLC (AGHP). HNFS and AGHP issued offers in response to request for proposals issued by the Department of Defense TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) for T-3 TRICARE managed health care support services. TRICARE is a managed health care program implemented by the Department of Defense (DOD) for active-duty and retired members of the uniformed services, their dependents, and survivors.
HNFS was the incumbent contractor. Its bid protest focused on a number of different issues, the most compelling challenge was that AGHP should be excluded from the competition based on an alleged unfair competitive advantage stemming from AGHP’s hiring of a former TMA employee (the TMA Chief of Staff) to prepare AGHP’s proposal.

In evaluating the possibility of an unfair advantage on behalf of AGHP, the GAO acknowledged that a guiding principle is the obligation of contracting agencies to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in government procurements. Where a firm may have gained an unfair competitive advantage through its hiring of a former government official, the firm can be disqualified from a competition based on the appearance of impropriety - even if no actual impropriety can be shown - if the determination of an unfair competitive advantage is based on facts and not mere innuendo or suspicion.

The GAO went on to conclude that the former TMA Chief of Staff that was hired by AGHP did, in fact, have access to non-public propriety information. As a result of the actual access to this information, a prima facie case was established that an appearance of impropriety existed. Importantly, the access to propriety information and appearance of impropriety did not, in and of themselves, require disqualification. Rather, AGHP, despite a recommendation from TMA's ethics advisor to disclose the Chief of Staff's involvement to the Contracting Officer ("CO"), failed to do so. Since the CO was not provided the opportunity to investigate the issues stemming from the use of a high-level former TMA employee in the preparation of its proposal, the appearance of impropriety was necessarily not assessed by the CO prior to the award and the protest was sustained.

The recent emphasis on ethics on government contracting requires contractors to avoid any conduct that even appears to be unethical. The case highlights the care that must be taken when contractors hire former government employees and involve them in the procurement process. If the employee was involved in the planning of the project or procurement while employed by the government, or if the employee had access to non-public information, a risk exists that the relationship will result in the disqualification of the proposal. Regardless, there should be full disclosure to the Contracting Officer before submitting a proposal.

Lane F. Kelman is a Partner in the firm and is a member of the firm’s Federal Contract Practice Group. He may be contacted for advice regarding federal construction contracting matters, including issues involving ethics in federal contracting. His e-mail address is lkelman@cohenseglias.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By: Edward T. DeLisle

In recent testimony provided to the House of Representative’s Committee on Small Business, a disturbing fact was revealed: millions of dollars earmarked for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses (“SDVOSBs”) have been paid to companies that do not qualify for the program. Compounding the problem is the fact that insufficient fraud-prevention programs exist to effectively combat such abuses. This was the conclusion reached by United States Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) following a case study that included an investigation of ten (10) companies claiming SDVOSB eligibility.

In 2008 alone, $6.5 billion in federal contracts were awarded to companies that self-certified themselves as SDVOSBs. While this figure only represents 1.5% of all government contracts paid in that fiscal year, it is still a very large number. If the federal government ever attains its mandated goal of 3%, many more billions will become available to qualified SDVOSBs. Given the paucity of work in the private sector over the course of the last eighteen (18) months, many companies are attempting to tap into this potential source of revenue. As the GAO pointed out, however, a number of these companies have misrepresented their credentials, effectively taking contracts away from those that truly qualify to receive them.

The companies identified in the GAO case study received approximately $100 million in SDVOSB contracts, and over $300 million in additional 8(a), HUBZone and other non-SDVOSB contracts through the federal government. Certainly, none of these monies should have been paid to the companies in question. Notwithstanding the same, because there are no requirements to terminate contracts when a firm is deemed ineligible, in certain circumstances, companies were permitted to continue performing, despite the government’s determination that the firm did not qualify as an SDVOSB. Many more were not debarred from receiving federal contracts, even though the transgressions noted were obvious and seemingly blatant.

The GAO did note that Department of Veteran’s Affairs (the “VA”) has taken steps to address this problem by introducing an SDVOSB validation process. That process includes confirming an owner’s status as a disabled veteran, as well as his or her control over day-to-day operations. The problem, however, is that the VA’s certification and validation process is not a government-wide system. It is limited to those contracts issued directly by the VA. Because many other federal agencies issue contracts that are earmarked for SDVOSBs, there are considerable gaps in the SDVOSB program.

If your company is an SDVOSB, or if you are interested in forming a company that qualifies for participation in the program, it is very important for you to comply with applicable SBA and procurement regulations. The fierce competition for federal government contracts exposes many companies to size status protests which, if successful, can cause an SDVOSB to lose an award. Our Federal Contracting Practice Group is available to assist you with these important compliance issues.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and is a member of the firm’s Federal Contract Practice Group. He is extensively involved in the representation of construction contractors on small business issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The recent decline in non-federal construction opportunities has resulted in a rapidly growing interest in the federal contracting market. The much-publicized American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), often referred to as the “Economic Stimulus Program,” has made billions of dollars available to federal agencies to fund construction projects. Add to that the billions of dollars being spent on the Hurricane & Storm Damage Risk Reduction System in New Orleans (‘HSDRRS”), the Base Realignment & Closure program (“BRAC”), and countless other military and civil works construction programs nationally, and it is easy to see why the federal market is generating so much interest. These federal opportunities are not necessarily easy for contractors to take advantage of, however, because increased opportunities have been accompanied by increased competition.

If your company is interested in getting into federal contracting for the first time, you can be certain of one thing – you are not alone. We have received dozens of requests from existing and new clients asking us to advise them about the best ways to get involved in the federal market. The answer is not always easy, because contractors who have never performed federal work may be at a disadvantage when participating in negotiated, “best value,” procurements. Unlike sealed bidding, where the competition is based on price alone and an award is made to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, awards under negotiated contracting procedures not only consider price, but also consider evaluation factors like technical merit, past performance, experience, quality of personnel, and small business subcontracting. In a negotiated procurement it is not uncommon for an award to be made to a higher priced offeror who is evaluated as technically superior to the lowest-priced offeror. Past performance, when the offeror has not previously been awarded a federal contract, can be a serious obstacle.

The obstacle is not insurmountable, however. If a contractor has equivalent experience in the non-federal sector, and effectively demonstrates the value and relevance of that experience in its proposal, there are many federal agencies that will recognize the capabilities of the “new” contractor. It is important to present an effective proposal and to communicate your company’s capabilities in a clear and concise way. The good news is that awards are being made to construction contractors who have not performed federal work before, and federal agencies are always looking for enhanced competition. Your task, as an interested federal contractor, is to prepare an effective proposal that responds to each and every requirement of the solicitation and that addresses each and every evaluation factor. Our affiliate, FedCon Consulting, provides former government contracting officers and construction management personnel to assist contractors in the preparation of proposals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided two cases that assure the continued use of the Multiple Award Task Order Contract (“MATOC”) in federal construction contracting. In the first case, Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims decided a bid protest in favor of Weeks Marine.  The protest challenged the right of the South Atlantic Division of the Corps of Engineers to use MATOC procurement to solicit all maintenance dredging and shore protection projects for the next five years by establishing a MATOC pool of contractors who would compete for projects solicited on a task order basis.  The Protester contended, and the Court agreed, that since sealed bidding had been used successfully in the procurement of dredging for many years, there was no basis to use contracting by negotiation, much less MATOC. The Court found that the Corps’ Acquisition Plan did not provide a rational basis for a departure from sealed bidding.

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and concluded that the Corps was required to “supply a reasoned chronicle of the risk assessment,” and did so “by stating the reasons for its procurement decision and the thinking behind those reasons.”  Therefore, the Court concluded that as long as the Corps stated its reasons, and the thinking behind those reasons, the Court would not “second-guess” the Corps. In other words, even if the Corps’ rationale for using MATOC procurement made no sense and was not well supported, the Court would not disturb the Corps’ right to use a MATOC as long as some reasons were given.  In this regard, the Court stated “If the court finds a reasonable basis for the agency’s action, the court should stay its hand even though it might, as an original proposition, have reached a different conclusion as to the proper administration and application of the procurement regulations.”

The second MATOC decision, Tyler Construction Group v. United States, involved a protest by a small business concern against the use of MATOC procurements to procure barracks construction in an eight state region. The protester contended that Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (“IDIQ”) contracts may only be used to procure supplies and services, and not construction, pursuant to FAR 16.5.  MATOC procurements are solicited through the IDIQ contracting procedures specified in FAR 16.5, but that section of the FAR does not mention “construction” even once.  Tyler argued that the Corps, under the guise of “innovation,” had adapted a contracting method used to procure supplies and services, like rounds of ammunition or electrical repair services, to the acquisition of large multi-million dollar buildings.

The Tyler protest also addressed the issue of improper bundling in violation of the Small Business Act. By taking individual projects, many of which were less than the $31.5 million (now $33.5 million) small business size standard for general construction, and bundling them into a $300 million MATOC procurement, the Corps effectively prevented small business concerns from competing as prime contractors.  In other words, even though many small businesses could compete for projects in the $30 million range, they are excluded by the size of the bundled MATOC solicitation. In fact, both small businesses and small to medium-sized large businesses are effectively excluded from competition by MATOC procurements.

The Court of Federal Claims ruled that since the use of IDIQ/MATOC was not specifically prohibited in the procurement of construction by the FAR, it was therefore permitted.  The Court also found that the Corps had conducted market research and had concluded that there was an industry consensus that bundling was “necessary and justified.”  The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court and decided that “The Corps, like other federal procurement entities, has broad discretion to determine what particular method of procurement will be in the best interests of the United States in a particular situation.”

In this writer’s opinion the widespread use of MATOC procurements to procure large dollar value construction projects is not consistent with the FAR. It is interesting that the use of the IDIQ procedure for construction was not subjected to review by the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (DAR Council), as is commonly done when a new regulation is needed, or when there is a request for a deviation from an existing regulation.  Although the Corps has taken the position that IDIQ/MATOC is an innovative method that is within its procurement discretion, we find it to be strange that a method affecting billions of dollars of construction procurement is not specifically addressed by the FAR, or the supplemental agency regulations (DFARS, AFARS, EFARS). In fact, when the Corps was challenged because it was not following its own regulations (EFARS) that addressed IDIQ contracting,  it promptly rescinded those regulations. What the construction contracting community is left with is a multi-billion dollar procurement methodology that is unregulated, is ripe for abuse, and that only serves the interests of a reduced federal procurement workforce.  It certainly remains to be seen whether MATOC is truly more efficient or cost-effective than traditional single project solicitations.

Most disturbing of all, is the hands-off policy adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on matters of federal procurement.  If the agencies can do whatever they want, as long as it is not expressly prohibited by law or regulation, and as long as they provide some reason for their decisions, the competitive opportunities that have been the hallmark of federal construction contracting will continue to be eroded.  Many capable contractors have been, and will be, denied a fair opportunity to compete and, in the long run, that cannot possibly be in the best interests of the construction contracting community, or the federal government.

Michael Payne is a Partner and is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks