Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

GAO continues to expand the scope of ‘prototypes’ that DoD may buy through OTs

By

The most common question heard about the recent boom in the Department of Defense’s spending on other transactions, or OTs, is a simple one:  How can I get in on the action? 

Understandably, OTs – essentially contracts not subject to procurement laws or regulations like the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) – are very enticing to traditional and nontraditional contractors alike.  And opportunities for OTs abound, particularly since Congress, in 2015, codified the DoD’s authority to award OTs for “prototype projects” (previously just a pilot program) and expanded that authority to include OTs for follow-on production efforts.  But there are limits to DoD’s authority, foremost being that, in general, DoD may acquire only “prototypes” through OTs, and must buy all other goods and services through traditional, FAR-based procurement contracts.

So the question of how to access DoD’s surge in OT funding hinges, among other things, on more specific questions:  What exactly is a “prototype”?   And do my offerings fit the bill?

The answers, it seems, are quite a lot and probably yes.  Congress provided very little legislative direction, instead leaving to DoD the decision over just how broad its authority might reach.  Unsurprisingly, it took a broadminded approach to the term “prototype,” and so far the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as legislative oversight, has upheld the DoD’s expanding interpretation.  This continued in ACI Technologies, Inc., B-417011, Jan. 17, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 24, where the GAO found the DoD properly awarded a prototype OT for, among other things, training programs, skills development outreach, and the drafting of best practices for fostering commercial development of secure electronic parts.

Specifically at issue in ACI Technologies was a solicitation by the Naval Surface Warfare Center seeking a firm to manage a consortium of contractors in support of the agency’s Strategic & Spectrum Missions Advanced Resilient Trusted Systems (S2MARTS) initiative.  This initiative’s stated goal is to obtain “innovative technological solutions to address current and future security threats in the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS), trusted microelectronics, and strategic missions hardware environments,” which includes “developing a relationship with industry and academia to establish streamlined processes for obtaining innovative, State-of-the-Art (SOTA) technologies” and “establishing an agile and collaborative working relationship amongst the Government and academia/industry.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gao-continues-to-expand-the-scope-of-91815/

For more information about OTs, see the Defense Acquisition University’s OT Guide at: https://aaf.dau.mil/ot-guide/

Arbitration award is ‘irrational’ because it disregards contract’s plain text

By

Aspic Engineering and Construction Company (Aspic), a local Afghan subcontractor, entered into multiple subcontracts with ECC Centcom Constructors and ECC International (ECC), the prime contractor, to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.  The subcontracts contained terms and conditions “applicable to all U.S. Government subcontracts,” and mandated that Aspic owed ECC the same obligations that ECC owed to the federal government.  The subcontracts also incorporated multiple Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses, including FAR 49.2 through 49.6, which govern the recovery of expenses in the event a contractor is terminated for convenience, i.e., required documentation and procedures.

In 2014, ECC was terminated for convenience, so ECC notified Aspic that it also intended to terminate Aspic’s subcontracts for convenience.  Aspic, in turn, submitted multiple settlement proposals to get paid for its work under the subcontracts.  When ECC denied most of Aspic’s proposals, Aspic filed for arbitration, seeking payment for its costs of partially performing under the subcontracts.  Despite Aspic’s failure to comply with the FAR requirements governing payment for partial work in the event of a termination for convenience, the arbitrator awarded Aspic over $1 million.  The arbitrator concluded that Aspic was not required to strictly comply with the FAR requirements based on several factors, including: (i) the subcontracts were drafted to give every advantage to ECC; (ii) it was not reasonable to expect that Afghan subcontractors would be able to conform to the strict and detailed requirements of general contractors on U.S. Federal projects; (iii) it was not reasonable that the parties had the same expectations; and (iv) there was not a true meeting of the minds.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ninth-circuit-finds-arbitration-award-25846/

To view the full text of the court’s decision, courtesy of Bloomberg, click here.

FAR definition of “recruitment fees”: No means no

By

On December 20, 2018, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was amended to clarify the FAR’s prohibition on assessing employees with recruitment fees in connection with federal contracts.  The rule provides a final definition of “recruitment fees” and clarifies the FAR’s broad prohibition on federal contractors or subcontractors assessing employees or potential employees with any such fees.

The final rule brings long-awaited clarity to the scope of the prohibition on recruitment fees, as the term has not previously been defined in anti-trafficking regulations.  Upon publication of a proposed rule change in January 2015, the FAR Council invited the public to comment on a draft definition of the term “recruitment fees” in a notice-and-comment process.  The final rule, which took effect on January 22, 2019, incorporates a definition that has been revised pursuant to comments received during that rulemaking process. Government contractors will need to take these new rules into account in their compliance efforts in connection with their supply chains.

Background

On January 29, 2015, DoD, GSA, and NASA issued a final rule amending the FAR to strengthen and enhance the human trafficking-related prohibitions applicable to all federal contracts. The final rule implemented Executive Order (E.O.) 13627, “Strengthening Protections Against Trafficking in Persons in Federal Contracts,” and Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, entitled “Ending Trafficking in Government Contracting.”  The amended FAR, which applied to all future contracts and orders under existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity contracts, imposed significant responsibilities on federal contractors and subcontractors to prevent human trafficking and forced labor.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=768098

DoD makes immediate change to limitations on subcontracting rule; FAR Council issues proposed rule

By

The Department of Defense (DoD) has issued a class deviation that resolves the inconsistency between the Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations and the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.219-14 related to the Limitations on Subcontracting Rule (LOSR).

The FAR Council has also issued a proposed rule to amend FAR 52.219-14 to fully resolve this issue for all small businesses. Government contractors should be aware of these new changes and proposed changes.

Generally, the LOSR prevents small business prime contractors from subcontracting the majority of the work under a prime contract to large businesses. The LOSR is intended to ensure that small businesses get the benefit of the set-aside prime contract. The government does not want a small business to get an award, perform only a small portion of the work, and then subcontract out everything else to large businesses.

Since 2016, SBA small businesses have struggled to comply with the LOSR because the regulations at 13 C.F.R. § 125.6 are inconsistent with the contract clause at FAR 52.219-14.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=777544

See DoD’s Jan. 8, 2019 Class Deviation 2019-O0003 on this subject at: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA000039-19-DPC_Class_Deviation_2019-O0003.pdf

See the proposed rule here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-04/pdf/2018-25506.pdf

Who is a subcontractor under a federal government contract?

By

If you are a a vendor or supplier, are you a “subcontractor” under a federal government contract?

Sometimes the answer is easy — e.g., you are a subcontractor when a prime contractor contracts directly with a vendor or supplier (hereinafter “vendor”) to perform a federal contract.

But the lines become less clear when a prime contractor does not inform the vendor that the subcontract is being entered into in furtherance of a federal government contract or where the vendor supplies goods that the prime contractor uses to perform commercial and government contracts.

Subcontractor status is important to prime and subcontractors. A federal prime contractor is required to flow-down multiple Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses to its subcontractors.

Keep reading this article at: https://governmentcontractsnavigator.com/2019/01/28/who-is-a-subcontractor-under-a-federal-government-contract/

Federal contractors may be able to recover costs caused by the government shutdown

By

The current government shutdown is now the longest in U.S. history, and many federal contractors are incurring costs as a result of shutdown-related work stoppages and delays. Luckily, many federal contracts contain clauses that provide a potential avenue for recovery of such costs. Further, there are practical steps that contractors can take to increase their chances of recovering shutdown-related costs from the government.

What contract clauses might apply?

Several Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses, including the following ones, could provide contractors with an avenue to recover costs incurred as a result of shutdown-related delays or work stoppages:

  • FAR 52.242-14 (Suspension of Work)
  • FAR 52.242-15 (Stop Work Order)
  • FAR 52.242-17 (Government Delay of Work)
  • FAR 52.243-2 (Changes – Cost-Reimbursement)
  • FAR 52.243-3 (Changes – Time-and-Materials or Labor-Hours)

It is very important to note that these clauses generally impose very short timeframes in which a contractor must provide the government with notice and/or assert its right to an adjustment.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/federal-contractors-may-be-able-to-53396/

DoD and other agencies seek to enhance contractors’ cyber and supply chain security

By

The Department of Defense (DoD) and its component services and agencies are taking several independent steps to assess and enhance their cyber and supply chain security that will directly or indirectly affect DoD contractors and subcontractors.

Other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Commerce, and General Services Administration (GSA), are also considering or implementing measures to enhance cyber and supply chain security that will directly or indirectly affect government contractors and their supply chains.

These initiatives will intensify scrutiny of government contractors and subcontractors, increase their cyber and supply chain security compliance requirements, and affect their ability to compete for, and win, government contracts. This article summarizes these initiatives and states our view that, despite the proposal and likely adoption of a comprehensive new Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) cybersecurity clause next year, federal government contractors and subcontractors are likely to face multiple, overlapping, and possibly conflicting cybersecurity and supply chain requirements for some time to come.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=767144

See GTPAC’s video, template and other resources designed to help contractors comply with the DoD/NIST cybersecurity rules at: http://gtpac.org/cybersecurity-training-video/

While FAR Council proposes change to subcontracting limitation rules, DoD issues immediate class deviation

By

More than five years after Congress directed the Executive Branch to change the way small business contract performance requirements are calculated, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council announced significant steps yesterday to adopt these new requirements.

By way of background, in June 2016, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule changing its regulations regarding the limitations on subcontracting applicable to small business set-aside contracts. SBA’s amended regulations were promulgated in response to a directive in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (2013 NDAA) which required changes to how limitations on subcontracting requirements are quantified and which required inclusion of “Similarly Situated Entities” (SSEs) in the prime contractor’s portion of the work under set-aside contracts.

The contracting community has been anxiously awaiting an amendment to the FAR, which has been asserted to be necessary for these Congressionally-mandated changes to become effective.  On Dec. 5th, the DoD issued a Class Deviation which adopts SBA’s current approach to Limitations on Subcontracting. The Class Deviation is effective immediately and applies to all DoD solicitations and contract awards from that date forward.

DoD’s Class Deviation was issued in conjunction with a notice of proposed rule-making issued by the FAR Council, which proposes to amend the FAR’s Limitations on Subcontracting clause (52.219-14) to conform with the statutory requirement and SBA’s previously announced final rule.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/dod-issues-a-limitations-on-58789/

See commentary about the limitations on subcontracting rule at: http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/limitations-on-subcontracting-far-council-finally-proposes-rule-change/

Who’s the ombudsman? Proposed FAR rule requires clarity

By

When GAO lacks jurisdiction to hear a protest over a task or delivery order, contractors have the right to complain to an ombudsman. Implementation of the ombudsman right, however, has been haphazard at best.

Last week, the DoD, GSA, and NASA–the entities comprising the FAR Council–proposed a rule to help alleviate this issue for IDIQ contracts.

Generally, 10 U.S.C. § 2304c and 41 U.S.C. § 4106 require each head of an agency that awards MATOC or delivery order contracts to appoint “a senior agency official who is independent of the contracting officer” as the “task and delivery order ombudsman.” The position requires the appointee to review complaints from contractors in order to ensure “that all of the contractors are afforded a fair opportunity to be considered” in certain circumstances where the underlying contract falls outside of GAO’s jurisdiction.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/statutes-and-regulations/whos-the-ombudsman-proposed-far-rule-requires-clarity/

DoD to limit use of ‘Brand Name or Equal’ contract competitions

By

The Department of Defense (DoD) has proposed a new rule limiting the use of “brand name or equal” contract competitions, calling on contracting officers to publicly justify their need for a brand name-type product before issuing a solicitation.  The rule would implement Section 888(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017, which directed the Secretary of Defense to “ensure that competition in [DoD] contracts is not limited” by brand name references without a justification under 10 U.S.C. § 2304(f).

Background

Federal procurement law requires agencies to draft competitive solicitations that describe the Government’s needs generally, rather than referencing a specific type of product.  However, “under certain circumstances,” agencies may request a specific brand name product or its equal.  An off-brand product is “equal” if it shares the same the same salient characteristics as the brand name product. 

Contractors have at times challenged, through pre-award bid protests, agency decisions to reference a brand name product as unfair and unduly restrictive of competition, contrary to the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984’s (CICA) requirement for full and open competition.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2018/11/whats-in-a-brand-name-dod-to-limit-use-of-brand-name-or-equal-contract-competitions/

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More