When submitting bids, contractors should always double-check their proposal submission methods, whether it be a designated portal, email, or any other method, and do so well before the deadline. GAO recently had the opportunity to examine proposal submission issues related to a US Navy procurement and did not show sympathy for the contractor who experienced proposal submission issues right at the deadline.
Continue reading at: SmallGovCon
Recently, OHA determined that SDVOSB owners aren’t always required to personally possess the licenses required for their businesses.
In Veteran’s 1st Architecture, LLC, SBA No. CVE 122-A (2019), Veteran’s 1st appealed the VA CVE’s denial of its SDVOSB recertification application. The business, a Georgia architectural firm, was initially founded in December 2014 and first verified by CVE the following year. Three years later, the business applied for reverification, but was denied.
CVE denied Veteran’s 1st‘s reverification for three primary reasons, all based on the same fact: the service-disabled veteran owner of Veteran’s 1st Architecture was not a state-registered architect himself, though he did employ one. As a result, CVE held that a non-veteran architect “controlled” the architecture firm. OHA disagreed, holding that despite not possessing the license, the owner still maintained control.
CVE first found that because Veteran’s 1st‘s owner did not possess the “critical” architect license, he could not, and did not, control the company’s daily business operations. Relying on Georgia law, CVE determined that “the practice of architecture by a limited liability company “had to be under the “‘responsible control’ of a Georgia-registered architect.”
OHA held otherwise, stating that the “practice of architecture” composed only a portion of the business’s daily operations.
Continue reading at: SmallGovCon
On April 3, 2019, the Small Business Association (SBA) released a revised Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program policy directive, which went into effect May 2, 2019 (the “New Policy”). This New Policy made important and drastic changes to Data Rights protections afforded to SBIR/STTR awarded small business companies. Government contractors should understand these major changes and consider the impact on company operations related to commercialization of intellectual property developed with government funding.
Old Policy – Four Years Plus Extensions
Prior to this New Policy, a small business (“Company”) had four years, from the date of deliverables, of Data Rights protections that could be continuously renewed/extended. During this time, the government was not able to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display or disclose any Data or Computer Software that was part of the Company’s research and development under a SBIR or STTR program. After the four years had ended (unless extended/renewed), the government would be granted a royalty-free license to use the Data or Computer Software, as well as authorize other third parties to use the Data or Computer Software on the government’s behalf for government purposes. Further, the government would be relieved of all prohibitions on disclosure and would assume no liability for the unauthorized use of such Data or Computer Software by third parties. Prior to the New Policy, the government was not authorized any right or use to the Data or Computer Software during the four-year period (or during any extended/renewed period). However, the government was granted Unlimited Rights to the Data or Computer Software at the end of the protection period.
New Policy – 20 Years with No Extensions
Under the New Policy, a Company now has 20 years, from the date of award of an SBIR or STTR funding agreement, of certain Data Rights protections. During this time, the government only has limited rights in its use of the Data or Computer Software. The major right is that the government has the ability to properly evaluate the technology. After the protection period, rather than obtaining Unlimited Rights under the old policy, the government now only obtains Government Purpose Rights to the Data and Computer Software. However, there are nuances associated with the data rights.
Continue reading at: Snell and Wilmer
The General Services Administration (GSA) has announced that the Federal Business Opportunities website — commonly referred to as “FedBizOpps.gov” — will be decommissioned “starting on November 8, 2019” and that the website’s “critical functionality will be transitioned into beta.SAM.gov in the first quarter of the 2020 fiscal year.”
This transition will impact virtually every federal government contractor, as FedBizOpps.gov currently serves as the single government-wide point of entry for federal government opportunities over $25,000.
Continue reading at: Bradley
IT personnel working the trenches in the fight against malicious emails know that financial transactions — and the various documents that support and accompany those transactions — provide malicious actors seemingly endless fodder for clever phishing attacks designed to separate legitimate organizations from their money and reputations, as well as their customers, clients, and partners.
Indeed, fake invoices, RFQs, POs, ACH documents, and remittance forms collectively constitute the “social engineering” backbone of innumerable phishing campaigns. And hapless employees keep falling for them, clicking through malicious links and opening malware-laden attachments — often with nary a thought to the potential consequences — bringing malicious actors and their sophisticated malware inside their employers’ networks.
Over the past few months we have observed the increasing use of yet another type of transaction-based social engineering scheme designed to hook companies dependent on government contracts: the invitation to bid. In what follows, we’ll take a look at a number of actual phishing emails reported to us by customers using the Phish Alert Button (PAB).
Continue reading at: SC Magazine
Nowadays, many people are familiar with at least some types of protected information, whether in the form of personal health information or government-classified information. But, contractors working with the Department of Defense (“DoD”) must remember to protect another type of information: controlled unclassified information (“CUI”). Failure by government contractors to put processes in place that protect CUI could result in the loss of contracting opportunities or potential False Claims Act-related litigation. For more information about the far-reaching implications of cybersecurity requirements on government contractors, please also see Matt Feinberg’s blog on the recent settlement of a cybersecurity False Claims Act (“FCA”) litigation; Isaias “Cy” Alba’s piece about cybersecurity, implied certifications, and the FCA; and Dave Shafer’s analysis of current cybersecurity standards and the DoD’s plans to remedy confusion.
Continue reading at: Piliero Mazza
In its recent decision in Criterion Systems, Inc. v. U.S., , the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) denied protester’s pre-award protest challenging the Agency’s rejection of its late submission of a revised quote in response to a solicitation amendment and request for revised quotations. In this case, the solicitation provided that “[f]ailure to follow procedures or provide any of the documents or information may be considered a material omission and may adversely affect a Vendor’s evaluation or result in elimination of the Vendor from the competition.” It also provided that “LATE QUOTES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.” Criterion timely submitted its initial proposal and was in the competition. The Agency issued subsequent amendments to the solicitation and sought submission of revised quotes through a government portal, FedConnect, “no later than 5:00pm ET on November 21, 2018.” Each amendment and the request for revised quotes stated that “LATE QUOTES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.”
Criterion “created” its revised quote on the designated electronic portal at 2:36:54 PM on November 21, 2018, but it did not “submit” it until 5:01:30 PM ET, 90 seconds after the deadline for quote submission. When asked for an explanation by the Agency, Criterion indicated it may have had “latency” issues and that this was its first time submitting documents using the portal. Criterion did not provide any evidence to justify or further explain its late submission. The Agency rejected Criterion’s quote as untimely.
Criterion brought its protest alleging that the Agency’s actions in rejecting its quote were arbitrary and capricious. The Court held that protester failed to establish that there was a “significant error” in the procurement process:
“Ninety seconds late may appear to be a minimal infraction, but deadlines are set for a reason, and an agency’s strict adherence to a deadline places all bidders on an equal footing and avoids the sorts of issues Criterion is seeking to raise here. Further, Criterion’s failure to submit a timely bid was entirely within its own control. The Agency’s refusal to deviate from the express RFQ terms is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”
Criterion makes clear that all those who compete in procurements must comply with the express terms of the solicitation. This is an essential truth in government procurement. A bidder’s or offeror’s failure to comply with such terms can result in its loss of the opportunity to be considered for award.
Read more at: Government Contracting Matters
Each year, state and local governments spend more than $250 billion on the construction of roads, schools and other public infrastructure.
Construction companies sometimes see government contracting as prohibitively competitive and believe the pay is low and the bid requirements are too time and effort-consuming. But this is not the case, and should not hold construction companies back from bidding on a sector that offers huge growth opportunities.
Contractors of any size and any type can get started at any time with government work. Construction companies and also landscape contractors, electrical contractors, design-build contractors, general contractors and even roofing contractors are desperately needed by government procurement departments. Here are some tips for landing a government construction contract.
Continue reading at: Construction Dive
The recent decision in CVE Appeal of Valor Construction, Inc, SBA No CVE-121-A (June 3, 2019) provides a useful reminder to contractors regarding the difference between unconditional ownership and unconditional control, and the importance of assessing both when analyzing service-disabled veteran owned small business (“SDVOSB”) eligibility. Specifically, the decision in Valor – which was issued by the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) – demonstrates that an individual’s majority ownership of a SDVOSB, alone, does not vest that individual with unconditional control over the SDVOSB. The Valor decision further reflects how the revised control regulations may cause eligibility problems for contractors. Avoiding these pitfalls requires some background knowledge regarding the dual SDVOSB programs and the revision of the applicable regulations, a thorough understanding of the revised regulations themselves, and an awareness of the most common eligibility problems that contractors can face under these regulations.
Continue reading at: Obermayer
Let’s talk about the word “satisfactory.”
For most of us, the first thing that comes to mind is the grade of a “C.” If you received a “C” in high school, your parents probably asked you what happened, as if satisfactory wasn’t good enough. Of course, there are some of us in certain subjects, say math, where a “C” was excellent.
But for the most part, getting a “C” in many households was unacceptable.
That word “satisfactory” is at the crux of what is wrong with the Contractor Performance Assessment Retrieval System (CPARS).
Too many contracting officers are saying a vendor’s performance is satisfactory for two main reasons: A lack of time to explain why the contractor was outstanding or exceptional, and to avoid any lengthy back-and-forth if a rating is below average or poor.
But as Greg Rothwell, the former Department of Homeland Security’s chief procurement officer, said at a recent event on CPARS, “If you are a vendor, getting a satisfactory kills you.”
This is because contractors and contracting officers should be using CPARS as one way to differentiate themselves from their competition. But if everyone is rated “satisfactory,” then CPARS loses most of its value.
Not everyone believes earning a satisfactory rating is a killer.
Continue reading at: Federal News Network
