Companies doing business with the federal government must comply with a litany of complex laws and regulations that affect their day-to-day business operations. To assist government contractors, this guide discusses some of the labor and employment laws and regulations that should be considered when pricing and performing a government contract.
Continue reading at: JD Supra
Last week, DOD announced the release of CMMC Version 1.0. CMMC Version 1.0 is a comprehensive certification process featuring 171 cybersecurity best practices to ensure that contractors secure their information systems. The question on everyone’s mind is who is going to pay for the certification and all of the work necessary to comply.
DOD has been less than clear on how contractors are expected to pay for CMMC certification. But what is clear is that the costs associated with obtaining CMMC certification will be significant. It is unclear whether contractors can seek reimbursement for these costs. They may be able to claim costs as an allowable indirect cost. We suspect that the cost of certification itself will be covered, but that the greater costs associated with becoming compliant will not be covered as a reimbursable direct cost.
Continue reading at: Fox Rothschild
A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona highlights the complexity of jurisdictional issues faced by unsuccessful offerors that challenge government awards of “other transaction” (OT) agreements. Over the past few years, OT agreements have grown significantly in popularity due to their immunity from the regulatory provisions that typically govern government procurement contracts, including those that address intellectual property rights, cost accounting, and other key terms. By some reports, Department of Defense (DoD) spending on OT agreements has grown from $2.3 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 to, by some accounts, more than $7 billion in FY 2019. It is no wonder that companies not selected for an OT agreement have at times attempted to challenge their exclusion in various judicial fora.
Continue reading at: Hogan Lovells
Discussions with an agency prior to submitting a final proposal can lead to a more well-informed submission by an offeror; however, such is not always the case. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision in Quality Control International, LLC (QCI), B-417984 (December 20, 2019) provides guidance as to how offerors should rely on information supplied by the agency in crafting their best, most competitive bid.
Continue reading at: Government Contracting Matters
In Vet4U, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals awarded costs and attorney fees to the small business contractor that won its appeal pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. § 504, after finding the government’s position was not substantially justified. The EAJA is a useful tool for small contractors who prevail against the government and were subjected to particularly difficult contracting circumstances.
As a reminder, the EAJA has five basic requirements that the applicant must meet in order to recover: (1) have been a prevailing party in a proceeding against the United States; (2) if a corporation, have had not more than $7,000,000 in net worth and five hundred employees at the time the adversary adjudication was initiated; (3) submit its application within thirty days of final disposition in the adjudication; (4) state the amount sought and include an itemized statement of costs and attorney fees; and (5) allege that the position of the agency was not substantially justified. See 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); Vet4U, LLC v. Department of Veteran Affairs, CBCA 6612-C (5387).
Continue reading at: Government Contracting Matters
The Federal Circuit struck down an element of the government’s longstanding definition of what qualifies as U.S.-made for purposes of procurement law. In Acetris Health LLC v. United States, No. 18-2399 (Fed. Cir. 2020), a three judge panel found the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) definition of U.S.-made to be “untenable” and instead found that pharmaceuticals with an active ingredient from India that are manufactured into final form in the U.S. qualify as U.S.-made for purposes of procurement law. The decision, if not successfully challenged, will have broad-ranging impacts not only in the pharmaceutical industry but for many government contractors with international supply chains. It also raises important questions about how federal agencies will implement the court’s guidance.
Continue reading at: Arnold & Porter
Contractors had their doubts when the General Services Administration sun-setted FedBizOpps, the dated web site where agencies listed federal opportunities. The General Services Administration replaced it with a system called Beta.Sam.gov. According to Alan Chvotkin, executive vice president and counsel at the Professional Services Council, contractors are finding the new system isn’t much better than the old, and in some ways worse.
Listen to the podcast at: Federal News Network
This week Ken Dodds, government contracting industry expert at Live Oak Bank, and David Black, partner and co-chair of Holland & Knight’s Government Contracts Group, joined The Federal News Network’s Off the Shelf podcast for a wide ranging discussion on the state of federal small business contracting.
Dodds and Black took a look at the government’s performance drivers in meeting small business prime contract goals.
They also provided key insights on the state of the federal small business market what small businesses need to know about category management, Best-In-Class contracts, and interagency contracting.
Dodds and Black also shared insights on key regulatory and oversight trends for small business subcontracting plans and what it means for both small and large businesses, and took a look at trends in mergers and acquisitions and the growing criticality of supply chain risk management and what it all means for the federal market.
Listen to the Podcast at: Federal News Network
The federal government awards nearly $500 billion each year on contracts, and anyone can compete for them! After registering your business, you can join thousands of companies that participate in the government contracting marketplace.
But beware, the contracting process means that thousands of companies also spend a lot of money, time and effort chasing opportunities that they never had a chance at in the first place. Or they pursue strategies that aren’t going to get them any closer to landing that elusive first deal.
Don’t be one of these companies! If you’re interested in winning government contracts, we salute you. Not only is it a lucrative market, you’ll provide a key service to a client with an important mission that impacts us all. So in the interest of opening government markets to diverse new companies, we’re offering this list of seven common mistakes that cost government contractors a lot of time and money so you can avoid making them yourself.
Continue reading at: Public Spend Forum
With FedBizOpps shuttered and shifted to beta.SAM.gov, the General Services Administration is readying for the next major transition to its centralized federal contracting site: moving the reporting function of the contract awards database, the Federal Procurement Data System, or FPDS.
By March 16, the reporting tools on fpds.gov site will be transitioned over to a new “Data Bank” page on beta.SAM.gov. Other functionality, including “search, agency reporting, data extracts, etc.,” will continue to operate on fpds.gov, according to a transition fact sheet provided by GSA.
Continue reading at: Nextgov
