By: Edward T. DeLisle & Maria L. Panichelli

On March 7, 2012, a package comprised of six bills, (H.R. 3850–112th Congress: Government Efficiency through Small Business Contracting Act of 2012 (2012); H.R. 3851–112th Congress: Small Business Advocate Act of 2012 (2012); H.R. 3893–112th Congress: Subcontracting Transparency and Reliability Act of 2012 (2012); H.R. 3980–112th Congress: Small Business Opportunity Act of 2012 (2012); H.R. 4121–112th Congress: Early Stage Small Business Contracting Act of 2012 (2012); H.R. 4118–112th Congress: Small Business Procurement Improvement Act of 2012 (2012)), each designed to increase the number of federal contract opportunities for small businesses, cleared the House of Representatives’ Small Business Committee.

The most notable of the bills is the Government Efficiency Through Small Business Contracting Act (H.R. 3850). It would raise the government’s business goals for procurement contracts awarded to small business concerns, codified at section 15 (g) of the Small Business Act, from 23% to 25% of all prime contract awards per fiscal year. In addition, the bill proposes to increase the current goal of subcontracting to small business from 35.9% to 40% percent. Government-wide goals for procurement contracts awarded to small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans (3%), qualified HUBZone small business concerns (3%), small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (5%), and small business concerns owned and controlled by women (5%) will remain the same. An amendment proposed by Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., would have raised the set-aside for economically and socially disadvantaged businesses from 5% to 7.5%, but it was withdrawn.

The Small Business Advocate Act (H.R. 3851) elevates agency Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization offices both in terms of salary and duties. Specifically, it amends the Small Business Act to require the Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (established in each federal agency having procurement powers) to be compensated at least at the GS-15 rate and allows such a position to be compensated up to a Senior Executive Service level. It also adds, as additional duties of each Director, the following:

(1) reviewing and advising on decisions to convert an activity performed by a small business to an activity performed by a federal employee;

(2) providing advice and comments on acquisition strategies, market research, and justifications related to small business;

(3) providing training to small businesses and contract specialists;

(4) carrying out exclusively the duties enumerated under the Act and, while Director, not holding any other title, position, or responsibility, except as necessary to carry out such duties; and

(5) reporting annually to the congressional small business committees on the provision of small business and contract specialist training.

Lastly, it amends the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 to require the Small Business Procurement Advisory Council to: (1) conduct reviews of each Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to determine compliance with Small Business Administration (SBA) requirements, (2) identify best practices for maximizing small business utilization in federal contracting, and (3) report annually to the small business committees on such reviews and best practices.

The Subcontracting Transparency and Reliability Act (H.R. 3893) would amend the Small Business Act to prohibit a small business receiving a guaranteed loan through the Small Business Administration from expending more on subcontractors than: (1) 50% of the loan amount received, in case of a contract for services other than construction; (2) 85%, in the case of a contract for general construction; (3) 75%, in case of a contract for construction by a special trade contractor; and (4) 50%, in the case of a contract for supplies (other than from a regular dealer in such supplies). This bill would require the small business, in case of a contract for supplies from a regular dealer, to supply the product of a domestic small business manufacturer or processor, unless the SBA grants a waiver. The Bill authorizes the SBA Administrator to: (1) modify the above percentage limits when necessary to reflect conventional industry practices; and (2) establish a subcontractor percentage limit for contracts not covered by (1) through (4), above, and provides penalties for violations of such limits.

Under the bill, each subcontracting plan submitted to federal agencies is required to contain assurances that the offeror or bidder will: (1) report on subcontracting activities throughout the life of the contract, and (2) cooperate with any study or survey required by the federal agency or the SBA to determine the extent of compliance with the subcontracting plan. The bill directs the Administrator to ensure that the federal subcontracting reporting system to which such reports are submitted is modified to notify the Administrator, the appropriate contracting officer, and the appropriate Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization if an entity fails to submit a required report. It also provides that a contractor’s failure to submit such a report constitutes a breach of contract for which appropriate action may be taken. If an agency procurement center or commercial market representative determines that a subcontracting plan fails to provide the maximum practicable opportunity for small businesses to participate, under the bill, such representative may delay acceptance of the plan for a 30-day period for plan alteration.

The bill also allows a federal agency to convert a function from performance by a small business to performance by a federal employee only if: (1) the agency has made publicly available the procedures for such a decision, and (2) the procedures require such decisions to be reviewed by the appropriate Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and procurement representative. (H.R. 3893–112th Congress: Subcontracting Transparency and Reliability Act of 2012. (2012).

The Small Business Opportunity Act (H.R. 3980), amends the Small Business Act to replace the position of “breakout procurement representative” within the Small Business Administration with the position of “procurement center representative.” Pursuant to the bill, such representatives must review any acquisition plan for a procurement requirement and make recommendations regarding procurement method determinations and acquisition plans. The bill would remove the requirement that these representatives review restrictions on competition, instead requiring them to review barriers to small business participation in federal contracting, as well as any bundled or consolidated solicitation or contract. The representatives must: (1) have electronic access to any acquisition plan developed or in development with respect to a procurement activity, (2) be an advocate for the maximum practicable utilization of small businesses in federal contracting, and (3) be notified of and included in all applicable acquisition planning processes.

The bill directs the Defense Acquisition University and the Federal Acquisition Institute to each provide a course on contracting requirements under the Small Business Act, and requires each federal department or agency having contracting authority to: (1) enumerate opportunities for participation by small businesses during all acquisition planning processes and in all acquisition plans, and (2) invite the participation of the appropriate Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and procurement representatives in such planning processes and provide Director and representative access to all acquisition plans in development.

The Early Stage Small Business Contracting Act (H.R. 4121) would amend the Small Business Act to direct the Administrator of the Small Business to establish and carry out a program to provide increased access to federal contract opportunities for early stage small businesses (a business with no more than 15 employees and average annual receipts of no more than $1 million). The bill requires the Administrator to identify appropriate federal procurement contracts for award under the program and allows a contracting officer to award: (1) a sole source contract under the program if an entity is determined to be a responsible contractor and the officer does not reasonably expect that two or more early stage businesses will submit offers, and (2) contracts on the basis of competition restricted to early stage businesses if the officer reasonably expects that at least two early stage businesses will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair market price. It requires all program contract awards to be counted toward goals for small business participation in federal procurement contracts.

Small Business Procurement Improvement Act (H.R. 4118) would amend the Small Business Act to provide for increased small business participation in multiple award contracts, and for other purposes. Specifically, the bill would add to section 15(g) of the Small Business Act a requirement that the President shall establish “government-wide goals for the total dollar value of all task orders and delivery orders placed against multiple award contracts, blanket purchase agreements, and basic ordering agreements awarded to small business concerns, small business concerns owned and controlled by service disabled veterans, qualified HUB-Zone small business concerns, small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and small business concerns owned and controlled by women.”

What does all this mean? Based upon the bi-partisan nature of the support for these bills, it means that there is agreement across the aisle that small businesses are deemed an important factor in the country’s economic recovery. Expanding the government’s goals for small, and small disadvantaged, businesses, for example, will assist in steering federal dollars to those who may not have otherwise had access to those dollars. Small companies benefitting from the receipt of federal contracts will hire employees and buy goods and services to support those contracts. Large businesses will, and certainly should, play a role in the legislative process as the bills wind their way out of committee. We will follow the progress of each bill and report back with any findings.

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.

 

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.

 By: Edward T. DeLisle

On January 18, 2012, Representative Bill Owens (D.-N.Y.) introduced a bill entitled, “The Small Business Growth and Federal Accountability Act” (H.R. 3779).  The Act is designed to “hold accountable Federal departments and agencies that fail to meet goals relating to the participation of small business concerns.” In order to achieve this goal, the Act goes on to state that “[if] a Federal department of agency does not meet a covered goal with respect to a fiscal year, that department or agency, in the succeeding fiscal year, may not expend for the procurement of goods or services an amount that is greater than 90 percent of the amount expended for the procurement of goods or services…”

If enacted, the bill would essentially penalize a federal department or agency by slashing its budget by 10% if that department or agency fails to hit its established small business procurement goals. As it currently stands, federal departments and agencies are required to expend 23% of their annual procurement dollars on small business awards. The problem, however, is that there is no penalty if an agency fails to meet this goal. If this bill becomes law that would certainly change. The question becomes: How would federal agencies react to it? The bill does state that “[t]o meet a covered goal, the head of a Federal department or agency may give preference to a small business concern when procuring goods or services.” While it does not define the type of preference that may be given, this concept opens the door to any number of possibilities that could impact the procurement process. For example, will a system emerge during the bill review process that is akin to the 10% price preference currently in existence for the HUBZone program?  We will simply have to wait and see.  The bill is currently being reviewed by the House Small Business Committee.

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

By: Edward T. DeLisle

On Thursday, January 12, 2012, the Small Business Administration issued an interim final rule, which alters the protest procedures pertaining to its Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program. The changes serve two primary functions. First, when the SBA implemented the WOSB program by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register on October 7, 2010, it established set-aside thresholds of $5 million for contracts pertaining to manufacturing and $3 million for all other contracts. As part of the new interim rule, those thresholds have increased to $6.5 million and $4 million, respectively, to account for inflation.

Second, the changes ushered in as part of the interim rule, make the protest procedures for the WOSB Program consistent with the SBA’s other set-aside programs. For example, under the procedures that existed before issuance of the interim rule, if a contracting officer received a protest on a WOSB set-aside and, nonetheless wished to make an award, that contracting officer would have to issue a written determination concluding that doing so was required to prevent significant harm to the public interest. This requirement is inconsistent with the procedure outlined for other programs. Under the interim rule, a contracting officer may issue an award, despite a protest, if he or she makes the simple determination that doing so is necessary to protect the public interest.

As there have been few reported protests involving the WOSB Program, the new rules should not cause wide-spread confusion. If you are considering a protest, however, you are encouraged to read the changes and consult with a legal professional if you have any questions.

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

By: Edward T. DeLisle

Over the last several years, the scrutiny over federal small business programs has grown. That scrutiny has led to changes in policy and legislation designed to curb potential fraud in the procurement process. Because these changes have been implemented in such a short period of time, however, it is not unusual for the government to issue solicitations for small business set-aside contracts that are confusing, or even contradictory. In Commandeer Construction Company, Inc., B-405771, December 29, 2011, that is precisely what occurred resulting in a successful protest.

Commandeer Construction involved a solicitation that was set aside for Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), a program that has experienced much change in recent years. In 2006, the VA was given the authority to restrict competition to SDVOSBs as part of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Act (the "Act"). 38 U.S.C. 8127(d). As the GAO explained in Commandeer Construction, pursuant to the Act, an SDVOSB set-aside contract may only be issued to entities listed in a database of veteran-owned small businesses maintained by the VA. The VA has chosen to use what it has termed its "Vendor Information Pages" ("VIP"), which can be found at www.vetbiz.gov, as its official listing of veteran-owned and service-disabled, veteran-owned concerns.

Subsequent to issuance of the Act, the VA issued VAAR 804.1102, which states that all VOSB and SDVOSB entities must be listed in its VIP database by January 1, 2012 in order to be eligible for set-aside contracts for such entities. By December 31, 2011, all VOSB and SDVOSB entities must not only be listed, but must also be "verified," in order to receive new contract awards under the Veteran’s First program, a program operated exclusively by the VA. While firms were once permitted to self-certify their status as VOSBs and SDVOSBs, as part of Veterans Benefits Act of 2010, the VA instituted a more rigorous qualification process. Consistent with this new review procedure, which was designed to weed out fraud, the VA’s "Center for Veterans Enterprise" ("CVE") was given the authority to render eligibility determinations for these programs. If a firm wished to obtain a set-aside contract as a VOSB or a SDVOSB entity, it would have to be verified by CVE.

In an effort to assist in the transition from a self-certifying system to one requiring government approval, the VA issued what it called its "Memorandum from VA Acting Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Procurement Policy, Systems Oversight and Accompanying Class Deviation from VA Acquisition Regulation" (the "Memorandum"). The Memorandum referenced what the VA described as a "class deviation." Based upon this class deviation, any "apparently successful offeror" that had not already been verified by CVE, could become verified on an expedited basis, and obtain an award of a VOSB or SDVOSB set-aside contract, provided CVE approved its status. Later, the VA clarified its position regarding who may qualify for a “class deviation,” taking the position that a company was not eligible for “either award or Fast Track Verification," unless it was visible in the VA’s VIP database. Commandeer Construction addressed the interplay between the class deviation identified in the Memorandum and the VA’s attempt to subsequently clarify what it meant.

In Commandeer Construction, the VA issued an IFB for a construction contract that was set aside for eligible SDVOSB firms. The solicitation stated that the award would be made to an SDVOSB firm that had “been verified for ownership and control and [was] so listed in the [VIP] database.” The IFB also included the “class deviation” language referenced above. What was not included as part of the IFB, however, was the Memorandum (and accompanying deviation), or the clarification made to the deviation, which was issued after the fact.

On August 8, 2011, the protesting party, Commandeer Construction, submitted an application to the CVE for approval as an SDVOSB. Thereafter, on August 30, 2011, Commandeer submitted its bid. As its bid was the lowest of those submitted, Commandeer was in line for an award. As it was not listed in the VIP database, however, the contract specialist for the VA intended to contact Commandeer for purposes of explaining the process of obtaining expedited verification.

Prior to contacting Commandeer, the VA contract specialist apparently learned of the clarification for the first time and discussed its meaning and significance with other VA officials. Based upon these discussions, the VA contract specialist decided that Commandeer was ineligible for award and informed it of such by letter dated August 31, 2011. At the time, CVE had not rendered a final decision on Commandeer’s SDVOSB eligibility.

Commandeer protested VA’s decision, taking the position that rejecting its bid was improper based upon the expedited review procedures outlined in the solicitation. The VA countered that the deviation clause, upon which Commandeer relied for potential eligibility, was never meant to apply to entities that were absent from the VIP database. According to the VA, the deviation clause was merely an effort to provide assistance to those firms that had already self-certified, but had not yet been CVE verified under the new review procedures. Commandeer Construction at 4.

The GAO based its decision on a strict reading of the solicitation. The deviation clause in the solicitation specifically stated that “the apparent successful offeror” would be given an opportunity to have its SDVOSB status reviewed on an expedited basis, if it was not “currently listed as verified” in the VIP database. While the VA may not have intended for the deviation to apply to firms not already listed in its VIP database, the GAO concluded that the solicitation itself did not provide that qualification. As such, Commandeer’s understanding that it could qualify for award pursuant to the expedited review procedure was reasonable. Based upon this finding, the GAO recommended that the VA complete its review of Commandeer’s verification documents and, if found to be eligible for SDVOSB status, award it the contract.

As the government continues to alter its approach in exercising control over small business programs, mistakes, such as those in Commandeer Contracting, will happen. Contractors must exercise care in reviewing and responding to any solicitation. If, during the course of the review process, an ambiguity is discovered, bring it to the attention of the contract specialist, contracting officer, or source selection authority immediately. Doing so will benefit all bidders and quite possibly prevent a pre-bid protest. For those ambiguities that are not readily detectible, and are only revealed at the time of contract award, be prepared to discuss your concerns with an attorney familiar with such issues right away, as a protest is likely your only source of recourse. For those participating in the government’s various small business programs, the fast-paced nature of regulatory change has opened these programs up to issues such as those presented in Commandeer Contracting. Bid and beware.

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

By: Michael H. Payne

A decision was issued by the United States Court of Federal Claims on December 20, 2011, in Martin Construction Co. v. United States, a case involving a Corps of Engineers construction project in North Dakota. Martin was represented by Michael Payne and Joseph Hackenbracht, of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman, and the case involved a termination for default by the Omaha District of the Corps on a multi-million dollar project involving the construction of a marina. The termination occurred because the Contracting Officer concluded that Martin was at fault for failing to complete the project by the required contract completion date. Martin had argued that the Corps’ design of the cofferdam (temporary dam), which was critical to the construction of the marina, was defective and that the contractor was effectively prevented from completing the marina according to the original schedule. The Court agreed that there was a defective design and found that the Corps’ designer had grossly underestimated the amount of water that would flow through the cofferdam.

The decision is extremely critical of the Corps of Engineers and amounts to a complete vindication of Martin. The Court ruled that the termination for default was wrongful and ordered a conversion to a termination for convenience. This, of course, now exposes the Corps to the payment of damages amounting to millions of dollars to compensate Martin for the costs incurred in attempting to deal with the defective design. The Court aptly noted that “The most troubling aspect of this case is the Corps’ adamant refusal to accept any responsibility for the defective design, even while Martin made every effort to comply with it.” The Court was also very critical of the Contracting Officer and stated that “Competent procurement officials would have acknowledged the agency’s obvious design mistake, made the necessary corrections, and afforded the contractor the contractor the additional time and money to complete performance.”

The Court concluded that the “evidence is overwhelming” that Martin was entitled to a time extension and that the termination for default was improper. Judge Thomas Wheeler quoted Martin’s geotechnical and scheduling experts, and he also quoted the Plaintiff’s brief by stating that “As Plaintiff’s counsel aptly pointed out, the Defendant ‘ignored the elephant standing amongst the teacups in the living room.” The decision is an important verification to the federal contracting community that a termination for default is a “drastic action” that will not be sustained unless the government can meet its burden of proof that the termination was justified. It was unfortunate, however, that Martin was forced to suffer the consequences of the “black mark” associated with a default termination until, as in this case, justice was ultimately served.

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.

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.

Prior to 2008, dating back to 1994, it was not permissible to protest a task order. The 1994 enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act ("FASA") provided that protests over task or delivery orders were barred unless the protest alleged that the order increased the scope, period, or maximum value of the underlying contract through which the order was issued. That changed with the passage of the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 ("NDAA"), which contained an amendment that expanded the jurisdiction of the GAO to include protests of task or delivery orders valued in excess of $10 million. 41 U.S.C., Section 253j(e)(2). The NDAA also contained a sunset provision, which stated that the "subsection shall be in effect for three years." Section 253j(e)(3). The three year period expired on May 27, 2011. The question then arose as to whether the GAO could lawfully consider task and delivery order protests after May 27, 2011. That question was recently answered in the affirmative by the GAO.

In a protest filed by Technatomy Corporation, of Fairfax, Virginia, the protester argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated vendors’ technical and cost quotations. The government argued that the protest should be dismissed because the GAO’s jurisdiction had expired. In a decision issued on June 14, 2011, the GAO disagreed with the government and ruled that it now has jurisdiction to rule on all task and delivery order protests, regardless of their dollar value. The reasoning of the GAO was that the sunset provision which gave the GAO the authority to consider task and delivery protests in excess of $10 million (for three years) replaced the former statutory provision (1994 – “FASA”) that provided for only very limited task order review. The GAO concluded that when the three year period expired, its authority to consider task and delivery order protests did not simply revert to the pre-2008 jurisdictional level, but actually reverted back to the pre-1994 level.

In other words since the pre-2008 limitations were eliminated by the sunset provision in 2008, the only thing left is the pre-1994 jurisdiction under the Competition in Contracting Act which places no limitation on the GAO’s authority to consider task and delivery order protests. The GAO will therefore accept jurisdiction of all protests involving task and delivery orders regardless of the dollar value. This also raises the interesting question of whether, based on the GAO’s decision in Technatomy Corporation, the Court of Federal Claims will now accept jurisdiction of task and delivery order protests, as well.

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.

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.

Guest Post By: Kristen Bradley

The U.S. boasts a huge contract bond market as federal, state and local government agencies all utilize contract bond law to regulate professionals who work in the construction industry. Inevitably, some contracting firms find themselves unable to qualify for these bonds because they do not have the financial stability needed to back them up. This denies them access to working on publicly funded construction projects.

Contractors who cannot find a surety provider that’s willing to issue them necessary bonds might complain that contract bond requirements are too strict and difficult to fulfill. Their purpose, however, is to deter unqualified and financially unstable contractors from working on projects for which they might not be qualified. Contractor bonding helps stabilize the industry in a number of legally enforceable ways.

Contract Bond Protection

Contract bonds work to protect the best interests of the project owners and government agencies that fund construction projects, as well as the best interests of the public.

The Surety Information Office explains how crucial surety bonds are to the financial success of the construction industry:

"The use of corporate surety bonds makes it possible for the government to use private contractors for public construction projects under a competitive sealed bid, open competition system where the work is awarded to the lowest responsive bidder. Political influence is not a factor, the government is protected against financial loss if the contractor defaults, and certain laborers, material suppliers and subcontractors have a remedy if they are not paid, all without consequence to the taxpayer."

Bid bonds specifically work to keep the bidding process honest. When a contracting firm submits a bid bond along with a project bid, it makes a legal promise that it won’t increase the bid after being selected to work on the project. For example, the city of Philadelphia frequently requires contracting firms to provide a bid bond that’s 10% of the total bid amount. If the winning contractor raises the bid after being awarded the project, the city could collect on the bond to gain financial reparation.

Contract Bonds and the Surety Bond Process

Contract bonds function as do other surety bond types. Contractors and contracting firms purchase surety bonds to financially guarantee some aspect of their work. When a surety provider issues a bid bond to a contractor, the bond essentially acts as a legally binding contract among three entities:

1. the principal: the contractor or contracting firm that purchases the bond as a promise that the bid will not be increased
2. the obligee: the project owner that requires the bond to protect itself from potential financial loss
3. the surety: the agency that executes the bond, thus providing a financial guarantee that the contractor won’t increase the bid

Although bid bonds are often used for publicly funded projects managed by the government, private project owners can also choose to take advantage of their protective benefits.

How Surety Bonds Affect the Bidding Process

When government agencies or other project owners require bid bonds, the contracting firm must purchase a bid bond and submit it along with its original bid. Bid bonds may not be purchased after a bid has been submitted, and surety providers will not execute a bid bond after a contracting firm has already submitted its formal bid to a project owner.

Contracting firms that want to bid on high scale public construction projects must have a high bonding capacity. Contracting firms can take a few approaches to increase their bonding capacities, such as

• making more investments
• taking their net cash position down to zero
• excluding net pension liabilities and construction credits in residential development co-ops

Although the effort required to secure bid bonds for high scale projects might seem unnecessary to some contractors, the stability they give the construction industry is irreplaceable. 

This article was provided by SuretyBonds.com, a nationwide surety bond producer.
SuretyBonds.com offers surety bond education to contractors who need to purchase contract bonds. The agency believes that contractors should understand the bonding market so they are prepared for the surety bond application process.