Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

SBA to host surety bond workshop June 27th

By

On Thursday, June 27, 2019, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) and the National Association of Surety Bond Producers (“NASBP”) will be holding a half-day surety bond workshop.  Topics covered will include:

  • Contract Bonding and Insurance
  • Banking and Finance
  • Risk Management and Legal Concerns
  • Federal Assistance Programs
  • Local Procurement Opportunities
  • Business Development Resources

This event will be held at the Cleveland L. Dennard Conference Center, Atlanta Technical College, 1560 Metropolitan Parkway, SW from 8 a.m. – 1 p.m. ET.

Here is the official SBA event flyer:  SBA Surety Bond Workshop Flyer

Registration is required, because seats are limited:

Click Here To Register or go to www.sba.gov/ga

The definition of a subcontractor, and why it matters

By

What is a subcontractor?

The answer to this question seems obvious – a subcontractor is a contractor that contracts with the prime contractor to perform a scope of work on a construction project.

However, it is not always easy to distinguish a subcontractor from a materials supplier (sometimes referred to as a “materialman”). That distinction is important in the context of claims by lower-tier subcontractors or materials suppliers on payment bonds, such as those provided by prime contractors on federal and state public works projects. That is, a lower-tier subcontractor or materials supplier may not be entitled to recovery from a payment bond if its contract is with a materials supplier instead of a subcontractor. Therefore, identifying the role of the party with whom a contractor is contracting is a key task the prudent contractor will perform at the outset of a project.

This distinction is most important in the context of federal public works projects. For those projects, the Miller Act restricts claimants on payment bonds to those who had a contract with the prime contractor and those who had a contract with a subcontractor, provided that in the latter case the claimant provides notice to the prime contractor. In other words, if a firm has a contract with a materials supplier, as opposed to a subcontractor, the firm does not have entitlement to payment under the bond. Courts look at the “total relationship” between the parties to determine if the party in question is a subcontractor or materials supplier.

Courts have applied a balancing test to make this determination, with some factors weighing in favor of a subcontractor relationship and other factors weighing in favor of a materials supplier relationship.

Keep reading this article at: https://idahobusinessreview.com/2019/02/28/the-definition-of-a-subcontractor-and-why-it-matters/

Miller Act applies even if contract does not contain a bonding requirement

By

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held, in K-Con, Inc. v. Secretary of Army, that the bonding requirements under the Miller Act apply to federal government construction contracts, even when the bonding provisions were not part of the contract.

The Miller Act, as implemented at FAR 28.102-1, requires that before any contract of more than $150,000 is awarded for the construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the Federal Government, a person must furnish to the Government, performance and payment bonds, which become binding when the contract is awarded.  

The Appeals Court cited a doctrine first articulated in G. L. Christian & Assocs. v. United States, 312 F.2d 418 (popularly known as the Christian Doctrine) in arriving at this decision.

Under the Christian Doctrine, a court may insert a clause into a government contract by operation of law if:

  1. that clause is mandatory under applicable federal administrative regulations; and
  2. it expresses a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy.

The court found that the Miller Act bonding requirements are mandatory, because FAR Sections 28.102-1 and 28.102-3 require the bonds and direct the insertion of the clauses into federal government construction contracts.  The court further found that Miller Act bonding requirements are “deeply ingrained” in public procurement policy.  The Miller Act bonding requirements were thus held to be incorporated into federal government construction contracts by operation of law, at the time the contracts were awarded, under the Christian Doctrine.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-miller-act-applies-even-if-contract-34807

SBA makes changes to its surety bond program

By

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has noted two important changes to its Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program that will increase contract opportunities for small contractors, supporting them to grow their business operations.  The changes became effective on September 20, 2017.

The changes have the effect of increasing the guarantee percentage in the Preferred Surety Bond Program from no more than 70 percent to no more than 90 percent.  The SBA’s guarantee is now 90 percent if the original contract amount is $100,000 or less, or if the bond is issued to a small business that is owned and controlled by socially or economically disadvantaged individuals, veterans, service disabled veterans, or certified HUBZone and 8(a) businesses.  All other guarantees are 80 percent.

In addition, the eligible contract amount for the Quick Bond Application (Quick Bond) increased to $400,000 from $250,000.  The Quick Bond is a streamlined application process, with reduced paperwork requirements, that is used in the Prior Approval Program for smaller contract amounts.  SBA’s review and approval requires minimal time, allowing small businesses to bid on and compete for contracting opportunities without delay.

Through its SBG Program, consisting of the Prior Approval and the Preferred Surety Bond Programs, the SBA guarantees bid, payment and performance bonds for contracts that do not exceed $6.5 million, and up to $10 million with a federal contracting officer’s certification.  The SBA’s guarantee encourages the surety company to issue a bond that it would not otherwise provide for a small business.

For more information on the SBA’s Surety Bond Guarantee Program, visit www.sba.gov/surety-bonds.

“Reverse” False Claims Act liability extended to bonding companies

By

On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that bonding companies can be held liable for treble damages under the False Claims Act for issuing surety bonds to construction companies that falsely claim to be a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB).

In a novel reverse False Claims Act case, whistleblower Andrew Scollick alleged that the bonding companies “knew or should have known” the construction companies were shell companies acting as a front for larger non-veteran owned entities violating the government’s contracting requirements.

A reverse false claim action can occur when defendants knowingly make a false statement in order to avoid having to pay the government when payment is otherwise due in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G) (reverse false claims).  See United States ex. rel. Scollick v. Narula, Case No: 14-cv-01339-RCL (District Court, District of Columbia. July 31, 2017).

Under the Miller Act, government construction contractors must post bid bonds, performance bonds, and payment bonds that guarantee that the contractor will perform the work according to the terms of the contract. In this case, the contract terms required that the construction be performed by a SDVOSB entity.  Michael Kohn, of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, who represents the whistleblower, argued that given their role in providing a surety bond to the contractor the bonding companies would know whether the invoicing being billed against the contract is being performed by a SDVOSB.  The district court agreed and found that a “reverse false claims” violation occurred because the bonding company knew or should have known that the construction organization was not a SDVOSB and the act of issuing surety bonds furthered the fraud.  As a result, the bonding companies were held legally obligated to return to the government funds the bonding company knew to be paid to contractor firms fraudulently posing as SDVOSBs. Being held liable under the False Claims Act means that treble damages will be awarded for every dollar up to the amount of the bond that the government paid out under each contract.

Because of the substantial dollar amounts involved, it is not all that uncommon for contractors to falsify service-disabled veteran status. Holding bonding companies liable when they have reason to know of the fraud could have an immense impact on stamping out such contract fraud. “Holding bonding companies liable for treble damages in these types of case will have a huge impact on preventing fraud in government contracts and will help ensure these contracts go to disabled veteran-owned companies as intended,” said Kohn.

The Scollick case alleges that two of the largest surety bonding companies, Hanover Insurance Company and Hudson Insurance Company, knowingly bonded dozens of Veteran Administration construction contracts totaling more than $12.5 million with the knowledge that the bonded contractors did not qualify as service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses.

 

Source: http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=211708

The dotted line: How to navigate ‘the 3 Cs’ of construction bonding

By

“Payment and performance bonds required.”  Those words can signal a giant dead end for some contractors who would like to bid on public work or large private projects but haven’t yet waded into the bonding world. However, the bonding process doesn’t have to be mysterious or sweat-inducing as long as companies are equipped with the right information.

SuretyThe most common types of construction bonds are performance and payment bonds, which are kinds of surety bonds. A payment bond guarantees the owner that the contractor will pay all the supplier and subcontractor bills associated with the project, and the performance bond is the owner’s assurance the project will be completed in a timely manner and with high quality.

Those who have bumped into bonding requirements on past jobs might have seen a “bid bond” requirement. This is a bond that guarantees the owner that the contractor will be able to meet the requirements of the contract for the amount of the submitted bid.  But if a company has bonding capability for performance and payment bonds, these aren’t usually a problem to secure.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.constructiondive.com/news/the-dotted-line-how-to-navigate-the-3-cs-of-construction-bonding/413514/

Webinar on surety bonds to be presented April 17th

By

The U.S. Small Business Administration’s Surety Bond Guarantee Program helps small business get bonded.  If you wish to learn about this program, you are invited to participate in a free, live webinar on Thursday, April 17, 2014 from 10:00 to 11:00 am EDT.

This webinar is ideal for  small businesses with:

  • Limited financial resources
  • No prior bonded work experience
  • Been in business less than three years
  • Desire to increase your current bonding capacity

The webinar will cover Contract Bonds, including:

  • What they are and why they are required
  • How to get pre-qualified
  • Working capital and bank support

The webinar also will provide complete information about SBA’s Surety Bond Guarantee Program, including:

  • Program eligibility
  • Required information
  • Application process and fees

Advance registration is required.  Please register online at http://events.sba.gov/eventmanagement/EventRegistration.aspx?id=9a6d088f-24b1-e311-abc5-02bfa56e2a24 

Date:                    Thursday, April 17, 2014

Time:                    10:00 am – 11 am

Internet:        https://connect16.uc.att.com/sba/meet/?ExEventID=87462470 (copy the link into your browser to attend).

Phone:            888-858-2144 and then enter meeting code 7462470# to connect by phone.

Prepare in advance for the conference at: https://connect16.uc.att.com/sba/Prepare

For more information please contact Ms. Melanie Bryant at 404-331-0100, ext. 603 or melanie.bryant@sba.gov.

SBA issues final rule on surety bond guarantee program

By

In a rule (79 Fed. Reg. 2084) scheduled to go into effect on Feb. 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) is modifying its Surety Bond Guarantee Program to incorporate certain provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA).  This includes provisions that increase the contract amounts for which SBA is authorized to guarantee bonds, grant SBA the authority to partially deny liability under its bond guarantee, and prohibit SBA from denying liability based on material information that was provided as part of the guarantee application in the Prior Approval Program.

The rule also makes changes to the Quick Bond Guarantee Application and Agreement, the timeframes for taking certain actions related to claims, and the dollar threshold for determining when a change in the Contract or bond amounts meets certain criteria or requires certain action. Finally, the final rule eliminates references to the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) that has expired.

The new rule can be downloaded here: 79 Fed. Reg. 2084

SBA introduces ‘Quick Bond’ application

By

SBA has developed a new streamlined application to help small business owners bid and compete for contracting opportunities.

The Quick Bond Guarantee Application Agreement is for contracts less than $250,000 and combines the contractor application and SBA’s agreement with the surety to guarantee the bond into one easy-to-use form. The new form, the Quick Bond Guarantee Application and Agreement (SBA Form 990A) is available here.

The streamlined application reduces paperwork for both contractors and surety companies participating in SBA’s Prior Approval Program. The Quick Bond Guarantee Application Agreement helps:

  • Reduce processing time,
  • Streamline application requirements,
  • Speed up the application approval process.

For more information on surety bonds and SBA’s Surety Bond Guarantee Programs, visit SBA.gov/Surety-Bonds.

SBA opens its review of small business regulations

By

Are you a small business owner frustrated with outdated and often cumbersome regulations from the Small Business Administration? Then SBA wants to hear your suggestions on whether those rules should be streamlined, expanded, or possibly withdrawn altogether.

On Monday, SBA published a notice in the Federal Register asking the public to weigh in on the impact of its regulations and the best way to improve them.

“The primary objectives of this review are to make SBA’s regulatory program more cost-effective and less burdensome on participants in the agency’s programs while continuing to promote economic growth, innovation and job creation,” the notice said. “SBA seeks public input on the design of a plan to use for periodic retrospective review of its regulations and an initial list of the rules to be reviewed under the plan.”

The proposal comes on the heels of President Obama’s January executive order calling for a governmentwide review of all federal regulations. The order said inefficient, out-of-date and burdensome regulations could be repealed if they were stifling private sector job growth.

The order instructs agencies to develop a plan for reviewing their regulations by mid-May. The plan, along with any supporting data, would then be made public, Obama wrote.

While the SBA notice did not cite specific regulations, it did say the retrospective review would focus on small business investment companies, surety bond guarantee, business loans, disaster loans, government contracting and Historically Underutilized Business Zones.

SBA recently concluded an exhaustive review of its 8(a) Business Development Program and now is examining size regulations. Neither will be subject to the new review.

The agency wants the public to comment not only on specific regulations, but also on how it should devise its preliminary plan “with a defined method and schedule for identifying certain significant rules that may be obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive.” Comments also should address how SBA can best evaluate and analyze its regulations and obtain accurate and objective cost data.

Commenters should consider the economic burden the regulation imposes on small business entities and whether the rule is duplicative or overlapping; paperwork could be reduced by allowing electronic submissions; the regulation has been discredited by new scientific information; and the issue could be better handled by trade organizations without federal involvement.

“Comments should focus on regulations that have demonstrated deficiencies,” the notice said. “Comments that rehash debates over recently issued rules will be less useful. The public should focus on rule changes that will achieve a broad public impact, rather than an individual, personal, or corporate benefit.”

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, encouraged the public to participate in the review.

“Excessive regulations are suffocating the entrepreneurial spirit of America’s almost 30 million small businesses and, regrettably, small firms with fewer than 20 employees bear a disproportionate burden of complying with these rules,” Snowe said in a statement. “To spur job creation and economic growth, it is incumbent upon every level of government to simultaneously pursue sound incentives and eliminate the laws and policies already on the books that are proven impediments to these objectives.”

Earlier this month, Snowe and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., introduced the Small Business Regulatory Freedom Act, which would require agencies to calculate the direct and indirect economic impact of federal regulations. Small business review panels would be installed at all agencies and small businesses also would be allowed to challenge proposed regulations in court.

Comments for the SBA notice must be submitted by April 13. Comments can be submitted electronically at regulations.gov, or mailed to the SBA Office of the General Counsel, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, D.C., 20416.

The review plan, along with an initial list of regulations that will be evaluated, is expected to be complete by late May or early June and will be available on SBA’s Open Government Web page.

—  by Robert Brodsky – GovExec.com -March 15, 2011

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More