Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

GTPAC participates at National MBE Manufacturers Summit

By

On Aug. 12th 2019, GTPAC Program Manager Andrew Smith spoke at the National MBE Manufacturers Summit at the Georgia Tech Global Learning Center in Atlanta, GA, and introduced Christopher Hall, Deputy Director of the Office of Small Business Programs for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).  Smith also spoke briefly about the Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center and the free services Procurement Technical Assistance Centers provide to businesses interested in exploring the government market.  Thanks to the Defense Logistics Agency, there are PTAC programs like GTPAC in all 50 states.

Deputy Director Hall spoke to the crowd about how to do business with DLA and educated the audience on the various DLA commands and what they typically purchase from small business manufacturers.  As Deputy Director of the DLA Office of Small Business Programs, Hall supports DLA leadership on small business issues and seeks to increase small business participation in DLA acquisitions.  The DLA Office of Small Business Programs promotes small business utilization to strengthen the industrial base, which fulfills DLA’s mission as the Nation’s Combat Logistics Support Agency.

“I was very pleased with the event, and I’m excited about the dynamic technology and innovation taking place right now in the manufacturing sector,” said Smith, “I believe these innovative manufacturers have a lot to offer the government and DoD… I hope many of them explore working with DLA to support the warfighter and to strengthen our industrial base and DoD supply chain.”

If you would like to learn how to work with DLA, you can visit the DLA Small Business website:  https://www.dla.mil/SmallBusiness/

 

Recent DoD contract awards (Aug. 6-14)

By

Every week we will post links to the last seven days of DoD contract awards that were $7 million or more.  Contracts valued at $7 million or more are announced each business day at 5 p.m. at:  https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/

Contracts For Aug. 14, 2019

Contracts For Aug. 13, 2019

Contracts For Aug. 12, 2019

Contracts For Aug. 9, 2019

Contracts For Aug. 8, 2019

Interim rule banning Huawei and other Chinese equipment and services took effect August 13, 2019

By

On August 7, 2019, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) released an interim rule implementing Section 889(a)(1)(A) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (2019 NDAA).  The rule, which goes into effect on August 13, 2019, generally prohibits executive agencies from procuring telecommunications equipment and services from Huawei and other Chinese technology companies and imposes strict reporting and other requirements on U.S. government contractors.  Interested parties are invited to file comments on the interim rule within 60 days of its publication in the Federal Register.

As background, Section 889(a)(1)(A) of the 2019 NDAA prohibits executive agencies from procuring or obtaining, or extending or renewing a contract to procure or obtain, any equipment, system, or service that uses “covered telecommunications equipment or services” as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.  The 2019 NDAA defines “covered telecommunications equipment or services” to include the following:

  • Telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation (or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates);
  • Certain video surveillance and telecommunications equipment produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company (or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates);
  • Telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by such entities or using such equipment; and
  • Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a “covered foreign country,” which the interim rule defines as the People’s Republic of China.

Continue reading at:  Wiley Rein

Related Articles: 

Two deadlines for agencies, vendors to stop using Chinese telecom products quickly approaching (Federal News Network)

A ban on Chinese tech is on the books. Are feds ready? (Federal Times)

Deadline looms for expanded EEO-1 filing

By

For US employers with 100 or more employees, extensive new information relating to their prior EEO-1 filings must be submitted by September 30, 2019.  Specifically, in addition to categorizing employees by race/ethnicity, gender and job type, employers are now required to assemble and submit, with respect to each subcategory, aggregated employee data regarding compensation and annualized hours worked.  Assembling the required data may be much more complicated than many employers are expecting, so it is important to begin planning now.

What is the EEO-1?

For many years, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has required employers with 100+ employees to complete and file an EEO-1 form annually.  The EEO-1 was essentially a relatively simple demographic snapshot of the employer’s workforce, capturing the number of employees in each of several job categories by gender and by race/ethnicity.  The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) also has long required the EEO-1 for federal government contractors with at least 50 employees.

What is different this year?

Late in the Obama administration, the EEOC and OFCCP issued rules requiring employers to start providing additional information regarding compensation groupings and hours worked for each of the existing job, gender and race categories.  Before these rules were fully implemented, however, the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) halted the rules, asserting that the revisions were overly burdensome and created privacy concerns.  Private organizations, in turn, challenged the OMB action, and in March 2019, a federal court ordered the EEOC to move forward with collecting the new compensation and hours data (collectively referred to as “Component 2” data).  Following further court hearings, the EEOC established September 30, 2019, as the new deadline for submission of the data.

Who needs to worry about this?

Only employers with 100 or more employees need to submit the new Component 2 data.  (Most federal contractors with 50 to 99 employees still must submit the Component 1 data annually, but need not submit the Component 2 data.)

The 100-employee benchmark is not based on a particular establishment, but on the employer’s workforce as a whole.  All full-time and part-time employees must be counted for purposes of determining whether the employer meets the 100-employee threshold.  The 100-employee benchmark is determined by the number of employees as of the years 2017 and 2018, not the current number of employee.

Continue reading at:  Dentons

The two-part manufacturing test under the Buy American Act

By

Congress enacted the Buy American Act (“BAA”) during the Great Depression, in order to protect American industry from foreign competition on federal procurement contracts.  While the BAA is simplistic in its policy goal of promoting domestic purchasing, government contractors and subcontractors are often faced with complex and confusing rules for compliance.

The operative language of the BAA provides:

Only unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies that have been mined or produced in the United States, and only manufactured articles, materials, and supplies that have been manufactured in the United States substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States, shall be acquired for public use unless the head of the department or independent establishment concerned determines their acquisition to be inconsistent with the public interest or their cost to be unreasonable.

The Government flows down BAA requirements to government contractors in the form of standardized clauses contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”).

The key to understanding the BAA is determining whether the solicited goods or “end products” are domestic, i.e. were mined, produced, or substantially manufactured in the United States.

Continue reading at:  Seyfarth Shaw

Uncertainty in how small business joint ventures must be managed

By

U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) regulations require that mentor-protégé and socioeconomic joint ventures designate the protégé or socioeconomic member as the “managing venturer” of the joint venture.  However, the regulations do not define “managing venturer” or state how much control such a “manager” must maintain over the joint venture.  In the context of typical small business operating entities (i.e., notjoint ventures), SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) has offered detailed guidance on what it means to “control” such entities, but this case law has never been applied to joint ventures.  This leaves joint venturing firms without any direction on the subject — beyond the general requirement that they designate a “managing venturer.”

As discussed in more detail below, this is a “gap” in SBA regulations and case law that has led to uncertainty in the governance of small business joint ventures.  Given the increasing use of joint ventures by contractors pursuing small business set-aside procurements, this uncertainty is increasingly harmful to the business community.

This article surveys the available OHA case law in order to identify the specific limits of the aforementioned “gap,” and then offers predictions and recommendations for the way that SBA should define the term “managing venturer” in order to minimize business uncertainty and thereby promote small business development through joint venture participation.

Continue reading at:  Miles and Stockbridge

Accept no imitations: Contractor cannot recover for claim based on brand name products

By

When a contractor delivers goods to the government that do not conform to the precise requirements of the contract, the results are usually . . . not good.  When the agency specifies certain products in the contract, the contractor should plan to satisfy the exact specifications (or prepare to suffer the consequences).

A straightforward example arose recently on a GSA construction contract.  The contract called for the installation of products from specifically named manufactures (with limited sources identified).  The contract also expressly called out that the agency would not permit substitutions for those named products.

After award, the contractor proposed substitutions for what it considered “equivalent” products from a manufacturer that did not appear on the agency’s approved source list.  The agency declined to consider the contractor’s requested exceptions.

The contractor wisely proceeded to provide the brand name products – but also filed claims seeking the excess costs associated with those products (as compared to the lower-priced equivalents that it suggested to the agency).  The contractor argued that the agency improperly rejected the substitution.

Not surprisingly, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals granted the agency’s motion to dismiss.  The Board found that the contract language clearly did not provide for substitutions – and that GSA did not breach the contract by refusing to consider the contractor’s proposed equivalents.

Continue reading at:  Fox Rothschild

Highlights from the stalled SBA Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2019

By

Last month, Senator Marco Rubio, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, released the Chairman’s mark to the Small Business Administration (SBA) Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2019 (the “SBA Reauthorization Act”).  This legislation aims to modernize and streamline SBA programs, and would be the first comprehensive reauthorization of the Small Business Act in nearly twenty years.  Although the legislation appears stalled, it is likely that many of these initiatives will find their way into future policy initiatives.  Here are a few potential changes to track in the SBA Reauthorization Act:

  • Creation of a Centralized Certification Office.  With a few exceptions, small business programs are based on self-certification by each firm.  This legislation would create a centralized certification office for firms wishing to participate in the SBA’s Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Business Development Program (8(a)), Women-Owned Small Business Program (WOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program (SDVOSB), and Historically Underutilized Business Zone Program (HUBZone).  This would increase certainty for Government officials relying on size representations and reduce the number of speculative size and status protests.  However, it may also create logistical and funding complications for the SBA due to the sheer volume of applications.
  • Increased Sole Source Authority.  To increase the use of sole source awards for small businesses, the legislation would increase the contract-value limit on sole-source awards for the HUBZone, WOSB, and SDVOSB programs – from $6.5 and $7 million to $10 million for manufacturing contracts, and $4 million to $8 million for all other contracts.
  • Increased Venture Capital Investment in WOSBs.  The legislation would allow women-owned and minority-owned firms to accept venture capital and equity investments that would exceed 50 percent ownership of the firm, so long as those venture capital and equity investment firms are themselves women-owned or minority-owned.  This would allow WOSB and 8(a) entities to accept needed investments and still maintain their program status.

Continue reading at:  Morrison & Foerster

OFCCP releases its new compliance assistance guides

By

On August 2, 2019, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs announced the release of its new compliance assistance guides.  Among the new guides are:

  • OFCCP At A Glance, which introduces and provides an overview of OFCCP, “its mission, the equal employment opportunity laws it enforces, an overview of federal contractor obligations, and workers’ rights.”
  • What Federal Contractors Can Expect, which “provides general expectations that guide interactions between contractors and OFCCP.”
  • Construction Technical Assistance Guide, which “is being updated and is coming soon,” provides a general overview of construction contractors’ obligations.
  • Applicant Tracking Guide, which “provides the definitions for Internet and traditional applicants, identifies applicant records that contractors must keep, and provides other key terms to know.”
  • And more…

Continue reading at:  Ogletree Deakins

Georgia Tech aerospace engineering graduate James McConville sworn in as Army’s top officer

By

Gen. James C. McConville, 36th Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (U.S. Army photo by Monica King/Released)

A Ramblin’ Wreck from Georgia Tech is the new chief of staff of the U.S. Army.

Gen. James C. McConville took over as the Army’s top officer August 9.  He replaces Gen. Mark A. Milley, who was confirmed in July as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

McConville earned a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from Georgia Tech in 1990.  A decorated helicopter pilot, McConville is the first aviator to serve as the Army’s chief.

“Armed with a master’s in engineering to go with decades of flying and maintaining helicopters, he brings a unique understanding of how to operate and support complex weapons and equipment,” said Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy.  “In this respect, no senior officer is better prepared to lead the Army as we undertake what will be a massive and, yes, risky and costly transformation towards more advanced weapons and war-fighting approaches.”

Continue reading at:  Georgia Tech News Center

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More