Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

DOE to prohibit contractors from technical collaboration with certain foreign governments

By

The US Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. 486.1 on June 7 prohibiting DOE employees and contractors from participating in the foreign government “talent recruitment programs” of countries designated by the DOE as a “foreign country of risk,” which apparently include China and Russia.  The order aims to balance the DOE’s broad scientific mission with national security interests by preventing the unauthorized transfer of scientific and technical information to certain foreign entities.  DOE contractors and subcontractors within the utility and nuclear sectors should be prepared to implement controls to ensure that neither they nor their employees or subcontractors participate in these foreign-sponsored programs for identified countries.

The order represents another step in federal efforts to reduce the ability of certain foreign countries to obtain sensitive technical knowledge from critical US industries.  The DOE was driven by concerns that foreign governments use talent recruitment programs to target scientists, engineers, and other technical experts to “reduce costs associated with basic research while focusing investment on military development or dominance in emerging technology sectors.”

Continue reading at:  Morgan Lewis

GAO says strict compliance with Buy American Act exception requirements not necessary

By

The Situation: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently held that a bid need not contain all of the information listed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR clause 52.225-9) to qualify for the “unreasonable cost” exception to the Buy American Act (BAA).

The Result: The decision requires agencies to analyze the contents of a bid, rather than mechanically rejecting it on a technicality.

Looking Ahead: A company can protest a rejected bid so long as the missing information would not allow the bidder to later alter its price or relative standing.

The GAO recently sustained a protest finding that it was unreasonable for the Department of Energy (DOE) to reject a bid simply because it failed to strictly comply with all of the requirements for an exception to the BAA. In Addison Constr. Co., B-416525 (Sept. 4, 2018), Addison Construction Company submitted a bid to construct a capacitor bank for DOE in Arizona. Addison’s bid informed DOE that a portion of the construction materials used would be foreign, not domestic. Addison’s bid requested an exception to the BAA pursuant to FAR clause 52.225-9, available when the cost of domestic construction material is “unreasonable” (i.e., it exceeds the cost of foreign material by more than six percent).

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=760680

GAO says strict bid compliance with Buy American Act exception requirements not necessary

By

The GAO recently sustained a protest finding that it was unreasonable for the Department of Energy (DOE) to reject a bid simply because it failed to strictly comply with all of the requirements for an exception to the BAA.

In Addison Constr. Co., B-416525, Addison Construction Company submitted a bid to construct a capacitor bank for DOE in Arizona. Addison’s bid informed DOE that a portion of the construction materials used would be foreign, not domestic. Addison’s bid requested an exception to the BAA pursuant to FAR clause 52.225-9, available when the cost of domestic construction material is “unreasonable” (i.e., it exceeds the cost of foreign material by more than six percent).

Under FAR clause 52.225-9, a contractor seeking an exception to the BAA construction materials requirement on the basis of unreasonable cost must include the following with its bid: price, quantity, unit of measure, and a description of the foreign and domestic materials at issue, along with a detailed justification for the use of foreign construction materials, a “reasonable survey of the market,” and a completed price comparison table in the format provided in FAR clause 52.225-9(d). In addition, the clause requires the contractor to provide the time of delivery or availability of the materials, the location of the construction project, specific supplier information (including the name, address, and telephone number for the supplier, and a copy of the supplier’s response or a summary thereof), and “other applicable supporting information.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5c1472f9-6d91-4b8e-8983-ca1b544bf880 

Offeror with ‘relatively weak proposal’ can file size protest, says SBA’s OHA

By

SBA sealAn offeror with a “relatively weak proposal” can nonetheless file a size protest challenging the small business eligibility of the prospective awardee, provided that the protester was not found technically unacceptable or otherwise incapable of being selected for award.

In a recent size appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held that the mere fact that the protester was evaluated as “less than satisfactory” on four out of five non-price factors did not justify dismissing the protester’s size protest for lack of standing.

OHA’s decision in Size Appeal of TMC Global Professional Services, SBA No. SIZ-5792 (2016) involved a DOE NNSA solicitation for the Design, Integration, Construction, Communication, and Engineering 2 (DICCE2) procurement in support of DOE’s nuclear smuggling detection and deterrence efforts.  The solicitation was issued as a small business set-aside under NAICS code 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction), with a corresponding $36.5 million size standard.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/sba-size-protests/offeror-with-relatively-weak-proposal-can-file-size-protest-says-sba-oha/

Oct. 4th boot camp to show small and medium size manufacturers how to engage Energy Labs

By

mitec-boot-campBusinesses in the energy sector are invited to come to the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) in Atlanta on October 4, 2016 to learn about a new program designed to help small- to medium-sized enterprises access national lab capabilities and assets.

The MITEC (Manufacturing Impacts Through Energy and Commerce) boot camp is part of the commitment of the U.S. Departments of Energy (DOE) and Commerce to support U.S. manufacturing by connecting businesses with the resources they need to succeed.

Attendees will get a chance to spend a few hours to learn how you can engage with two DOE National Labs — National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) — to scale a material, utilize a set of mixed equipment for testing with expert advice from a scientist and/or engineer, and more. Leading experts will also provide information on several federal funding opportunities to work with the labs.

Attendees also will have a chance to learn how to work with the the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership (GaMEP) to integrate new ideas and technologies into your manufacturing.

The featured keynote speaker will be Dr. Thomas R. Kurfess who served as the Assistant Director for Advanced Manufacturing at the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. He had responsibility for coordinating Federal efforts in advanced manufacturing R&D.

Panels will discuss the capabilities and resources of the national laboratories, how to access these resources, and other assets available for Georgia businesses. Ample time will be provided for networking and visiting exhibits.

Qualified companies must be Georgia-based, have under 500 employees, and be involved in one or more of the advanced energy technology areas listed below:

  • solar
  • wind
  • geothermal
  • water power
  • bioenergy
  • fuel cells
  • batteries
  • vehicle technology
  • smart buildings
  • energy efficiency
  • advanced materials
  • advanced manufacturing
  • additive manufacturing

Participants also must be willing to take a 10-minute pre-event survey.

The cost to attend is $25 which includes free on-site parking, presentation, boxed lunch, coffee/
water and afternoon snack.  The event will take place from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm.

Register at: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/manufacturing-impacts-through-energy-and-commerce-boot-camp-georgia-tickets-26648346923

sponsors

Questions may be directed to Kate Ringness at kate.ringness@americanjobsproject.us

Other dates and cities for this event are September 14, 2016 at NextEnergy in Detroit, Michigan and October 6, 2016, at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia.  Details at: http://energy.gov/eere/cemi/manufacturing-impacts-through-energy-and-commerce-mitec-state-boot-camps

Appeals court says extension constitutes new contract for considering bid protest

By

Award Term ExtensionsOn July 12, 2016, in Coast Professional, Inc. et. al v. United States, No. 2015-5077 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a Court of Federal Claims (“CoFC”) decision, finding that the CoFC erred in ruling that it did not have bid protest jurisdiction over the award of task orders characterized as “award-term extensions.”

The Federal Circuit’s decision provides clarity on the scope of Tucker Act’s bid protest jurisdiction, and provides a strong defense against Government arguments that attempt to limit that jurisdiction going forward.

The dispute in Coast Professional focused on “award term extensions” to task orders issued through the Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”).

In 2008, the Department of Education (“DOE”) issued a Request for Quotations (RFQ) for services related to the collection of defaulted student loans. The RFQ stated that the Task Order would include a base term ending March 31, 2011, with additional option periods up to 24 months.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2016/07/federal-circuit-confirms-that-a-task-order-award-term-extension-constitutes-a-new-contract-for-purposes-of-bid-protest-jurisdiction/

U.S. files False Claims Act complaint against two Energy Dept. contractors performing work at Savannah River Nuclear Site

By

The Justice Department (DOJ) announced on Friday (Mar. 18, 2016) that it has filed a complaint under the False Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina against two companies for allegedly overcharging the Department of Energy under a management and operations contract at the Savannah River Nuclear Site in Aiken, South Carolina.

The contractors in question are Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC (SRNS) and Fluor Federal Services, Inc. (FFSI).  SRNS is a joint venture of FFSI, Newport News Nuclear Inc. and Honeywell International.

Justice Dept. seal - CopyThe Dept. of Justice (DOJ) brief alleges that the contractors, since August 2008, “knowingly included unallowable costs in inflated claims to the United States Department of Energy (DOE), while falsely representing that such costs had not been claimed under the contract.”  The costs in question include unallowable home office and bid and proposal costs as well as inflated claims.

The False Claims Act bars any person from knowingly presenting to the Government a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.

DOE’s Savannah River Site is a 310-square-mile site located in Aiken, Barnwell and Allendale counties, South Carolina. The Savannah River Site was constructed in the early 1950s to produce weapons-grade plutonium and tritium for use in the United States’ nuclear weapons arsenal. The Savannah River Site is managed by the DOE-Savannah River Operations Office, located in Aiken, South Carolina, whose mission is to serve the national interest by ensuring the safe, open, and cost effective clean-up and maintenance of the Site and its nuclear materials.  SRNS holds a contract with DOE to manage Site facilities.

The case is captioned United States v. Savannah River Nuclear Solutions and Fluor Federal Services, Inc., 1:16-825-JMC (D.S.C).  The claims asserted in the United States’ complaint are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

A copy of the DOJ brief can be downloaded here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/833651/download

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-suit-against-savannah-river-nuclear-solutions-llc-and-fluor-federal

 

Lockheed Martin to pay $5 million to settle contract violations, whistleblowers to receive $920,000

By

Lockheed Martin Corporation and subsidiaries Lockheed Martin Energy Systems and Lockheed Martin Utility Services (collectively, Lockheed Martin) have agreed to pay the United States $5 million to resolve allegations that they violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and, in misrepresenting their compliance with RCRA to the Department of Energy (DOE), knowingly submitted false claims for payment.

Energy Dept.The settlement action relates to Lockheed Martin’s contracts with DOE to operate the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky.

 

The government’s lawsuit alleged that Lockheed Martin violated RCRA, the statute that establishes how hazardous wastes must be managed, by failing to identify and report hazardous waste produced and stored at the facility, and failing to properly handle and dispose of the waste.  The government further alleged that this conduct resulted in false claims for payment under Lockheed Martin’s contracts with the Department of Energy.

Of the $5 million settlement amount, Lockheed Martin will pay $4 million to resolve the government’s False Claims Act allegations and its subsidiaries (Lockheed Martin Energy Systems and Lockheed Martin Utility Services) will each pay $500,000 – $1 million total – in RCRA civil penalties.

Justice Dept. seal - Copy“Government contractors are required to follow the same federal laws that apply to everyone else,” said U.S. Attorney John E. Kuhn, Jr. for the Western District of Kentucky.  “These companies do not get a pass on compliance, especially when their responsibilities include managing and disposing of hazardous waste.  Today’s settlement should serve as a reminder that my office and the Department of Justice will pursue all credible allegations of false claims and of environmental regulatory violations.”

Lockheed Martin operated the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant under contracts with the Department of Energy and a government corporation, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, from 1984 to 1999.  During that time, Lockheed Martin was responsible for the facility’s uranium enrichment operations.  Enriching uranium increases the proportion of uranium atoms that can be used to produce nuclear fuel for weapons and civilian energy production.  As the name of the plant suggests, the process used was called “gaseous diffusion.”

In addition to uranium enrichment, Lockheed Martin was responsible for environmental restoration, waste management, and custodial care at the site, which occupies 3,500 acres in McCracken County, Kentucky.  Uranium enrichment operations ceased at the plant in 2013.

The settlement resolves two lawsuits filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and obtain a portion of the government’s recovery.  The lawsuits were filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and several former employees of Lockheed Martin who worked at the Paducah facility.  The United States partially intervened in the lawsuits, which were then consolidated into one action.  The whistleblowers will collectively receive $920,000 from the United States’ portion of the settlement.

The case is captioned United States, ex rel. John David Tillson, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 5:99CV00170-GNS (W.D. Ky.).  The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

Source:  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lockheed-martin-agrees-pay-5-million-settle-alleged-violations-false-claims-act-and-resource

Energy IG: Solyndra knowingly ripped-off government

By

There’s plenty of blame to go around in the green-energy debacle of Solyndra, but the blame begins with the executives of the solar-panel company itself.

Energy Dept.That’s a big takeaway from the Energy Department inspector general’s new report on Solyndra, a company once highly touted by the White House that collapsed in 2011 after getting a $535 million federal loan two years earlier.

The IG’s report finds that executives with the California company, ahead of winning the loan, repeatedly gave the Energy Department, the credit-rating agency Fitch, and outside analysts bad, overly rosy information about its sales contracts.

“Our investigation confirmed that during the loan guarantee application process and while drawing down loan proceeds, Solyndra provided the Department with statements, assertions, and certifications that were inaccurate and misleading, misrepresented known facts, and, in some instances, omitted information that was highly relevant to key decisions in the process to award and execute the $535 million loan guarantee,” the report states.

“In our view, the investigative record suggests that the actions of certain Solyndra officials were, at best, reckless and irresponsible or, at worst, an orchestrated effort to knowingly and intentionally deceive and mislead the Department,” it adds.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2015/08/energy-report-solyndra-knowingly-ripped-government/119582/

Parsons to pay $3.8 million to settle False Claims Act allegations at Savannah River Site

By

Energy Dept.Parsons Government Services Inc. has agreed to pay the Government $3.8 million to settle allegations that the company knowingly mischarged the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for ineligible or inflated short-term and long-term employee relocation costs in connection with its contract on the DOE Salt Waste Processing Facility Project (SWPF) at the DOE Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina.  Terms of the settlement were released  by the U.S. Department of Justice on September 2, 2015.

Justice Dept. seal“Those who expect to do business with the government must do so fairly and honestly,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “[The] settlement demonstrates that the Department of Justice will pursue contractors that knowingly seek taxpayer funds to which they are not entitled.”

Since Sept. 1, 2002, Parsons has been the primary construction contractor on the DOE’s SWPF project at the Savannah River Site.  Pursuant to the terms of the SWPF contract, Parsons was entitled to be reimbursed for the payments it made to eligible employees for moving, meals, lodging and transportation expenses incurred when the employees were relocated or transferred by Parsons to work on the SWPF project in Aiken.  In order to be entitled to reimbursement by the DOE, however, Parsons was required to take steps to ensure that the employees met certain contractual requirements of eligibility, such as maintaining a permanent residence at the location from which they were transferred.  The Government alleged that Parsons sought and obtained reimbursement for these relocation expenses under the SWPF contract even for employees it knew did not qualify for these payments under the terms of the contract.

The settlement was the result of a coordinated effort by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of South Carolina, the DOE Savannah River Operations Office and the DOE Office of Inspector General.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Source: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/parsons-government-services-inc-agrees-pay-38-million-settle-false-claims-act-allegations

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More