Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

Contractors must update EEO poster

By

Replacing the “EEO is the Law” poster is not optional.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a new “Know Your Rights” poster, which updates and replaces the “EEO is the Law” poster.

The EEOC’s equal employment opportunity poster has long been a required poster for federal contractors, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs did not take long to alert contractors that this new poster is mandatory and must be displayed to applicants and employees.

Continue reading at: JD Supra

The risk of organizational conflicts of interest

By

In the first two parts of this series, we have summarized what constitutes an Organizational Conflict of Interest (“OCI”) in government procurements and discussed OCIs’ importance in the bid protest arena.  But lest you think that, having passed the protest hurdle, you are now free from all harm caused by having an OCI, we now address potential post-award liability stemming from undisclosed and unmitigated OCIs.  Contractors found to have undisclosed and unmitigated OCIs, that either existed before award or arose thereafter, can face a variety of bad outcomes—contract termination, suspension or debarment, and liability for fraud under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Recall that OCIs come in three forms:

  1. Unfair Competitive Advantage – when a contractor obtains confidential or proprietary government information not accessible to competitors
  2. Impaired Objectivity – when contract performance could affect a contractor’s other financial interests
  3. Biased Ground Rules – when a contractor helps design the statement of work or other solicitation requirements for a future procurement for which they ultimately submit a proposal

Continue reading at: JD Supra

The gap widens between COFC and GAO on late is late rule

By

We all know that failure to submit your bid proposal on time typically results in rejection.  But what if you submitted your proposal on time and the agency’s server rejects the submission without bothering to inform you?  And what if the basis for rejection was an undisclosed limitation within a server on email size?  Does such delay qualify as an exception to the “late is late” rule?  The answer depends on which forum you ask.

Continue reading at:  JD Supra

 

Are verbal agreements good enough for government contractors?

By

Long gone are the days of verbal agreements over a friendly handshake.  Now a contractor needs a written contract to ensure payment for services rendered.  However, what if no paperwork exists proving the client authorized additional work?  Can a contractor still get paid?  The answer is maybe.  If the contractor can find enough non-documentary evidence to show the person who verbally requested the work has actual authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the client, a contractor may be able to recover payment under an implied-in-fact contract.

What is an implied-in-fact contract?  Implied-in-fact contracts are based on the situation’s facts, circumstances or conduct of the parties involved, which creates an obligation between the two parties.  For example, if a contractor is paid for something each week but it is not in writing, the contractor may be able to claim they have a contract with the other party and a reasonable expectation that they will be paid for their service going forward.

In the below motion against the contractor’s appeal, the Marine Expeditionary Force Training and Experimentation Group within the U.S. Marines’ Advisor Training Cell (Client) motioned the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) for a summary judgment, essentially requesting the contractor’s appeal be thrown out.

Continue reading at: JD Supra

CMMC 2.0 simplifies requirements but raises risks for government contractors

By

With the announcement of a revamped Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (known as CMMC 2.0), for the third time in five years, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) announced new, comprehensive cybersecurity standards for government contractors and subcontractors to ensure the protection of sensitive unclassified information, that is, Federal Contract Information (FCI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).  By referring to the new cybersecurity standard as CMMC 2.0, the DOD implicitly recognizes the likelihood of future versions at an unknown cost to the Defense Industrial Base (DIB).

Nevertheless, version 2.0, which was released after a seven-month review by the Biden Administration, reflects the DOD’s assessment of the DIB’s concerns and reflects the DOD’s efforts to streamline and improve upon its earlier version after criticisms aimed at its cost and complexity.  Specifically, CMMC 2.0 collapses CMMC 1.0’s five tiers to three simplified tiers that are based on the cybersecurity framework implemented and that are devoid of additional CMMC-unique practices and processes.  CMMC 2.0 also will allow “annual self-assessment with an annual affirmation by DIB company leadership” for Level 1 and part of the new bifurcated Level 2 (formerly Level 3).  Otherwise, an independent third-party assessment or government-led assessment will be required.

Besides CMMC 2.0, contractors with CUI are also required to comply with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7019 and 252.204-7020.  Collectively, these clauses require contractors to enter their compliance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 into DOD’s Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).  DOD will identify medium- and high-risk contracts and perform independent assessments of contractor compliance with NIST SP 800-171 and whether a contractor’s compliance matches what it inputted into SPRS.  Contractors should also be mindful as to whether these disclosures match their prior acceptance of contracts with DFARS 252.204-7012, which required full compliance with NIST SP 800-171.

The return of self-assessment, which was the bedrock of the first DOD cybersecurity standards set out in DFARS 252.204-7012 and whose failure led to the development of CMMC 1.0., creates substantial risks to DIB companies and their leadership.  The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced a new Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative that emphasized the use of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et. seq., to bring civil action against government contractors who knowingly misrepresented their cybersecurity practices and protocols.  The FCA allows the government to recover treble damages and permits qui tam suits, which allow whistleblowers to receive a portion of the monies recovered by the government.  In addition, other regulatory agencies have brought enforcement actions for alleged false certifications concerning compliance with agency-required cybersecurity standards.  Thus, the risk of a DOJ investigation or a qui tam suit connected with a DIB company’s self-assessment affirmation is very real, and this announcement – coupled with self-certification options in CMMC 2.0 – should not been seen as a coincidence. Nevertheless, companies can reduce such risks with appropriate cybersecurity policies and a culture of compliance.

Continue reading at:  JD Supra

OFCCP launches contractor portal initiating AAP verification program

By

On December 2, 2021, OFCCP announced the launch of its new “Contractor Portal,” which “[c]overed federal contractors and subcontractors (“contractors”) must use … to certify, on an annual basis, whether they have developed and maintained an affirmative action program for each establishment and/or functional unit, as applicable.”

The Contractor Portal will also serve as a “secure portal for scheduled contractors to submit to OFCCP their Affirmative Action Program(s) during compliance evaluations.”

This development has been years in the making, initiated by a 2016 GAO report criticizing OFCCP for having no process for ensuring contractors were preparing their affirmative action programs (“AAPs”) annually, and comes over three years after former Director Craig Leen announced OFCCP’s intention to create an AAP verification program.

Continue reading at:  JD Supra

GAO rules that DoD may not require small business Joint Venture itself hold facility security clearance

By

In an August 27, 2021 decision, GAO sided with protester InfoPoint LLC (“InfoPoint”), and the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) which was invited to submit comments, in finding that a Department of Defense (“DoD”) solicitation provision requiring a small business joint venture offeror to itself hold a facility clearance was inconsistent with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (“2020 NDAA”) and SBA’s regulation at 13 C.F.R. §121.103.

GAO ruled that the 2020 NDAA “clearly and unambiguously prohibits DoD agencies, like the Air Force here, from issuing solicitations that require a joint venture, rather than the members of the joint venture, hold the required facility clearance.”

Continue reading at: Crowell & Moring

Terminations for convenience clauses vs. mutual termination clauses

By

Imagine as a supplier of medical oxygen cylinders and tanks in your region, you enter into an arrangement with HHS or DHS to provide oxygen to nearby hospital facilities dealing with surges in the COVID-19 pandemic.  However, due to the recent dramatic surge in your area and the significant demand for oxygen, the government moved quickly to award you a contract that appears very different from other federal contracts you have previously signed.

For example, instead of containing a standard FAR clause for Terminations for Convenience, your contract has a clause that states “this contract may be terminated in whole or in part by either party upon thirty (30) days notice in writing to the other party.”  Is this mutual termination clause treated any differently under the law? Would you still get the same protection if the government decided to cancel your contract to obtain better prices a week later from your competitor across town?

Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are murky at best.  But contractors should be aware that there could be a difference between these two types of clauses and to not instantly assume that they will be treated similarly should a claim arise.

Continue reading at:  The Contractor’s Perspective

Five things you should know about past performance when teaming

By

The government’s hard shift away from lowest-price, technically acceptable evaluations has magnified the importance of past performance in many competitive acquisitions.  For start-ups and other companies new to the federal marketplace, past performance requirements can present a significant barrier to success.

Oftentimes, companies with little or no past performance of their own can offer the past performance of another entity, such as a subcontractor or joint venture partner.  But the rules surrounding the use of another entity’s past performance are often misunderstood–and recently, the rules have evolved quickly.

Here are five things you should know about using the past performance of a subcontractor, joint venture partner, or affiliate.

Continue reading at:  SmallGovCon

5 things you should know: SBA’s recent 8(a) program updates

By

SBA has been hard at work this past year updating its 8(a) Business Development Program rules and policies.  And we have been doing our best to keep you posted.  Many of our blog posts focused on SBA’s monumental November 2020 “rule overhaul,” which implemented several 8(a) rule changes.  But given the sheer magnitude of information in that final rule, it is pretty easy to lose track of which updates might affect you, as a potential 8(a) applicant or current 8(a) participant.  There were also some pretty important changes to the 8(a) Program just prior to and subsequent to SBA’s November 2020 final rule.

Suffice it to say, there is a lot to process!  So, we thought a quick summary blog on some of the most significant changes to the 8(a) Program of late might help you in that endeavor.  Without further ado, here are five things you should know about SBA’s recent 8(a) Program updates.

As an initial matter, please keep in mind that this blog does not provide an exhaustive list of the rule changes in SBA’s November 2020 final rule that may affect 8(a) Program admission or participation.  It is merely a simplified discussion of some of the big picture changes that have already received a lot of attention in the government contracting community.

Continue reading at:  SmallGovCon

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More