Here are the Georgia companies who won federal contracts in November 2014

December 2, 2014 by

Ever wonder who’s winning federal contracts in Georgia?

Wouldn’t this information be helpful if you are looking for subcontracting prospects?  Or when you’re trying to figure out who your competitors are?  Or when considering who might be a good partner on an upcoming bid proposal?

Federal Contract Award Winners in GeorgiaEach month, the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) publishes a list of federal contracts awarded to Georgia businesses.  The list comes complete with point-of-contact information on the awardees, the name of the awarding agency, the dollar value of the contract, and much more.

Download details on the award winners for November 2014 right here: FEDERAL CONTRACT AWARDS IN GEORGIA – NOV. 2014

Winners of federal contracts earlier this year may be found at the links below:

For information on Georgia businesses who won federal contracts in 2013, click here.

VA cancels contract award for management of its veteran-owned small business program

December 2, 2014 by

Once again, the Department of Veteran Affairs is trying to figure out what company will manage the process of getting veteran-owned small businesses verified.

CVE logoThe agency decided to rescind its September $39.9 million contract award to Monterey Consultants Inc. of Dayton, Ohio, to manage its Center for Veterans Enterprise (CVE). That award, the bulk of which was for processing contractor applications to be verified as veteran-owned, which in turn allows them to be able to compete for work set aside by the VA, was protested in September by Loch Harbour Group Inc. of Alexandria.

The VA confirmed in a Nov. 18 court filing that the VA would re-evaluate Loch Harbour’s proposal to determine whether the company qualified for the award. Monterey will no longer be eligible for re-award of the contract, according to the filing, though Monterey executives said that the company is submitting additional information to the VA to counter the protest allegations in hopes that the agency reconsiders its decision.

Keep reading this article at:

Extreme weather doesn’t excuse a late proposal

December 1, 2014 by

With winter weather descending on much of the country, it is all the more important for contractors to ensure that their proposals are submitted with time to spare.

In a recent bid protest decision, the Court of Federal Claims held that extreme weather at an offeror’s location did not excuse the offeror’s failure to deliver a timely proposal because there was no interruption of “normal government processes” at the government location designated to receive proposals.

The Court’s decision in Global Military Marketing, Inc. v. The United States, No. 14-622C (Sept. 29, 2014), involved a DeCA solicitation for the supply of fresh pork products. The solicitation instructed that proposals deemed untimely would not be considered and that “[d]elays caused by commercial means such as airlines, express carriers such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc or municipal difficulties such as black-outs, are not excusable.” Offerors were expressly instructed to “[e]nsure enough time is allowed for the proposal to arrive on time.”After a series of amendments, the proposal deadline was extended to April 30, 2014, at 3:00 p.m.

Global tendered its proposal to Federal Express on April 29, 2014. However, “extreme weather” hit Pensacola, Florida involving “intense rain of over 20 inches in 24 hours, widespread and damaging floods destroyed numerous major roads and bridges in the area.”  This extreme weather caused severe “damage to infrastructure and residential and commercial buildings, and temporary closure of the Pensacola International Airport.”

Keep reading this article at:

NY firm pays $2.72 million to settle bid-rigging and kickback charges

November 28, 2014 by

Sevenson Environmental Services Inc., an environmental remediation firm based in Niagara Falls, New York, has agreed to pay more than $2.72 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Act by accepting kickbacks, rigging bids and passing inflated charges to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in connection with work performed at the Federal Creosote Superfund Site in Manville, New Jersey, the Department of Justice announced Nov. 17, 2014.  Sevenson was the prime contractor responsible for the cleanup of the Federal Creosote Site, which was funded by the EPA.

“The integrity of the public procurement process is severely undermined when federal contractors engage in anticompetitive contracting practices for their own personal gain,” said Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General August E. Flentje for the Department of Justice’s Civil Division.  “The Department of Justice will hold those accountable who abuse their positions at the public’s expense.”

“EPA is vigilant to ensure that the type of fraud perpetrated by Sevenson employees at Federal Creosote is not tolerated and that federal funds are recovered,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith A. Enck.

The settlement resolves allegations that Sevenson solicited and accepted more than $1.6 million in kickbacks from six companies in exchange for the award of subcontracts for work at the Federal Creosote Site.  It also resolves allegations that Sevenson conspired with the subcontractors to pass the majority of those kickbacks to the EPA and that it conspired with one subcontractor to pass to the EPA additional inflated charges for soil disposal.

This case was handled by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, with assistance from the New York Field Office of the department’s Antitrust Division, the EPA Region 2, the EPA’s Office of the General Counsel and the Kansas City District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.


Mandatory privacy training rule for federal contractors expected soon

November 26, 2014 by

A rule to require federal contactors handling personally identifiable information to train their employees in safeguarding the information is close to release. Under the anticipated rule, contractor employees will have to undergo either agency training when the agency chooses to make it available, or will have to provide their own privacy training programs using an agency-approved syllabus and materials.

The privacy training rule, originally proposed in 2011, would apply to civilian and defense agency contracts in which contractor employees would have access to a federal agency system of records, handle personally identifiable information, or design, develop, operate, or maintain a federal system of records on behalf of a federal agency.

Keep reading this article at:

Federal claims court invalidates key component of SBA’s nonmanufacturer rule

November 25, 2014 by

It has been the common understanding within the SBA, and the small business government contracting community as a whole, that the SBA’s nonmanufacturer rule applies only to contracts for the provision of supplies (i.e., goods) and not to service contracts, regardless of
whether or not such service contracts have a supply component. The SBA memorialized this understanding in a 2011 rulemaking. According to 13 C.F.R. § 121.406(b)(3), the nonmanufacturer rule does not apply to procurements that are assigned a services, construction, or specialty trade construction code.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) recently turned this common understanding about the nonmanufacturer rule on its head. In its September 19, 2014, decision in Rotech v. United States, COFC No. 14-502C (2014), the COFC invalidated 13 C.F.R § 121.406(b)(3).

Keep reading this article by clicking here  (pdf file).

VA’s CVE improperly disqualified SDVOSB, says federal court

November 24, 2014 by

SDVOSBs—and basic fairness and common sense—were big winners in a recent decision issued by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In its decision, the Court held that the VA’s Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) violated the law when it disqualified a SDVOSB, without giving the SDVOSB the opportunity to contest the reasons for the disqualification. In a decision reminiscent of last year’s landmark Miles Construction case, the Court then held that the CVE’s substantive reasons for the disqualification were arbitrary and unreasonable.

In AmBuild Company, LLC v. United States, No. 14-786C (Oct. 10, 2014), AmBuild was the apparent lowest-cost bidder on a VA SDVOSB set-aside solicitation. The second-lowest bidder, Welch Construction Inc., filed a protest challenging AmBuild’s SDVOSB status. Welch contended that AmBuild was not controlled by a service-disabled veteran and that AmBuild exceeded the applicable size standard.

The U.S. Small Business Administration, which has jurisdiction over size issues, reviewed Welch’s small business allegation and determined it to be unfounded. The CVE proceeded to separately analyze Welch’s allegation regarding SDV control.

Keep reading this article at:

Report: small biz panel manipulated by trade associations

November 21, 2014 by

The government panel that reviews federal rules and how they affect small businesses is manipulated by trade associations, a Nov. 12 Center for Effective Government report says.

Three federal agencies – the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – are required to convene a small business review panel any time the govenrment plans to issue a rule that could have a significant economic impact on small businesses.

But the report says trade associations have too much power over the panel. Trade associations are supposed to identify small business representatives to advise the panel, participate in meetings and even help write their comments, the report says.

Keep reading this article at:

IG says contractor tried to influence DOE to receive no-bid contract extension

November 20, 2014 by

A contractor working at the Energy Department’s Sandia National Laboratories sought help from federal officials to receive a no-bid contract extension at the lab worth about $2.4 billion, a Nov. 7 DOE inspector general report says.

The report says Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin that runs the lab, campaigned aggressively to convince then Energy Secretary Steven Chu to extend it’s contract without any competition.

Keep reading this article at:

Georgia Tech now accepting nominations for ‘Faces of Manufacturing’

November 20, 2014 by

Georgia Tech plans next year to spotlight 12 people from across Georgia representing the “Faces of Manufacturing.”

Any Georgian can nominate themselves or someone they know to become a 2015 Face of Manufacturing.

FACESofMANUFACTURINGThe year-long campaign will honor hard-working, dedicated people throughout Georgia who work within or are affected by manufacturing companies. Their stories will help showcase manufacturing’s impact to Georgia communities and continue to promote manufacturing as a thriving industry within the state.

The first round of nominations will be accepted through December 22, 2014.

Download the nomination form and further details about The Faces of Manufacturing Campaign, including who represents the Faces of Manufacturing, eligibility, selection criteria, and more at:

For more information about the campaign (and to download the nomination form in a Word Doc instead of a pdf), please visit the “Faces” page on the GaMEP website at   The GaMEP (Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership) at Georgia Tech is a state and federally funded program that helps manufacturers grow and stay competitive.

If you have questions, please contact Katie Takacs at ude.hcetag.etavonninull@scakat.eitak.