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

By: Michael H. Payne

The question of whether to submit a Request for an Equitable Adjustment, commonly referred to as an “REA,” or a claim, is one that clients ask on a frequent basis. It is not always an easy question to answer and our advice depends upon the history of the dispute, and the nature of the relationship with the Contracting Officer and his, or her, representatives. At the outset, however, it is necessary to clear up the confusion between the terms “REA” and “Claim.”

A claim is defined in FAR § 2.101 as “a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract. However, a written demand or written assertion by the contractor seeking the payment of money exceeding $100,000 is not a claim under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 until certified as required by the Act.” Although the term “equitable adjustment” appears in the FAR in 111 places, and the term “request for equitable adjustment” appears in 11 places, there is no official definition, in the FAR or anywhere else, of the terms “Request for Equitable Adjustment” or “REA.” Nevertheless, an REA is commonly understood to be a request for compensation (time, money, or both) that falls short of a claim in terms of its procedural requirements.

A “Claim” must be certified pursuant to FAR § 33.207(c) when the claim amount exceeds $100,000, and it must be submitted to the Contracting Officer in a manner that clearly provides the factual, technical, and legal basis for an equitable adjustment to the contract. Whether the claim exceeds $100,000 or not, the best practice is to identify the request as a claim under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601-613, together with a request for a Contracting Officer’s Decision. Those procedural steps will assure that the clock starts running on the 60 day time limit for the issuance of a decision (or longer under some circumstances), and it further assures that interest starts to run from the date the claim was submitted. An REA does not require a certification under the Contract Disputes Act, but REAs submitted to Department of Defense agencies require the certification found in DFARS 252.243-7002.

There are a number of clauses that allow an equitable adjustment to the contract if the government is responsible for additional costs, or time, and the most significant clauses are: Variation in Estimated Quantity, FAR 52.211-18, Differing Site Conditions, FAR 52.236-2, Suspension of Work, FAR 52.242-14, Changes – Fixed-Price, FAR 52.243-1, and Termination for Convenience, FAR 52.249-2. In general terms, an equitable adjustment means that the contractor is entitled to his actual costs, plus reasonable profit (except for suspensions), overhead, and bond. It is also important to note that the additional costs must be allowable, allocable, and reasonable.

With that brief background, there are some practical considerations about whether to file an REA or a claim. If the contractor has a good working relationship with the agency, and particularly with the government personnel assigned to the project at hand, an REA is usually the best way to begin. This is particularly true when the government has indicated flexibility on the issue and a willingness to reach an amicable resolution. On the other hand, if there is animosity, or a clear indication in prior discussions and correspondence, that the government does not believe that the contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment, it is best to file a claim. Unlike an REA, a claim starts the clock ticking on the time when the Contacting Officer must issue a decision (there is no time limit on an REA), and interest begins to run. It should be noted, however, that in cases where there is doubt, there is no harm in starting out with an REA. If progress is not made within a reasonable time, an REA can easily be converted to a claim under the Contract Disputes Act.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters including bid protests, claims and appeals, procurement issues, small business issues, and dispute resolution.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Michael Payne & Ed DeLisle will be presenting at the National 8(a) Association 2013 Winter Conference in Orlando, FL on February 5th. They will be speaking on the topic How to Win Federal Contracts and Make a Profit. The conference is being held at the Disney World Yacht Club Resort and tickets are still available.  

For more information, or to register, please visit the National 8(a) Association website. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Please join our Federal Contracting Practice Group for a Networking Cocktail Reception preceded by a precise presentation on Avoiding the Pitfalls in Federal Construction Contracting.

This networking event will facilitate interaction between large and small businesses that are looking to understand how to win federal construction contracts. The presentation, led by Federal Contracting Chair, Michael Payne, will provide an overview of the following topics:

• Top 10 list of pitfalls to avoid
• Tips on how to deal with the hazards
• Understanding how to protect your rights

The Federal construction market is accountable for over $100 billion worth of spending annually. If you are interested in learning more about federal contracting opportunities, this networking event is a great place to connect with other companies and learn inside tips from our Federal Contracting Partners, who boast years of experience working with Federal agencies.

Date:
November 8, 2012

Time:
4:00pm-4:30pm Registration
4:30pm-5:30pm Seminar
5:30pm-7:30pm Cocktail Reception

Location:
The Union League of Philadelphia
140 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102

Cost:
$50 per person

Please register early as space is limited.

To register, please use this link. For questions, contact Rachel McNally at (215) 564-1700.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

On August 27, 2012, FAR council issued a final rule entitled Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (“the Rule”). Although this Final Rule was implemented just last month, it has been a topic of discussion on Capitol Hill for over six years.

In 2006, the Federal Funding Accountability & Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282, 31 U.S.C. § 6101 note) (“FFATA”) was enacted, with a two fold purpose: (1) to reduce “wasteful and unnecessary spending;” and (2) to ensure that the public can access financial information on entities and organizations receiving federal funds, which included federal government contractors and their subcontractors. FFATA required all federal contractors to divulge, through the use of a website set up by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), contract and subcontract award information for all contracts over $25,000. Contractors’ reporting responsibilities were further expanded by the Government Funding Transparency Act of 2008 (“GFTA”). GFTA amended the FFATA to provide that contractors report, in addition to contract and subcontract award information, the names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated officers of those entitities. On July 8, 2010 an interim rule was put in place, requiring Federal contractors to comply with the new reporting requirements.

It was this interim rule (with a few minor modifications) that was ultimately implemented on August 27, 2012. Under the Final Rule, prime contractors must report contract and first-tier subcontract awards, and the names and executive compensation of the five most highly compensated officers of both the prime contractor, and its first-tier subcontractors. The information must be reported by the end of the month following the month of a contract award, and annually thereafter, in the Central Contactor Registration system (“CCR”)(now the “System of Award Management” or “SAM”). All of the information is to be made accessible to the public through www.usaspending.gov.

Compliance with the rule requires that contractors fully understand the reporting requirements, which can be rather complicated. Accordingly, some guidance concerning the reporting requirements is set forth below.

Subcontract Award Reporting

This requirement is applicable to all Contracts with value of $25,000 or more, but there is no requirement to disclose classified information. This represents a change from the interim rule, which included language stating that it did not apply to classified contracts; the Final Rule expands this provision to state that nothing in the statute requires disclosure of “classified information.” The Final Rule deleted an additional exception that had been contained in the interim rule, namely that the rule did not apply to contracts with individuals. There is no such exemption in the Final Rule. There is also no exemption for COTS or commercial items.

A “First-Tier Subcontract” is defined as a subcontract “entered into by the [Prime] Contractor to furnish supplies or services for performance... It includes, but is not limited to, purchase orders and changes and modifications to purchase orders, but does not include contracts that provide supplies or services benefiting two or more contracts.” FAR 52.204-10(a). This too represents a change from the interim rule. The interim rule’s definition of “first-tier subcontracts” has been modified slightly, to clarify that the definition does not include long-term contracts for supplies and materials that are not solely related to a single, applicable contract. According to the preamble of the Final Rule, this change is meant to give contractors “greater flexibility” in determining what type of company qualifies as a “first-tier subcontractor.”

An extensive list of the information contractors must report regarding first-tier subcontract awards can be found at FAR 52.204-10(a). 

Executive Compensation Reporting

Contractors and applicable Subcontractors must comply with this requirement only if that contractor or subcontractor, in the preceding fiscal year, received eighty percent (80%) or more of its annual gross revenues and twenty-five million or more in annual gross revenues from federal contract awards, AND if the public did not otherwise have access to this executive compensation information from other publically available sources (for example, through SEC or IRS filings).

The category of subcontractors required to report executive compensation is limited to “First-Tier Subcontractors,” which is defined in the same manner as set forth above. The Subcontractor is required to report to the prime contractor names and total compensation of each of the five most highly compensated executives for that subcontractor’s preceding completed fiscal year. The Prime Contractor, in turn, is required to report this information, along with its own executive compensation information to the extent that it falls within the parameters of the Rule.

For purposes of disclosure under the final Rule, both “executive” and “compensation” are defined broadly. Compensation includes not only salary, but also:

– (1) bonus;
– (2) awards of stock, stock options, and stock appreciation rights;
– (3) earnings for services under non-equity incentive plans;
– (4) change in pension value;
– (5) above-market earnings on deferred compensation which is not tax-qualified; and
– (6) other compensation, if the aggregate value of all such other compensation (e.g., severance, termination payments, value of life insurance paid on behalf of the employee, perquisites or property) for the executive exceeds $10,000.

“Executive” is defined as any officer, managing partner, or any employee in a management position.

The prime contractor must report executive compensation information in two different locations. For subcontractors, the information is entered into the FFATA Sub-award Reporting System (“FSRS”). For contractor information, primes must use the Federal Procurement Data System (“FPDS”), where certain required information will be pre-populated by the government. Prime Contractors must note two things here: First, as to first-tier subcontractors, the prime is responsible for notifying its subcontractors that the required information will be made public. Second, regarding its own information, under the Final Rule it is the prime’s responsibility to check and correct any inaccurate information pre-populated in FPDS.

This Rule places prime contractors in the precarious position of collecting and reporting not simply their own information, but information from others. How can a prime assure itself that it is collecting and reporting the full extent of the subcontractor information required? How can it ensure that the information it receives from its subcontractors is accurate? These are troubling issues and prime contractors will have to develop risk management systems to assist with compliance. Specifically, prime contractors should establish a mechanism, through their subcontracts, for example, to notify subcontractors of the reporting requirements and what information must be provided. However, since the reporting obligation applies to the prime contractor and not subcontractors, it will not be sufficient to merely “flow down” the actual reporting responsibilities. Having subcontractors certify the information provided may also assist prime contractors in protecting themselves from the risks associated with the Rule. And primes must not forget about reporting their own information. Systems for collecting, reporting and updating this information must be established to remain compliant. Oh, the joy of dealing with the federal government…

Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli has been closely following the development of this Rule since its inception, and has advised many contractors with regards to compliance. For further information, or for a short slide presentation concerning the Rule, please contact Mr. DeLisle at edelisle@cohenseglias.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Robert E. Little, Jr.

Several months ago, I was asked to present testimony before House Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law on the subject of individual sureties. See http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Hearings%202012/Little%2003052012.pdf. In that testimony I warned that legal precedent had had little effect on policing individual sureties. Using the example in the Tip Top Construction case, I noted that despite being told by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that certain assets were unacceptable, the individual surety in that case proffered them again two years later to the Architect of the Capitol.

Now for the rest of the story. In that same transaction, the Architect of the Capitol had previously and properly rejected a proffered asset in the form of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (ILOC). An ILOC (referred to in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) as an “ILC”) is a permissible asset for individual sureties provided it meets FAR-specified criteria. FAR 28.203-2(b)(5).

To provide some context, I first ran across the ILOC a few years ago as an advisor to the U.S. Special Trade Representative in connection with bilateral negotiations with Japan. I represented the U.S. side in explaining our federal bonding requirements to the Japanese. To prepare, I looked at the Japanese bonding system and discovered that they use the ILOC (ILC) almost exclusively for their public and private construction. In the Japanese system, the ILOC is typically 15% of the amount of the contract. By contrast, a bond for a U.S. project would be 100% of the contract price for each performance bond and payment bond. Consequently, your first due diligence step as a contractor would be to assure that you have two ILOCs at the face value of the contract price, each separately referencing the payment and performance bonds. In my experience, individual sureties seem to forget this point and provide only one ILOC in the amount of 100% the contract price.

If you surmount that hurdle, you must determine the validity of the ILOC for federal bonding purposes. In trying to figure this out, you will likely encounter circumstances characterized by Churchill’s description of the Soviet’s intentions in 1939. The ILOC will seem to be a “... riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” In that regard, the ILOC is required to be issued by a federally-insured financial institution with the government as beneficiary and placed in a government-owned escrow account in a federally-insured financial institution. FAR 28.203-1. That essentially means that the individual named as the surety will at least have appeared to provide 200% of the contract price—essentially in cash—to secure a contractor’s performance and payments to suppliers. (This, as you may have guessed, is the enigma part. If you can get passed this enigmatic circumstance, you are ready to tackle the wrap of mystery.)

Unwrapping the mystery requires starting with the header of the document that you might receive. The name of the ILOC-issuing entity will be something like 2nd Trustee Assurance, LLC. (There are seemingly an infinite number of possible names based on roots, such as, “first,” “1st,” “trust,” “bank,” banc,” “assurance,” “fidelity,” and “surety.”) Were you to do an internet search of the issuer, you might find that such business name does not otherwise exist, or, if it does, it is not identified with the same location or phone number on the submitted document. You must confirm the entity’s existence in the database of the active legal entities in the state where the entity is located, but you might not be able to.

If you can remove the wrap of mystery by determining the entity issuing the ILOC exists, you might find that the entity is neither a financial institution nor federally insured. If you cannot determine that the issuing entity is on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s list of FDIC-insured banks, there is a very good chance that the entity is neither a financial institution nor federally insured. (All federal and some state credit unions are federally insured by National Credit Union Administration. I doubt you’ll see a credit union, however. All entities will appear to be banks or savings and loans.) On occasion, you might see an issuing entity that holds itself out as providing financial advice and/or investment services, but those firms are not necessarily financial institutions. Such firm may tout Securities Investment Protection CorporationTM (SIPC) protection, but that is not federal insurance. If you cannot establish that the ILOC-issuing entity is a financial institution and federally insured, you cannot submit the bonds if you are a bidder or accept them if you are the federal agency.

But wait, there’s more.

You, as the bidder, contractor, or agency, might be misled by the fact that the ILOC (although not issued by a federally-insured financial institution) was placed in an escrow account in an FDIC-insured financial institution. And you, as the agency, might be further fooled into thinking that the agency-as-beneficiary gives you the ability to cash out any escrowed funds (assuming there are any).

The misleading occurs because, while the federal government would be named as the “beneficiary” of the ILOC, the government might not have been given any right title and interest in—much less ownership of—the escrow account holding the ILOC. The escrow account could belong to a third party, perhaps an attorney. If so, that would violate FAR 28.301-1(b)(1) which requires the ILOC be in the name of the Government agency and placed in an escrow account in the name of (i.e., owned by) the federal agency whereby the agency has the sole and unrestricted access to and right to present sight drafts on the ILOC to the issuing financial institution. You couldn’t access the “fund” unless the owner agreed, and the owner might not—if you can find the owner.

One final note on “unrestricted.” Unrestricted means what it says: unconditional, no restrictions, e.g., no requirement that the contractor be in default. The requirement is cash on presentment of a draft to the issuing financial institution. Accordingly, if the ILOC has language, such as, “the draft must be accompanied by a certified statement that an event of default has occurred and is continuing,” the right to payment of the fund is impermissibly restricted. This becomes critical where the issuer of a one-year ILOC gives appropriate notice that it will not be extended. In such case, the owner must have the right to convert the ILOC—or any similarly limited instrument—to cash in order to protect itself and/or subcontractors, suppliers, and materialmen. Such right obviously cannot be conditioned on the contractor’s being in default.

Normally, a riddle is like a puzzle with all of the pieces present (or at least knowable) but misarranged or obscured. With ILOCs, you might find that most of the pieces are missing or not what they seem. Good luck.

Robert E. Little, Jr. is of counsel to the firm and is the former Senior Associate Counsel for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. He is a member of the firm's Federal Contracting Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

We’ve warned you before: the False Claims Act should be taken seriously. In recent years, the government has been increasingly willing to wield the provisions of the FCA as weapons, zealously punishing offending federal contractors.

A recent opinion United States ex rel. Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 11-55278 (9th. Cir. 2012) reminds us once again that the government almost seems to be searching for ways expand the FCA’s application, finding new categories of conduct that are covered by, and punishable pursuant to, the Act.

In Hooper, the Court found that the practice known as “buying in” – i.e. deliberate underbidding of a job – was covered under the FCA. Hooper, a former employee of Lockheed Martin, brought a “qui tam” action against Lockheed, alleging that the company deliberately underbid at least one Air Force contract. The contract was cost-reimbursable with an award fee. As one might imagine, intentionally underbidding this type of contract could be quite lucrative. In apparent recognition of this fact, Hooper alleged that Lockheed knowingly underestimated its costs when submitting its bid.

In response, Lockheed moved to dismiss. The company argued that a false estimate could not create liability under the False Claims Act. The Court disagreed. After noting that both the First and Fourth Circuits had previously found the FCA applicable to similar “underbidding” situations, the Ninth Circuit stated as follows: “we conclude that false estimates, defined to include fraudulent underbidding in which the bid is not what the defendant actually intends to charge, can be a source of liability under the FCA, assuming that the other elements of an FCA claim are met.”

In the wake of this decision, all contractors would be wise to take every possible precaution to avoid underbidding – intentional or otherwise.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

The federal government’s much-anticipated new contractor registration system, “SAM” was launched on July 30, 2012. SAM (short for System for Award Management) replaces the former Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system, and will ultimately integrate eight federal procurement systems (CCR, FedReg, ORCA, EPLS, CFDA, eSRS, FBO, FPDS-NG, FSRS, PPIRS, WDOL), along with the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, into a new, streamlined system.

Eventually, contractors will be able to use one set of log in information to access everything that was once spread out over eight sites. Once SAM reaches that stage, there should be more consistency in the information found on-line, as contractors will no longer have to keep track of, or update, information on several different websites – one update on SAM, and you are set. Contractors will be able to register, file certifications, and search for contracting opportunities, in one place.

Steps for registering your business on SAM can be found in the User Guide posted on the SAM website. A quick start guide is also available. If you have further questions, or experience any difficulties, you can contact the Federal Service Desk’s Answer Center. We do understand that contractors have been having difficulty accessing the system, which is not entirely surprising at this point. If we receive any information addressing these accessibility problems, or any other issues of import regarding SAM, we will pass along that information to you.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

Be careful what you ask for, or, in the context of federal government contracting, be careful how you ask and how the government responds. If you're not careful, you may get what you ask for, but lose a contract. That's the lesson learned in NCI Information Systems, Inc.

In NCI Information Systems, Inc., the Department of Defense, U.S. Transportation Command (“USTRANSCOM”) issued an RFP, seeking IT administrative and management support services. The RFP incorporated FAR § 52.215-1(c)(3)(i), which states that if no time is specified in the solicitation, the deadline for receipt is 4:30 p.m., local time on the date identified.

Following the initial submittal of proposals, discussions ensued. After three rounds of discussions, the agency requested that those companies remaining in contention for award submit final proposal revisions “by close of business on 31 August 2011.” It did not specify what time constituted “close of business.” The agency’s failure to specify a time created some confusion, because USTRANSCOM employees work flextime schedules, with different hours on different days. Because of this, its office would "close" at different times on different days.

Knowing this, on August 31, at 4:21 p.m., Harris IT Services (“Harris”), one of the prospective contractors, sent an e-mail to the Contracting Officer, asking whether the government would extend “close of business” until after 4:30 PM CST. The Contracting Officer responded to Harris stating: “[u]ntil 5:00 PM Central Time is acceptable as meeting the close of business deadline.” Harris’ final proposal revisions reached the agency’s central server at 4:57 p.m. CST and arrived at the Contracting Officer’s computer at 4:59 p.m. CST on August 31. Harris was ultimately awarded the contract.

Thereafter, a protest was initiated by a competitor, NCI Information Systems, Inc., which claimed that Harris was ineligible for award because its final proposal revisions were untimely. Specifically, NCI argued that the agency set the due date for Final proposal revisions as the close of business on August 31, and that because the Contracting Officer’s notice did not provide a specific time, the time for receipt of FPRs was 4:30 p.m. pursuant to FAR § 52.215-1(c)(3)(i). The GAO agreed.

Though Harris argued that “close of business” should be interpreted as “any time prior to when the office closed for the day . . . so long as an employee remained in the office during that employee’s regularly scheduled duty hours,” the GAO declined to adopt such a rule. It reasoned that “[a]doption of such a rule would result in confusion and a lack of uniformity." Instead, the GAO held that where an agency, such as USTRANSCOM, lacks official working hours, FAR § 52.215-1(c)(3)(i) will govern, and 4:30 p.m. local time will be considered to be the close of business. The GAO was not persuaded by Harris’ argument concerning the Contracting Officer’s extension of the time for submission, concluding that “an offeror acts unreasonably when it relies on the informal advice of a contracting officer rather than following the solicitation’s instructions.” Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and Harris was divested of its contract.

The lesson is not to rely on informal advice from a Contracting Officer, even if it is in writing. If the advice you receive was not given to all potential bidders, or incorporated into a formal modification of some kind, the terms of the most recent instructions provided to all will govern, despite what the Contracting Officer told you.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group. Maria L. Panichelli is an Associate in the firm’s Federal Practice Group.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 By: Joseph A. Hackenbracht

Federal contractors need to prepare for another change in the online environment. Currently scheduled to take place in late July of this year, the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system will no longer exist. The Federal government is starting a new registration system called the System for Award Management, or SAM [Uncle, get it?] for short. In addition to replacing CCR, SAM will incorporate the Federal Agency Registration [FedReg], the Online Representations and Certifications Application [ORCA], and the Excluded Parties List System [EPLS]. For all those contractors already registered in CCR and ORCA, you can breathe a sigh of relief; the Federal government is going to transfer your information into the new system. Although some of the terminology is changing, enough has remained the same that SAM should be familiar, so when the time comes for a contractor to renew its registration, it will not have too much trouble. For more information, go to the website.  A quick introduction to the new system is attached.

The government, however, is not through with its centralization of procurement information. Contractors familiar with the FedBizOpps system for reviewing solicitations, amendments, and other procurement actions can look forward to it being incorporated into SAM, along with the PPIRS, Past Performance Information Retrieval System, and many other data sites.

That’s life in the digital age, changing so quickly that it is hard to know whether you’re coming or going.

Joseph A. Hackenbracht is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne

There has been a noticeable increase in the number of contractors proposed for debarment and in the tenacity with which alleged ethical violations are being investigated. Government contractors who receive contract awards in excess of $5 million are required to have a written Code of Business Ethics and Conduct pursuant to the requirements of FAR 3.1002 and FAR 3.1004. (Also See FAR 52.203-13 and 52.203-14). This requirement is very important in light of FAR 9.104-1, which states that to be determined responsible, a contractor must have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. It is incumbent upon federal contractors to take these requirements seriously and to not only have a written code, but to conduct themselves in such a way that ethical conduct is built into the culture of the company.

In our experience, when companies face the possibility of suspension or debarment it is typically because a rogue employee does something foolish, or because someone simply does not follow the rules. Most frequently, the act that comes to the attention of a suspension and debarring official is not something that was done with the knowledge, or approval, of company management. In determining whether the company, and its management, should be held responsible for the misconduct of an employee, however, the suspension and debarring official will be very interested in whether the company has a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct in place, whether there is a compliance program, whether there is on-going ethics training, and whether the ethical culture of the company is effectively communicated to every employee.

Simply having a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct in place is not enough. Too many companies have drafted a code, conducted one round of training, and have had virtually no follow-up for a number of years. That sort of a superficial ethics program will not convince the government that your company has done everything possible to avoid unethical conduct and will increase the risk that the company will be implicated in the misconduct of an offending employee. Our recommendation is that contractors periodically, at least once a year, review and update the company’s Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, that an on-going ethics compliance program be put into place, and that both management and other employees have frequent training. The consequences of not taking the government’s ethics requirements seriously can be devastating.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters, including ethics compliance, and presents ethics training and compliance seminars.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne

A protest that challenges the source selection decision on a negotiated, best value, procurement is not easy to win. Numerous decisions of the GAO and the United States Court of Federal Claims have held that procurement officials are entitled to substantial deference. In a recent decision by the Court of Federal Claims, however, the Court stated that “such deference is not unlimited.” See Firstline Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States dated September 27, 2011. While the protest did not involve a construction project, and dealt with a Department of Homeland Security contract for airport screening services, the Court’s decision is certainly applicable to procurements for construction.

The Plaintiff argued that the Source Selection Evaluation Board (“SSEB”) failed to conduct a proper best-value analysis and actually awarded the contract on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis. That, of course, was improper because the government advertised that there would be a best-value tradeoff that would weigh all of the evaluation factors and price. While a number of protesters have alleged that the Government ignored the advertised evaluation factors and simply found a way to award to the lowest price, it is refreshing to know that, in this case, the Court agreed that the facts supported the protester’s contention.

The Court’s decision is quite lengthy (79 pages) and we will not discuss it in detail, but a copy is linked to this article and we recommend that you give it a quick review. In essence, the Court found that that the best-value analysis performed by the SSEB was both irrational and inconsistent with the evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP. In criticizing the agency, the Court stated that the SSEB failed to account for the significant differences between the competing proposals with respect to technical quality; and, that in selecting a higher-priced, technically superior proposal for award, an agency must explain and document why the technical merits of that proposal warrant its higher price. The Court stated:

[T]he agency is compelled by the FAR to document its
reasons for choosing the higher-priced offer. Conclusory
statements, devoid of any substantive content, have been
held to fall short of this requirement, threatening to turn
the tradeoff process into an empty exercise. Indeed, apart
from the regulations, generalized statements that fail to
reveal the agency’s tradeoff calculus deprive this court of
any basis upon which to review the award decisions.

The finding regarding lack of documentations is particularly welcome because we see so many cases where the GAO and the Court accept very sparse documentation without putting the agency to the test of fully explaining, and supporting, its source selection rationale.

The decision in this case is noteworthy because it holds out the hope that where the facts support a protester’s allegations, the Court will not simply defer to the discretion of the agency. The Source Selection Authority (“SSA”) in this case did not perform an independent evaluation and assessment of competing proposals which, of course, explains why there was no documentation of any such assessment. The Court found this to be particularly egregious and emphasized that the “SSA’s documentation is limited to her adoption of the SSEB report and her otherwise unsupported statement that the intervenor’s proposal represents the best value to the government.” The more that federal agencies are required to document and fully explain the basis for their procurement decisions, the more likely it will be that procurement decisions will be made fairly and impartially.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters, including teaming arrangements, negotiated procurements, bid protests, claims, and appeals.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne

Government contractors frequently use incorrect terminology to describe a solicitation. For example, clients often call me and ask why they were not awarded a contract even though they had submitted the lowest bid. The first thing that I ask is whether the solicitation was a Request for Proposals ("RFP"), or an Invitation for Bid ("IFB"). If it was an RFP, the award was probably based on best value and the lowest-priced proposal would not necessarily receive the award. If the solicitation was an IFB, there would be more of a question about why an award was not made to the lowest-priced bidder. Of course, even in sealed bidding the lowest bidder must also be responsive and responsible in order to receive an award, so there can be a valid reason as to why the lowest bidder did not receive the award.

The best way to show that you understand the basics of the federal procurement process is to remember that responses to an IFB (sealed bid solicitation) are referred to as "bids," and responses to an RFP (negotiated procurement) are referred to as "proposals" or "offers." In other words, the proper terms under an IFB are "bid," "bidder," and "sealed bid," and the proper terms under an RFP are "proposal," "offer," and "offeror." Your lawyer will become very confused if you mix these terms by saying, for example, "I just submitted a bid on an RFP." Sometimes, the only way that I can figure out what my client is talking about is to ask for the solicitation number (the "R" or the "B" in the middle will be a dead giveaway), or I may simply ask my client to send me a copy of the solicitation.

Of course, government procurement personnel frequently add to the confusion. RPPs are often referred to as "negotiated procurements" even though there usually are no negotiations (or "discussions"), and contracting officers often refer to both bids and proposals as "bids," To make matters worse, the GAO and the courts refer to protests of either an IFB or an RFP as "bid protests." No wonder there is so much confusion.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters, including teaming arrangements, negotiated procurements, bid protests, claims, and appeals.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

Pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), every claim on a federal construction project that is in excess of $100,000 must be certified. The reasoning behind this policy is simple: the government wants to discourage the submission of questionable and/or inflated claims. As such, for each claim in excess of the threshold amount, a contractor must append the following language to its claim:

I certify that the claim is made in good faith; that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the Contractor believes the Government is liable; and that I am duly authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the Contractor.

If a contractor submits a claim that it has reason to believe runs afoul of this affirmation, it is subject to a variety of penalties. Those set forth in the False Claims Act (FCA) are the most daunting and represent those that the government will most likely pursue if it becomes aware of a potential violation.

In order to be liable under the civil version of the FCA, the government (or an individual in a qui tam action) must prove that the contractor submitted false information and had actual knowledge that the information was false; acted in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of that information; or acted in reckless disregard of the truth of falsity of the information. If, after an evidentiary hearing, a fact finder determines that a violation took place, a contractor can be assessed fines, damages, or both. Fines can range from $5,000 to $10,000 per violation. This can amount to quite a penalty indeed. For example, in Ab-Tech Const., Inc. v. U.S., 31 Fed.Cl. 429 (1994), a contractor was successful in obtaining the award of a contract issued as an 8(a) set-aside. It subsequently pursued a claim for an equitable adjustment of its contract. The government filed a counterclaim under the FCA, alleging that the contractor was not eligible to receive the award, thereby forfeiting its claim. The government also demanded penalties in the amount of $10,000 for each instance that the contractor submitted an invoice for payment, arguing that in each case the contractor was effectively asserting that it was an eligible participant under the 8(a) program. The court ultimately agreed that the government was entitled to a penalty of $221,000, $10,000 for each payment application submitted by the contractor.

The government can also seek treble damages under the FCA. While many of the reported cases that involve the assessment of treble damages pertain to egregious violations, that does not preclude the government from pursuing such a remedy in more benign situations. See Morse Diesel Intern v. U.S., 79 Fed.Cl. 116 (2007)(assessing treble damages where contractor billed the government more than $1.6 million for reimbursement of bond premiums that were not paid and in excess of $650,000 for false indemnity payments to a parent company).

The above must be taken very seriously based upon the current trends in federal government contracting. The GAO has issued a number of reports over the last several years identifying instances of fraud in the government procurement process. Those reports have generated intense interest on Capitol Hill, resulting in legislation such as the Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. The Act would allow for stricter enforcement of the regulations governing small business procurement and increase prosecutions, suspensions and debarments for violations. Similarly, there is a push to amend the FCA to increase the statute of limitations for offenses from six (6) to ten (10) years, expand the ability of the government to obtain awards in excess of any actual losses incurred and apply these principals in a retroactive fashion. All of this suggests increased vigilance in the prosecution of potential instances of fraud. Inevitably, as the government attempts to vigorously root out the evils in the system, there will be honest, hard-working contractors who find Justice knocking on their door. Contractors must be aware of the FCA and the world we now live in and have sufficient controls in place to avoid any unwanted visitors.

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

This article was originally published on Law360.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne

The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 (Public Law 110-417) was enacted on October 14, 2008. Section 872 of the Act required the development and maintenance of an information system that contains specific information on the integrity and performance of covered Federal agency contractors and grantees. The Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (“FAPIIS”) was developed to address these requirements. FAPIIS is a distinct application that is accessed through the Past Performance Information System (PPIRS) and is available to federal acquisition professionals for their use in award and responsibility determinations. FAPIIS provides users access to integrity and performance information from the FAPIIS reporting module in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), proceedings information from the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database, and suspension/disbarment information from the Excluded Parties List system (EPLS). (Past performance information on construction contracts is stored in the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System “CCASS”).

Contractors need to be aware that FAPIIS includes information relating to a contractor’s past performance reviews, suspensions, debarments, nonresponsibility determinations, and civil, criminal and administrative proceedings that include a contractor's performance of federal, state and local contracts. Since contracting officers will be reviewing this information when they conduct responsibility determinations, contractors need to be certain that the information is accurate. In addition, since some of the information, excluding past performance information, is available for public review, there is a possibility that competitors will look for information to use against a contractor in a bid protest. That provides all the more reason that contractors should be diligent in assuring that inaccurate information does not remain on the system.

The new requirements, that became effective on April 15, 2011, are implemented by FAR 9.104-7 and the clause found at FAR 52.209-9., and further information can be found at the Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (“CPARS”) website, and by reading the FAPIIS User Manual.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on compliance and federal procurement matters.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne

The GAO requires, as provided in 4 CFR 21.2, that:

(a)(1) Protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to bid opening or the time set for receipt of initial proposals shall be filed prior to bid opening or the time set for receipt of initial proposals. In procurements where proposals are requested, alleged improprieties which do not exist in the initial solicitation but which are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation must be protested not later than the next closing time for receipt of proposals following the incorporation.

(2) Protests other than those covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be filed not later than 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known (whichever is earlier), with the exception of protests challenging a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required. In such cases, with respect to any protest basis which is known or should have been known either before or as a result of the debriefing, the initial protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester, but shall be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held.

Of course, filing a GAO protest may not achieve any meaningful relief unless the project is stayed pending resolution of protest. In this regard, FAR 33.104(c) provides that "When the agency receives notice of a protest from the GAO within 10 days after contract award or within 5 days after a debriefing date offered to the protester for any debriefing that is required by 15.505 or 15.506, whichever is later, the contracting officer shall immediately suspend performance or terminate the awarded contract," except when the interests of the United States will not permit waiting for a GAO decision. The key here is that, in a negotiated procurement, the agency must have received notice from the GAO within five days after the debriefing. That means that the protest needs to be filed as quickly as possible after the debriefing in order for there to be any realistic possibility that the GAO will notify the agency in time. In our experience, when agencies receive notice even one day late, they will refuse to impose a stay.

The rigid timeliness requirements of the GAO often lead protesters to file bid protests in the United States Court of Federal Claims where there is no 10-day, or 5-day, time limit, and where a debriefing is not a prerequisite to filing a protest on a negotiated procurement. The downside, however, is that the Court does not grant an automatic stay and a protester must file a motion for a temporary restraining order in order to halt further performance pending resolution of the protest. In our experience, the government frequently agrees to voluntarily stay performance once the protest is filed (often at the urging of the judge) and a TRO hearing is not always required.

It should also be noted that if a protest involves a matter that should have been raised prior to bid opening, or prior to the date for receipt of proposals, such as a challenge to the terms of the solicitation, a protest filed after award will be dismissed as untimely. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that “a party who has the opportunity to object to the terms of a government solicitation containing a patent error and fails to do so prior to the close of the bidding process waives its ability to raise the same objection subsequently in a bid protest action in the Court of Federal Claims.” (See Blue and Gold, 492 F.3d 1308). Accordingly, contractors should consult with legal counsel to be certain that all of the procedural requirements of a protest have been met.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on bid protests and federal construction matters.

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne

The growth of contracting by negotiation or “best value” procurement, has had a chilling effect on the submission of claims by construction contractors. There seems to be a growing fear that claims are frowned upon by contracting officers and that they will be counted against a contractor during future proposal evaluations. This fear, in my opinion, is misplaced provided that the claims are not frivolous and are technically and legally supported.

The Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq., requires contractors to certify that claims in excess of $100,000 are “made in good faith,” that all “supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of [the contractor's] knowledge and belief,” and that the amount requested “accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the government is liable.” 41 U.S.C. § 605(c)(1). A contractor who is willing to make that certification should not be denied the opportunity to recover the additional costs, or time, that the contract and the law specifically allow. There are a number of clauses in federal construction contracts, including “Changes” (FAR 52.243-4), “Differing Site Conditions” (FAR 52.236-2) “Suspension of Work” (FAR 52.242-14) “Termination for Convenience” (FAR 52.249-2), etc., that afford contractors with the right to seek an equitable adjustment to the contract. These clauses apply to sealed bidding and negotiated procurements alike, and the fear of retribution on proposal evaluations should not be used to deny contractors the very rights that the contract and the law provide.

It is also important to note that contracting officer’s are required to deal with claims fairly, and there is a duty of good faith and fair dealing in government contracting. As the U.S. Court of Federal Claim noted in Lavezzo v. United States, a contracting officer is obligated to “put his own mind to the problems and render his own decisions.” Such decisions must be “personal [and] independent,” and “even the appearance of coercion [must] be avoided.” 74 Fed.Cl. 502, 509 (2006). In addition, a Contracting Officer's outright denial of meritorious contractor claims to gain some advantage over the contractor will not be condoned by the Court. In other words, a contracting officer's review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor. Moreland Corp. v. U.S., 76 Fed.Cl. 268 (2007). Contractors are legally entitled to submit claims, to have those claims fairly and impartially reviewed, and contractors are entitled to do so without fear of the impact on future source selections.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm's Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters, including teaming arrangements, negotiated procurements, bid protests, claims, and appeals.

• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, introduced a bipartisan bill on Thursday that is designed to combat fraud and abuse in the world of small business contracting. As we have reported, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued a number of reports over the last several years detailing the existence of fraud in the HUBZone, Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and 8(a) programs. These reports have generated much discussion about the need to revamp the system and, in certain circumstances, talk has led to action. The implementation of the current SDVOSB verification system is but one example of the government’s response to the current state of affairs. S. 633, entitled the “Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011” (Fraud Prevention Act), is designed to take the government’s ability to respond to fraud and abuse in small business contracting to a new level.

As reported by Law360, the Fraud Prevention Act contains three key provisions:

     1. It calls for the development of an oversight structure within the Small Business Administration (SBA) that would allow for better enforcement of the rules governing small business contracting;

     2. It would allow for an increase in criminal prosecutions, suspensions and debarments for those who violate the rules; and

     3. It would require the SBA to issue annual reports to Congress regarding those who are suspended, debarred or referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

S. 633 is yet another step to close the loopholes that have developed in the federal government’s small business contracting system. We will track this legislation and report any further developments.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Edward T. DeLisle

For those who regularly read our blog, you know that we have followed the government’s recent concern about fraud and abuse in the federal procurement process.  The GAO has issued reports that recite such abuse relative to the 8(a), HUBZone and SDVOSB programs.  As those reports indicate, companies have been awarded set-aside contracts through those programs, but were not qualified to receive them.  In certain circumstances, the apparent fraud was so blatant that the hubris, which certainly existed to think such abuses would go unnoticed, puts Charlie Sheen to shame.  Yet, as the GAO reports state, even when the abuses were uncovered, many of these contractors continued to receive government awards.  It appears that some contractors performing work overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan may also be receiving awards that they do not deserve.

As reported by Govexec.com, government agencies responsible for overseas contracts are not properly recording past performance history in the CPAR and PPIR electronic databases.  The biggest offenders appear to be the State Department, the Department of Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).  Based upon information supplied to the Commission on Wartime Contracting, congressionally mandated to investigate overseas contracting activities, these agencies have failed to properly report past performance history in up to 90% of the contingency contracts they have issued.  While the failure to report this information is problematic for many reasons, it certainly exposes the government to contractors who are less than ideal for important government contracts.  This is especially an issue as it relates to contractors in line for suspension or debarment.  As former Connecticut Congressman Christopher Shays, who is the chairman of the Commission, stated: “[I]f suspensions and debarments are impeded by bureaucratic decisions or inertia, then companies that have committed fraud may continue receiving taxpayer funds.  In either case, untrustworthy contractors can continue profiting from government work, responsible businesses may be denied opportunities, and costs to taxpayers can climb.”

Over the years, the government has increasingly relied upon “best value” procurement to let contracts.  Past performance is almost always an important factor in determining “best value.” In fact, in most cases, it is the most important factor.  If federal agencies intend to continue issuing contracts in this fashion, a practice that is highly questionable for the purchase of certain services, such as construction, then they must make it a point to create a system that allows those deserving of awards to receive them. In the case of small business set aside contracts, the government has started to slowly move in this direction.  The VA, for example, is now vetting those contractors on its on-line SDVOSB registry to verify eligibility.  If this function is performed correctly, it will greatly enhance the probability that contracts will be let to those who deserve them. With respect to past performance history, there is a system in place.  Federal agencies simply need to use it.  Hopefully, the findings exposed by the Commission on Wartime Contracting make this a reality.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Join the Federal Construction Group of Cohen, Seglias as it presents, "Unraveling the Mysteries of Federal Construction Contracting," at two different locations.

Dates/Locations:
March 29, 2011 - Hyatt Regency Savannah, GA
March 31, 2011 - Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress Orlando, FL

Time:
8:00a.m.-1:00p.m.

Cost:
$195.00 per person and $95 for each additional person from the same company.

Attendees will learn about the following topics:

• Understanding the FAR and how a Federal construction contract works
• The RFP procurement process
• Preparing winning proposals on “best value” solicitations
• Understanding the IDIQ/MATOC process
• How to successfully team on Federal projects
• Knowing when, and whether, to file a bid protest
• Negotiating contract modifications
• Maintaining proper project documentation
• Obtaining prompt payment
• Preparing and submitting Requests for Equitable Adjustment and Claims
• Protecting your rights through the dispute resolution process

Regardless of your experience level, this seminar will help you understand these key concepts and develop strategies for both obtaining federal contracts and profiting from them.

Please click here for complete seminar details and registration form.  For questions, please contact Rachel McNally at (215) 564-1700 or rmcnally@cohenseglias.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Robert E. Little, Jr.

Individual sureties are natural persons - as opposed to corporations and limited liability companies - who offer to bind themselves on bid, performance, and payment bonds. Individual sureties are acceptable from prime contractors on federal construction projects, provided the individual owns and pledges sufficient assets to cover the appropriate percentage of the value of the bid or contract. However, they are not eligible for listing on the Department of Treasury's list of approved corporate sureties. This means that neither they nor their assets have been federally vetted.

Attendees of the Bonding Basics segment of the 5th Annual National Veterans Small Business Conference and Expo, where I was a panelist representing the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), were treated to a discussion about individual sureties. Although some attendees may have left the conference with the impression that individual sureties are a simple last resort for firms that cannot obtain bonding through corporate sureties or with the assistance of the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) Surety Bond Guarantee Program, individual sureties are not so simple. There have been many occasions where contractors have lost out on federal government contracting opportunities because they did not understand the significance of establishing the acceptability and value of the asset or assets pledged by an individual surety.

During my 17 years as senior counsel at NAVFAC headquarters, I observed that the Navy's experience with individual sureties' pledged assets mirrored that of the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) in the 2009 case Tip Top Construction, Inc. v. U.S.  I saw pledges of everything from non-existent bank stock and untradeable securities to "corporate reinsurance debentures" printed on very nice-looking paper.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A seminar on “How to Win Federal Construction Contracts with Teaming Arrangements” is being held at three different locations.

Dates/Locations:
October 5, 2010 - Hyatt Regency Dallas, TX
October 7, 2010 - Los Angeles Airport Marriott, CA
October 28, 2010 - Hilton Philadelphia Airport, PA

Time:
8:00a.m.-1:00p.m.

Cost:
$195 per person and $95 for each additional person from the same company.

The world of federal construction contracting has changed.

Cohen Seglias partner and 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?

Whatever your experience level is with teaming arrangements, this seminar will provide you with the tools to navigate the new landscape of federal government contracting.

Please click here for complete seminar details and registration form. For questions, please contact Rachel McNally at (215) 564-1700 or email rmcnally@cohenseglias.com.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Michael H. Payne & Elise M. Carlin

As recently reported in Washington Technology, on July 29, 2010, President Obama signed the Supplemental Appropriations Act for 2010 into law. This legislation amends the Clean Contracting Act of 2008, and allows the public to access the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), previously off-limits to anyone other than chairmen and ranking members of congressional committees. Under the new law, with the exception of contractors’ past performance evaluations, all information will be available for viewing online.

What Is FAPIIS?

Effective April 22, 2010, FAPIIS was established as part of the 2009 Defense Authorization Act. FAPIIS is managed by the General Services Administration, and was launched as “part of an ongoing initiative by the Administration to increase consideration of contractor integrity and the quality of a contractor's performance in awarding Federal contracts.” The final rule enacting FAPIIS is found in the Federal Register.

The FAPIIS database contains a wide range of information about contractors’ past performance, and aids contracting officers in selecting contractors who will perform well in order to avoid wasting taxpayer money. According to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) website, FAPIIS “contains information to support award decisions as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). FAPIIS is a web-enabled application that collects information on Terminations for Default, Terminations for Cause, Terminations for Material Failure to Comply, Defective Pricing Actions, Non-Responsibility Determinations, and Recipient Not-Qualified Determinations. Use of FAPIIS promotes awards to entities with a history of proven performance and business integrity.” As stated in the Federal Register, “FAPIIS is designed to improve the Government's ability to evaluate the business ethics and expected performance quality of prospective contractors and protect the Government from awarding contracts to contractors that are not responsible sources.”

The legislation which brings to light the information contained in FAPIIS was sponsored by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. In a recent interview with Government Executive, Sanders supported his position that the public should have access to the same information as contracting officials. “The American people have every reason to expect that their tax dollars are well-spent . . . For this reason, I am pleased that with this new legislation every contractor’s history of illegal behavior will be posted on a publicly accessible online database. I strongly expect that this new public awareness will put an end to handing out taxpayer-financed contracts to corporations with a history of fraud.”

While it is good news to many that the database is now publicly available, the move to make this information easily accessible is a concern to some in the industry. In a public statement, the Professional Services Council (PSC), the self-defined “national trade association of the government professional and technical services industry,” expressed concern that the new law “could create a politically motivated blacklist of vendors and improperly limit the government’s ability to access the best qualified vendors in the marketplace.”  Alan Chvotkin, Executive Vice President and Counsel for PSC recently stated that, “While firms are accountable for their past performance, opening portions of the database that are not now already publicly available elsewhere could risk improperly influencing the evaluation and selection of otherwise qualified bidders because of public pressure to ‘blacklist’ certain vendors.” Mr. Chvotkin continued, “Furthermore, public posting risks the inappropriate and potentially damaging disclosure of company proprietary information while doing nothing to further government oversight or decision making.” He also promised that, “Given this major modification to FAPIIS, PSC will be working with GSA and other federal agencies to ensure the proper and fair implementation of the public posting requirement.”

When Will The Information Be Available For Viewing?

The GSA is currently working on putting the new law into action, while also striving to alleviate the concerns of those in the industry. Diane Merriett, spokeswoman for the GSA, recently stated, “We are aware of some industry concerns regarding the disclosure of proprietary data and will address those.” At this time, no firm date has been established for the release of the information to the public.

The Federal Contracting Group at Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman will follow this story and keep you informed of any developments as the implementation of the law progresses. 

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By:  Michael H. Payne and Craig A. Schroeder
 
Effective September 8, 2009, federal contractors awarded new contracts of $100,000 or more with a performance period of longer than 120 days will be required to use E-Verify, an internet-based system that allows employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees.  In addition, affected contractors will also be required to confirm the employment eligibility of their current employees who perform contract services for the federal government within the United States. The contractor and any covered subcontractors on the project are required to enroll in the E-Verify program within 30 calendar days of the contract or subcontract award date.  The rule only covers subcontractors if a prime contract includes the E-Verify clause (73 FR 67704, available at http://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/52_222.html#wp1156645).  For subcontracts that flow from those prime contracts, the rule extends the E-Verify requirement to subcontracts for services or for construction with a value over $3,000.  Usage of E-Verify also applies to indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts modified after the September 8, 2009 rule effective date. 
 
The rule, however, exempts the following contracts:

Contracts that include only commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items (or minor   modifications to a COTS item) and related services;

      Contracts of less than the simplified acquisition threshold ($100,000);
      
      Contracts with a performance period of less than 120 days; and
      
      Contracts where all work is performed outside the United States.
        
Employees who normally perform support work, e.g., indirect or overhead functions, and do not perform any substantial duties under the contract, are also excluded from the E-Verify requirement.
 
Proponents of the E-Verify rule say that it confirms the government’s commitment to maintain a legal workforce, creating more reliable employees and reducing illegal hiring practices.  They also say that E-Verify reduces discrimination against immigrant workers since employers feel confident that the new hires are authorized to work and are not using false documents.  This alleviates employer concerns about discrimination lawsuits since the employer is relying on the government for authorization.
 
While the system is accurate, it’s not fail-proof – if the program inaccurately rules out a potential employee, that employee may not get a job.  It also creates yet another hoop through which contractors that want to work with the government must now jump through.   

This program, of course, simply adds to the recent ARRA reporting requirements, and the ethics compliance requirements, that make contracting with the federal government more and more difficult.  Contractors need to be ever vigilant in their compliance with solicitation requirements to avoid inadvertent violations that could lead to suspension and debarment.

More information about the rule can be found at www.uscis.gov/e-verify and http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/gc_1185221678150.shtm

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an earlier blog we discussed what the ARRA meant for Federal Construction Contractors, and noted that the reporting would be over the internet, once the government had its website up and running.

On Monday, August 17, 2009, recipients of economic stimulus funds were notified that they now can access the website www.federalreporting.gov and register. Registration is necessary before the site will permit recipients to file reports, which begins on October 1, 2009. In addition to completing the registration process on the website, recipients also must obtain a Federal Reporting Personal Identification Number (FRPIN). Instructions on how to obtain a FRPIN can be found at http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/recipient-reporting. The Government has published a 32 page guide to assist recipients in the registration process.

The government has indicated that anyone interested in reviewing the reports filed by recipients of Stimulus funding will be able to do so beginning on October 11, 2009 at the website www.recovery.gov.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By: Lane F. Kelman and Christopher Soper

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the "Stimulus Act") the General Services Administration's ("GSA") Public Building Service was authorized to invest 4.5 billion dollars to transform federal facilities into exemplary, high-performance green buildings. The allocated money is scheduled to be awarded in its entirety within the next two (2) years. A list of proposed projects in all fifty states has already been submitted to Congress. These designated projects are intended to improve energy efficiency, conserve resources over the long-term, provide models of high-performance green design and reduce the government's reliance on costly operating leases.

While the government's attempt to transition to high-performance green buildings is a noble goal, it presents federal contractors with a unique set of challenges. Federal contractors interested in these green construction projects should be prepared to deal with factors that were not previously considered when putting together your proposal and project team. These factors are unique to green building and include potentially unfamiliar project specifications, rating systems, new materials and installation techniques. A resource that is readily available to federal contractors interested in performing green building is the Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers.

The Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers (the "Guide") was created to assist federal building project managers to meet the various legal requirements of green construction. The Guide provides sample specification language for federal green construction projects. It is an excellent tool for federal contractors to familiarize themselves with the specifications and performance requirements associated with green building. The Guide can be found at http://www.wbdg.org/design/greenspec.php.

Also keep in mind the new legal concerns that are associated with green building. The ability to recognize and address the risks inherent in a green building construction contract will minimize the potential for disputes and exposure. A checklist of some of the factors that you should review are as follows:

* Identify which party is responsible for documenting and achieving LEED certification.
* Identify the damages associated with failing to obtain the required LEED certification.
* Confirm that the insurance coverage on the project takes into account the green nature of the project.
* Check the warranty and guaranty language to ensure that new green construction procedures or installation materials do not void the warranty or guaranty for a product.
* Investigate the availability of green construction materials and the replacement price for such materials.
* Make sure the construction schedule accounts for time associated with LEED certification.
* This list is in no way exhaustive of the issues that should be addressed or may arise on a green construction project, but does provide an idea of the types of things to consider.

The Stimulus Act will add significant momentum to green building. As green building evolves, it is expected that what is perceived as a trend or niche will become standardized. Those contractors that position themselves now will have a competitive edge in the future.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has posted the Civil Works projects that it intends to fund from the appropriations Congress provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5) on its website. In order to spend its $5 billion slice of the $787 billion stimulus pie, the Corps selected approximately 178 Construction projects and 892 Operation and Maintenance projects, nine Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) projects. These projects or useful increments of these projects will be completed with stimulus funding.
 
The only state that is not slated to receive any stimulus projects is Wyoming, because no eligible work on any ongoing Civil Works activity was presently available. The Corps applied the selection criteria which largely revolved around contracts that could be awarded and completed quickly. The wide geographic distribution of selected projects spreads the employment and other economic benefits across the United States and across Civil Works programs to provide the nation with project benefits related to inland and coastal navigation, the environment, flood and storm damage reduction, hydropower, and recreation.
 
The Corps has indicated that the majority of the contracts will be competitively bid. Some contracts will be awarded by issuing task orders on existing contracts generally referred to as Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts or Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC). At this time the Corps is unable to specify what projects will be procured in what fashion. The Corps has indicated that it intends to make maximum use of small businesses, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, in its stimulus program.
 
In a recent article in Engineering News Record, Bruce Buckley reported that “Driven by a need to speed projects to market, federal agencies are drawing heavily on accelerated delivery methods to move stimulus-funded work into the express lane. More than ever, traditional stand-alone procurement will take a back seat on federal jobs, as many new opportunities end up with firms holding existing “task order” contracts.” The risk that overuse of task order contracts will be anti-competitive was stressed in the article. Mr. Buckley noted that “Agencies are already leaning heavily on IDIQ contracts. Data from the Federal Procurement Data System show that orders through contracts grew from 14% of total dollars in fiscal 1990 to about 52% in fiscal 2005, says OMB.” In a May 2007 memo to federal acquisition officers, then-OMB Administrator Paul Denett warned of “a lack of meaningful competition for orders” in light of the increased use of IDIQ vehicles.
 
Mr. Buckley quoted Michael Payne, chairman of the federal construction practice group in Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman: “As more tasks go to IDIQ holders, some small to medium-size firms who don’t have IDIQ contracts are locked out . . . With IDIQ contract limits now reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars and the scope sometimes spanning multiple states, many firms can’t get adequate bonding to compete.” Mr. Payne also stressed that the method could hurt many of those the stimulus is designed to help, “The purpose is to lead to job creation. What better way than to go with open competition and make it available to the maximum number of companies?”

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated last month, he has initiated many changes which will impact federal contracting: first, he issued an executive order requiring a successor vendor on a services contract to offer a preceding contractor’s employees jobs under the new contract; second, in another executive order, he encouraged the use of project labor agreements to ensure that federal work would not be disturbed by “labor unrest” (see earlier blog article); and, in a third order, he prohibited contractors from passing along the costs of supporting or fighting their employees’ exercise of the right to unionize or bargain collectively.  Today President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, a statute more commonly referred to as the “Stimulus Bill.”  The total amount of the stimulus is approximately $787 billion and it promises great potential for more federal construction contracting work.  
 
The purpose behind this legislation is to relieve the nation from the current state of economic distress and to create jobs.  Another priority of the stimulus package is to improve the infrastructure of the country.  This means more money for government contracts, and in turn, more opportunities for construction contractors.  The allocation of funds within the Stimulus clearly demonstrates the growth potential for federal construction contractors: nearly 40%, or $311 billion, of the total amount is allocated to federal appropriations, with an estimated $131 billion going toward federal construction projects.  Below is the breakdown:

Transportation-$49.3 billion

Defense/Veterans-$7.78 billion

Housing/HUD-$9.6 billion

Education and Schools-no specific amount is designated but $39.5 billion of the allotted $53.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund goes to local school districts who have the option of the modernizing their facilities with this money.  

Energy-$30.62 billion

Buildings-$13.37 billion

Water and Environment-$20.1 billion

A major portion of this funding remains available until September 30, 2010. 

The Stimulus also promises to help small businesses.  The terms of the Stimulus authorize the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to temporarily eliminate or reduce fees for participation in its loan-guarantee programs.  It also increases to 90% the percentage of qualifying loans that the SBA can guarantee.  Also offered is a “small business stabilization financing” which offers small businesses in distress money to pay off existing loans.  These loans must be repaid within five years, can be for up to $35,000 and can be used to make up to six months of payments on prior loans.  The interest on these loans will be fully subsidized with no payments due for the first year.  Also offered are hiring incentives, a break on capital gains for those who invest in small businesses, increased loss accounting, and an expansion of allowable equipment expense deductions for small businesses.   

White House projections anticipate that this public works spending will lead to millions of jobs for American workers.  While there are legitimate questions about whether the employment generated by the Stimulus will be sustainable once the projects are completed, and whether the long-term effects of greater debt will lead to even greater economic problems in the future, there is little doubt that there will be an immediate benefit to federal, state, and local construction contractors.

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through its Office of Safety and Occupational Health, has released a new edition of the Corps’ Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-1, that streamlines information for easier access and quicker use.  According to the Corps, “The safety manual is a major key to the success of the USACE safety program.”  The 1,050 page book is used during construction, operations, maintenance, research The manual was last revised in 2003, and the 2008 version parallels Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and other national standards.  It deviates from these standards only when research and/or accident experience deem it necessary.

The new manual went into effect Jan. 12 and can be downloaded by clicking on this link.   It is also available in bid packages and from the Government Printing Office for about $27 a copy. Improvements in formatting and layout allow users of the manual to move through it with relative ease.  For example, crane requirements are clearer, up to date, and most importantly, centrally located in one section, including information that was located in appendices in past editions.  In the same way, all fall-protection requirements are now contained in Section 21 instead of scattered throughout the manual.

As stated on the Corps’ website, “With an organization as far-reaching as USACE, revising the safety manual was no small task.  This was one of the largest revisions since the manual’s original production, and has taken nearly two-and-a-half-years.”
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Department of Homeland Security has postponed the start date of the E-verify requirement (please see our earlier article).  The new rule will go into effect no earlier than Friday February 20, 2008.  Proponents of the new rule insist that the rule remains intact with as much legal force as before and that it is only being postponed.  Opponents of the new rule hope that the delay will allow the Obama administration ample time to evaluate the impact it could have on the world of government contracting. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an interesting decision issued by the United States Court of Federal Claims on November 25, 2008, in a case entitled BLR Group of America, Inc. vs. United States, the Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to consider a contractor’s claim that a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (“CPAR”) was “false and highly prejudicial.” The case arose because the Air Force had assigned a final performance rating of “Marginal” to the contractor in several categories, and had refused to amend the rating pursuant to a rebuttal presented by the contractor. Instead, the Air Force disseminated the rating by posting it on the Past Performance Informational Retrieval System (“PPIRS”), a database of performance ratings accessed by contracting officers while making contractor responsibility determinations and while conducting past performance evaluations during the source selection process on negotiated procurements. At a time when contractors are experiencing the rapidly growing use of “best value” negotiated procurements, the accuracy and fairness of contractor performance evaluations can be critical to a contractor’s ability to successfully compete for government contracts.

The Court did not address the merits of the contractor’s contention that the performance rating was “false and highly prejudicial,” but simply ruled that the Court had jurisdiction to consider the case. The government had filed a motion to dismiss and cited a number of Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decisions where the Board had declined to consider appeals based on challenges to performance evaluations. The Court refused to follow the Board’s decisions (the Court of Federal Claims is not bound by the decisions of the various boards of contract appeals) and concluded that a contractor could file a claim under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. In doing so, the Court focused on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), which provides that a claim is “a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to this contract.” See FAR 52.233-1. The Court also noted that the contractor was not appealing the performance evaluation itself, and concluded that a contractor’s claim requesting a change to a performance evaluation is a proper mechanism, and provides the proper jurisdictional predicate, to challenge an adverse performance evaluation in the Court of Federal Claims. 

In addition, even though the contracting officer had not issued a final decision, the Court ruled that the contractor had made its claim to the contracting officer for a fair and accurate CPAR on January 12, 2007, and that the contracting officer, more than twenty-two months later, had failed to issue a final decision in conformance with 41 U.S.C. 605(a).  The Judge then stated that “Because twenty-two months exceeds the length of time that the court considers “reasonable” for the contracting officer to issue a decision in this case, the court deems the claim denied by operation of 41 U.S.C. § 605(c)(5), which allows plaintiff to pursue the instant appeal.” In other words, the failure of the contracting officer to issue a decision within a reasonable time was treated as a “deemed denial” entitling the contractor to file an appeal.

The Court not only held that it had the jurisdiction to consider the case, but it also stated that a contractor is legally entitled to a fair and accurate performance evaluation. In view of what has frequently been the use of performance evaluations as a tool to unfairly punish contractors, and to intimidate them into not filing claims for fear that they will receive lower performance ratings, this decision comes as a welcome leveling of the playing field. We have always felt that the statutory right that contractors have to file claims and appeals should not be diminished by fear of reprisal. All claims should be evaluated on their merits. 

Please see the Federal Construction Project Manager’s Bulletin, November 2008, a publication of Construction Contract Specialists, Inc., for an excellent article entitled "The Contractor Performance Evaluation System (Revisited)," authored by Paul Perkins, that addresses the BLR decision and revisits an earlier article. Mr. Perkins presents interesting background information on the contractor performance evaluation system and provides the author’s perspective as a former contracting officer, project manager, and construction consultant.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This has been a banner year for ethics in government contracting. This intense focus on integrity and honesty in business is evident in the evolution of the rules of the game-the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Just last December, changes to the FAR mandated contractors to “conduct themselves with the highest degree of integrity and honesty” and to document how they planned to achieve this standard in a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (see our January 2008 blog article). In addition, the requirements for contractors were stepped up to include prominently displayed hotline posters to facilitate the reporting of violations. 

Before the initial changes were passed, public comments were sought regarding the proposed legislation. Review of these comments revealed two paramount concerns: the exemption of foreign contracts, and the exemption of contracts for the acquisition of commercial goods. The first of these was addressed in April when the House voted to close a loophole in the original ethics provisions (see our April 2008 blog article). Initially, contracts performed outside of the United States were exempt from the requirements-an odd exception considering that the new rules were initially drafted in response to the flagrant abuses of the federal procurement system abroad. The second concern regarding commercial contracts was addressed shortly thereafter. 

Early this summer, the Department of Justice demonstrated its continued commitment to cracking down on ethics in contracting when they went a step further and proposed additional modifications to the FAR. These proposals gave teeth to the earlier provisions by including the foreign and commercial contracts mentioned above under the business ethics umbrella. Additionally, they imposed new requirements on contractors such as reporting violations of the civil False Claims Act, while adding knowing failure to timely report such violations as an additional cause for debarment or suspension under FAR subpart 9.4.  As in the original ethics rules, small business were still not required to have a formal awareness/training program and internal control system, but the requirement to report violations of the civil False Claims Act did apply to them, along with the inclusion of foreign contracts and contracts for the acquisition of commercial goods to the ethics rules. 

These new ethics rules were enacted on June 30, 2008, when President Bush signed the supplemental appropriations bill,  H.R. 2642 . While this bill required contractors to report violations of federal law and overpayments received, many questions remained, such as to whom contractors would report. These ambiguities and were left to the FAR Council to iron out. 

 Just two days ago, on November 12, 2008, the FAR Council revealed its final rule regarding the “Contractor Business Ethics Compliance Program,” clarifying the murky details of the newly-enacted fraud-busting proposals. These more stringent requirements become effective on December 12, 2008, and will require federal government contractors to establish and maintain specific internal controls to detect and prevent improper conduct in connection the award or performance of any government contract; and timely disclose to the agency Office of the Inspector General, with a copy to the contracting officer, whenever, in connection with the award, performance or closeout of a government contract performed by the contractor or a subcontract awarded thereunder, the contractor has credible evidence of a violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery or gratuity violations found in Title 18 of the United States Code; or a violation of the civil False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733). 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Federal Acquisition Regulation, at FAR 36.201, requires government personnel to be fair and accurate in the evaluation of a construction contractor’s performance, but there is the inherent potential for an unfair and overreaching evaluation. Government personnel are required to use DD Form 2626 for performance evaluations. This form lists five major factors to be evaluated: quality control, effectiveness of management, timely performance, compliance with labor standards and compliance with safety standards.  If, for example, a contractor’s employee has an accident and sustains an injury, a government evaluator could rate the contractor as unsatisfactory for violation of the safety standards, marginal in effectiveness of management (jobsite supervision, compliance with regulations (safety), and marginal in the implementation of its quality control plan. All of this would stem from a single incident. 

     In prosecutorial circles, this is known as “stacking the charges,” meaning that every possible charge is listed so that the prosecutor may plea bargain a deal on a lesser included charge.  However, in the case of a performance evaluation, there is little, if any, “bargaining” with the evaluator. The potential exists for the government evaluator to magnify a single incident into three deficiencies on the contractor’s part, as shown by the real life example above. 

     The consequences of this approach are serious for a government contractor. The regulations permit a contracting officer to review a contractor’s past performance evaluations in making a responsibility determination in a pending contract award. Therefore, it is important for contractors to insure that their performance evaluations are fair and accurate, particularly since the government is required to retain these evaluations for six years. One of the ways that a contractor may address its performance evaluation is by the submission of written comments to the evaluator. The evaluator must review these written comments, include them with the evaluation, and revise the evaluation, if the evaluator believes such a revision is necessary. However, this process is only available to those contractors who receive an overall “Unsatisfactory” performance rating. According to the regulations, the government is not under any obligation to advise a contractor of a “marginal” performance rating.

Because of the retention and use of the performance evaluations, we recommend that every contractor obtain a copy of its performance evaluation when it completes a project over $550,000.00. If the overall evaluation is either marginal or unsatisfactory, the contractor should submit a written rebuttal within thirty days of receipt and request that the evaluating official review and include these written comments with the performance evaluation. The goal, obviously, is to present a fair and accurate representation of the contractor’s performance and to lessen, if not eliminate, the impact of “stacking the charges” in the evaluation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A decision has been issued in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, by Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., dismissing the consolidated class action lawsuit against the United States Army Corps of Engineers for the failure of the Orleans Parish outfall canals and, in particular, the 17th Street Canal that allegedly accounted for approximately 80% of the flooding of downtown New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (“In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation, No. 05-4182 E.D. La.).  The only remaining defendants are the Orleans Parish Levee Board and the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board.

Judge Duval ruled that the 17th Street, London and Orleans Avenue outfall canals were federal flood control projects and therefore statutorily immune from suit under the Flood Control Act of 1928.  In an opinion that was very critical of the Corps of Engineers, Judge Duval stated the following:

“While the United States government is immune for legal liability for the defalcations alleged herein, it is not free, nor should it be, from posterity’s judgment concerning its failure to accomplish what was its task. The citizens of each and every city in this great nation have come to depend on their government and its agencies to perform certain tasks which have been assigned to federal agencies by laws passed by Congress and overseen by the Executive Branch.

It should not be unreasonable for those citizens to rely on their agents, whom they pay through their taxes, to perform the tasks assigned in a timely and competent way. However, because of § 702c, there is neither incentive, nor punishment to insure that our own government performs these tasks correctly. There is no provision in the law which allows this Court to avoid the immunity provided by § 702c; gross incompetence receives the same treatment as simple mistake.

This story–fifty years in the making–is heart-wrenching. Millions of dollars were squandered in building a levee system with respect to these outfall canals which was known to be inadequate by the Corps’ own calculations. The byzantine funding and appropriation methods for this undertaking were in large part a cause of this failure. In addition, the failure of Congress to oversee the building of the LPV and the failure to recognize that it was flawed from practically the outset–using the wrong calculations for storm surge, failing to take into account subsidence, failing to take into account issues of the strength of canal walls at the 17th Street Canal while allowing the scouring out of the canal–rest with those who are charged with oversight.

The cruel irony here is that the Corps cast a blind eye, either as a result of executive directives or bureaucratic parsimony, to flooding caused by drainage needs and until otherwise directed by Congress, solely focused on flooding caused by storm surge. Nonetheless, damage caused by either type of flooding is ultimately borne by the same public fisc. Such egregious myopia is a caricature of bureaucratic inefficiency.

It is not within this Court’s power to address the wrongs committed. It is hopefully within the citizens of the United States’ power to address the failures of our laws and agencies. If not, it is certain that another tragedy such as this will occur again.”

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) recently decided a case involving the issue of whether a contractor could recover the fees charged by a consulting firm as a contract administration cost.  Fru-Con Construction Corporation. Although the cost principles in the FAR, at 31.205-47(f), provide that "costs are unallowable if incurred in connection with the prosecution of claims or appeals against the Federal Government," FAR 31.205-33 provides that "professional and consultant services" are allowable in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances occurs when a consultant's preparation of a request for equitable adjustment was for the purposes of seeking a negotiated settlement of pending issues with the government.  In such a case, a consultant’s costs may be allowable if otherwise found to be reasonable.

The ASBCA addressed the issue of whether the consultant's fee of $612,000 was reasonable. Troubled by the lack of specificity in the consultant's contract, the summary nature of the consultant's bills, and the apparent lack of oversight by the contractor, the Board decided that it was almost as if the contractor had given the consultant a blank check. The Board concluded that a prudent business person in the conduct of a competitive business would not have reasonably incurred the expenses in an effort to negotiate with the government. The Board concluded that the contractor was entitled to recover a reasonable amount for its consulting fees and, in a jury verdict, decided that $65,000, not $612,000, was allowable as a reasonable contract administration cost.

When contracting for professional services on a Federal government contract, it is important to clearly define what the professional will do, to obtain itemized bills that include sufficient detail regarding the nature of the services provided, and to oversee the consultant's activity. In addition, obtaining the consultant's work product, including trip reports, minutes of meetings, memoranda and reports will go a long way in helping a contractor avoid a later determination that the consultant’s costs were unreasonable and, therefore, not recoverable. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) allows the recovery of attorney’s and expert witness fees provided that the applicant submits a timely application “which shows that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under this section. . . .”  The applicant “shall also allege that the position of the agency was not substantially justified.”  5 U.S.C. 504(a)(2).

In a recently decided case by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 47498 and 53485, the United States Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) awarded Environmental Safety Consultants a contract in the not to exceed amount of $299,125 for sludge removal, disposal and cleaning services in lagoon #1 and lagoon #2 at the Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, Pennsylvania.  Environmental Safety Consultants applied for EAJA fees and other expenses in the amount of $119,067. The Board had earlier held that the appellant was entitled to an equitable adjustment for certain additional costs, in the amount of $93,989, incurred in performance of the contract.  In other words, the Appellant was a “prevailing party.”  However, as this decision demonstrates, just because a government contractor is a prevailing party does not necessarily mean that the company is entitled to recover EAJA fees.

In considering the EAJA application, the Board turned to the question of whether the position of the government was substantially justified.  EAJA provides in relevant part:

An agency that conducts an adversary adjudication shall award . . . fees and other expenses . . . unless the adjudicative officer of the agency finds that the position of the agency was substantially justified . . . . Whether or not the position of the agency was substantially justified shall be determined on the basis of the administrative records, as a whole, which is made in the adversary adjudication for which fees and other expenses are sought. 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(1).

The Supreme Court has ruled that “a position can be justified even though it is not correct, and we believe it can be substantially (i.e., for the most part) justified if a reasonable person could think it correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact.”   The Board found that the final decision represented a good faith effort to analyze the issues as they were known to the government at the time, not an unjustifiable agency action forcing litigation. Accordingly, the EAJA application was denied.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As recently reported by Elise Castelli in the Federal Times, "The long slog to rebuild the Gulf Coast devastated by Hurricane Katrina might be gaining some speed."  A new order signed by GSA Administrator Lurita Doan will make it simpler and faster for the U.S. General Services Administration to award millions of dollars in recovery contracts to local small business in the Gulf Region supporting Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts.  Contracts for debris clearance, supply distribution, reconstruction and other disaster relief will be set aside for local businesses under the order.  "The order gives blanket justification for the set-aside awards, which will limit competition to local firms."

 "Local small businesses are the backbone of every community," said Administrator Doan. "Revitalizing the small businesses is one of the most significant ways we can aid in the recovery of the Gulf Coast region."

    Over the past year, Administrator Doan has met with GSA contracting officers, small business owners, and local officials in the region. Each group has asked for help in streamlining the process to get recovery work awarded to local firms. The new GSA Order, ADM 2851.5, does just that, promoting maximum participation of local small business in the impacted area for acquisitions supporting Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts.

    Additionally, GSA has taken a number of other steps to help small businesses along the Gulf Coast, including the following:

    -- Conducted over 9 small business partnering events to connect  local businesses with subcontracting opportunities.

    -- Awarded over $29 million to local businesses for renovation  of the U.S. Customs House in New Orleans.

    -- Planned a series of monthly meetings throughout the region to enroll local small businesses in the HubZone and GSA Schedules program.

After Hurricane Katrina, the President declared the Gulf Coast a Major Disaster area under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This allows GSA's contracting officers to give a preference to local firms in the affected area. Instead of writing separate justifications, GSA Order ADM 2851.5 provides a blanket justification for all local preference awards under the authority of the Stafford Act.  The Order will remain in effect until the Presidential declaration of a Major Disaster is lifted.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Engineering New Record reports that House and Senate conferees have reached a deal on a long–delayed bill that would authorize about $21 billion for hundreds of Army Corps of Engineers water projects and require more review by outside experts of work the Corps plans to do.  Funding would provide for projects to restore the Louisiana coast and Florida's Everglades, upgrade navigation on the upper Mississippi River and improve flood control efforts nationally.  Key lawmakers announced July 27 they had reached an agreement on major elements of a new Water Resources Development Act.

The package represents a melding of a $14.9–billion WRDA bill that the House approved in April and a $13.9–billion measure that the Senate passed in May. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D–Minn.), who also chairs the House–Senate WRDA conference committee, told reporters that the reason the final version's price tag exceeds the House–passed total is that it also includes projects from the Senate bill.  Final votes by both chambers to approve the compromise agreement are expected next week, before the August recess.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 17, 2007, we presented a seminar in Richmond where we discussed the “New World of Federal Construction Contracting” with a number of contractors interested in obtaining and performing Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) and Multiple Award Task Order (MATOC) contracts. Federal agencies are turning to IDIQ and MATOC contracts more and more often for construction projects, particularly in conjunction with the military construction involved in the Base Relocation and Closure Program (BRAC).

A recent article in the May 24, 2007 on-line publication Mid-Atlantic Construction stresses the substantial market opportunities for contractors in the Richmond area, as well as in all of Virginia.  Many of these opportunities involve military construction for the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy.  Quoting Harold B. Kelly, president of the Virginia Chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors, "2007 looks terrific for many, many of our members." He predicts that the consolidation of Army logistics units at Fort Lee in Prince George County alone will have a major impact on the market. The Army plans to spend at least $1 Billion to build 6 million square feet of new space. Chris Jarling, general manager of Turner Construction Company in Virginia, noted that he anticipated that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will use the design-build delivery method to construct many of the BRAC projects in Virginia.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) reports, in its latest issue of the SAME Government & Industry e-News, that since the Department of Defense (DOD) Mentor-Protégé program began 16 years ago with one agreement, industry participants have formed nearly 1,000 more agreements. The scope of the program also has grown to include women-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned and historically underutilized business zone concerns.  In a recent Web-based survey of 48 former protégés conducted by the Government Accountability Office, most protégés reported that the program was a valuable experience that enhanced their business development and helped increase their contracts and revenues. Verifying the value of the Mentor-Protégé Program, 98 percent of the protégés reported that they would recommend the program to other eligible small businesses. Presently, more than 230 firms participate in the program, representing the manufacturing, service, construction, and research and development industries.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We recently presented a number of seminars on the topic “How to Succeed in the New World of Federal Construction Contracting” that dealt with the shift from sealed bidding to negotiated procurement in federal construction contracting, as well as the increased use of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) and Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC).  (See our upcoming seminar schedule and agenda).  One of the byproducts of this shift in procurement policy has been a reduction in the number of competitive opportunities resulting from the combination of many smaller projects into very large negotiated contracts.  As the examples below demonstrate, the era of $320 million construction contracts and $9 million to $24 million task orders has arrived.

Shaw-Dick Pacific, LLC, Honolulu, Hawaii, was awarded a $175,983,523 (first increment) firm-fixed-price contract for construction of the Hawaii Regional Security Operations Center at Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station Pacific. An additional $144,016,477 will be funded upon the passage of FY2008 Military Construction Appropriation Bill making the total amount $320,000,000. The contract contains one option which may be exercised within three months, bringing the total cumulative value of the contract to $320,040,000.  Work will be performed at Wahiawa, Hawaii, and is expected to be completed by June 2010.  This contract was competitively procured with 38 proposals solicited and two offers received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is the contracting activity (N62742-07-C-1329). 

Rogers-Quinn Construction, Inc., Bonsall, Calif., was awarded $9,820,000 for firm-fixed-price Task Order 0009 under a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contract (N68711-02-D-8062) for construction of the Reserve Training Center at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms.  The work to be performed provides for the construction of a single-story, steel framed structure with spread footing foundation, concrete floor, reinforced masonry walls, standing seam metal roofing system, fire protection system, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, specially constructed weapons storage area (armory), lithium battery storage area, staging areas, classrooms, storage and supply areas, drill hall, administrative spaces, locker and shower rooms, workshops, electrical utilities and mechanical utilities. Work will be performed in Twentynine Palms, Calif., and is expected to be completed by June 2008.  The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.

Harper Construction Co., Inc., San Diego, Calif., was awarded $24,855,000 for firm-fixed price Task Order 0005 under a previously awarded multiple award construction contract (N68711-02-D-8019) for family housing replacement in the Desert View and Club Street Area at Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow.  The work to be performed provides for design and construction services for 74 family housing units and a community center, consisting of all necessary site clearing, grading, demolition, improvements, structures, and off-site work as required. Work will be performed in Barstow, Calif., and is expected to be completed by June 2008.  The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the most important factors considered by agencies in negotiated procurements is the past performance of an offeror. In addition to the information that an offeror might provide in response to a solicitation, source selection officials can access the performance evaluations from an offeror's prior federal contracts.  It is important, therefore, for Federal construction contractors to know what information on their past performance is available to procurement officials.

A contractor can review its own performance evaluations on the internet by accessing the Business Partner Network website, [www.bpn.gov]. and clicking on the link Past Performance Information Retrieval System, PPIRS. [www.ppirs.gov].  The PPIRS is maintained for the government by the Department of the Navy.  The Navy requires that, before accessing the system, a senior management representative must register by submitting a Senior Management Access Request Form to the office identified on the form. [http://www.cpars.navy.mil/accessforms/csmarf.htm]

In addition, before accessing the PPIRS a contractor must not only be registered with the Central Contractor Registration (CCR), [www.ccr.gov] but also must have created a Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) in its CCR profile. Instructions on creating an MPIN are available on the CCR website.

As everyone who has dealings with the federal government is learning, access to government information is becoming more difficult, particularly information from the Department of Defense.  Obtaining the past performance information on your federal contracts is no exception.  As of November 1, 2006, contractors must also have a valid DoD PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) certificate.  For most federal construction contractors, this certificate must be obtained from an External Certificate Authority (ECA). The approved ECA vendors for the Department of Defense are VeriSign, Inc. and Operations Research Consultants, Inc.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The American Society of Civil Engineers calls attention, on its website, to the rapid deterioration of our nation's highways, bridges, airports, dams, waterways, water systems, wastewater systems and other infrastructure facilities that are vital to our nation's economy and our quality of life.  Estimating that over $1.6 trillion needs to be invested during the next five years to restore the infrastructure to only a good condition, the ASCE offers a plan of action for Congress to address this national emergency.

Implementation of this action plan, or even just portions of the plan, would represent a significant opportunity for Federal construction contractors.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this month, the President submitted the Administration's FY2008 Budget to Congress. Federal construction contractors should be encouraged by the large number of projects that are proposed for funding.  The budget provides the highest level of funding ever included in any President's budget for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ water resources projects and programs.  The proposed budget for the Department of Defense includes over $8 billion for the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) program.  The Defense FY2008 budget also includes considerable funding for military construction to support the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) that is presently being implemented to move U.S. forces from overseas to continental U.S. installations to better position them to support worldwide contingencies.

For more information on where these projects will be built in the coming years, please click here. The FY2008 Budget for military construction totals over $18 billion.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MATOC – IDIQ – “Best Value” – BRAC

These are the terms that contractors are hearing more and more and they are part of the rapidly changing world of construction contracting with the federal government.  It is no longer enough to simply be the low bidder; now, in many federal procurements, it is the “best value” that gets the job.  To make matters even more complicated, projects that were once bid individually, on a project-by-project basis, are now being awarded under Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) or Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) and the number of contracting opportunities is shrinking.  Nevertheless, for those who understand the system and know how to put an effective proposal together, there continue to be many opportunities for construction contractors and subcontractors to participate in the federal government’s vast construction program, including the upcoming Base Realignment & Closure (BRAC) program.

If you are interested in learning more about construction contracting with the Army Corps of Engineers, NAVFAC, and other federal agencies, we invite you to attend one of the upcoming seminars sponsored by Payne Hackenbracht & Sullivan on How to Succeed in the New World of Federal Construction Contracting.  The seminars are to be held in Charlotte, Dallas, New Orleans, Orlando, or Philadelphia on one of the dates in February 2007 listed above and on the attached agenda.  The speakers include former Corps of Engineers attorneys and engineers, the former Deputy District Engineer of the New Orleans District, and the former Chief of the Construction Division of the Philadelphia District. The program will be presented from 8:30 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.

The program will focus upon Identifying Contracting Opportunities, Understanding the Latest Contracting Methods, Successfully Competing for Negotiated Procurements (including effective proposal preparation), and How to Deal Effectively with Federal Agencies, and will include information about how to protect your rights in both the bidding and contract performance stages of a project.  While contracting with the government provides many potentially profitable opportunities for a contractor, the federal contracting process is fraught with peril for those who do not understand federal procedures.  We will help you understand both what you should do, and what you should not do, when dealing with the federal government.

Please review the enclosed agenda and registration form, and feel free to contact us if you have any questions.  The attendance fee is $195, and additional attendees from the same company will only be charged $95.  Please register early because space is limited.

Our Seminar Coordinator, Rachel McNally, is available to answer your questions and she may be contacted at 215-542-2777, rem@phslegal.com.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link