It is common for two or more companies to work together to win and successfully perform federal government contracts. The relationship between those companies must be formally documented and agreed to in order to define roles and responsibilities and avoid future issues. The Contracting Officer Podcast recently held a podcast with Koprince Law on teaming agreements, joint ventures, and mentor-protégé arrangements.
You can listen to the podcast for free here:
Interested in what it takes to form a successful teaming arrangement or joint venture? If so, then be sure to put GTPAC’s April 11, 2019 free seminar on your to-do list!
Teaming agreements can make or break a business. Our April 11th program — held from 9:30 am until noon — is designed to help new and experienced business owners understand the various types of teaming structures, the state and federal laws that impact teaming relationships, and the most common teaming agreement clauses that create risk (or shift rewards) for the parties.
Our presenters include three very experienced attorneys who counsel government contractors — including Mary Donne Peters, a former federal prosecutor; Amy C. M. Burns, a former senior attorney at the Georgia Attorney General’s office; and Mike Gorby, an experienced litigator, author and lecturer.
Don’t wait to sign-up for our Teaming and Joint Venture Agreements training seminar! For more details and to register, visit: https://gtpac.ecenterdirect.com/events/8672. Space is limited.
A recent Virginia Supreme Court case underscores the hurdles government subcontractors may face when they seek to enforce common teaming agreement terms (see: CGI Fed’l Inc. v. FCi Federal, Inc., No. 170617 (Va. June 7, 2018).
This case of the “disappearing workshare” also illustrates that strategic choices made during teaming agreement negotiations and in litigation may dictate whether the subcontractor has any recourse against the prime contractor.
In 2012, CGI signed a teaming agreement with FCi to jointly prepare a proposal for a State Department contract for which FCi would act as the prime contractor and CGI as the subcontractor. FCi retained exclusive rights to finalize the proposal and negotiate any resulting prime contract with the government. The teaming agreement said CGI “will receive” a 45% workshare of the awarded total contract value, but the “commitment may not be exactly 45% each year,” and it required the parties to enter into “good faith negotiations” for a subcontract after prime contract award. If the parties could not mutually agree on a subcontract within 90 days after award, the teaming agreement would expire.
CGI and FCi worked together on the proposal for three months. The government identified weaknesses in the proposal and invited a revised proposal. CGI agreed to help FCi with the revised proposal if FCi committed to give CGI a 41% workshare and ten management positions on the resulting project. The parties signed an amended teaming agreement with those new terms, but the other terms of the original teaming agreement did not change. With CGI’s help, FCi prepared a revised proposal to the government.
The government awarded the prime contract to FCi, but a competing bidder filed a series of protests.
Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2018/07/teaming-agreement-challenges-subcontractors/
Integral Consulting Services, Inc. has agreed to pay the United States $505,838 to settle False Claims Act allegations that it submitted false claims to the government by inflating certain indirect cost rates in connection with work performed on a Department of the Army contract.
Integral Consulting Services, Inc. (ICS) is a Maryland-based company that provides IT solutions to federal government agencies and commercial organizations. The services ICS provides range from biometric technologies to enterprise IT management and development of software applications. In 2012, ICS was awarded an Army contract, W911W5-12-D-0002, under which it was required to provide the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center’s Biometric Intelligence Program with identity intelligence analysis support.
The civil settlement agreement resolves allegations that from on or about May 1, 2012 through June 27, 2014, ICS took costs and expenses it and its employees incurred in connection with litigation arising out of a teaming agreement with another contracting company and included the costs and expenses in the General and Administration (G&A) indirect cost pool that was spread amongst ICS’s various government contracts, including Army Contract Number W911W5-12-D-0002, and submitted to the United States government. The inclusion of such costs had the effect of inflating the claims paid by the Army to ICS.
The civil settlement resolves United States ex rel. Amit Dalal v. Integral Consulting Services, Inc., Civ. No. GJH-14-2529 (D. Md.), a lawsuit filed by a relator under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act. The Act permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and obtain a portion of the recovery by the United States. As part of the civil resolution, the relator will receive approximately $92,315.
Back when the U.S. Congress was adopting the 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), it included directives to the Small Business Administration (SBA) to make changes to multiple rules pertaining to small business set-aside contracts and subcontracting. On Monday, May 31, 2016, the SBA published final rules in the Federal Register implementing each of these changes.
The rule changes are wide ranging, amending SBA’s nonmanufacturer rule and affiliation rules, and for the first time allowing joint ventures to qualify as small for any government procurement as long as each partner to the joint venture qualifies individually as small under applicable size standards.
All of the changes can be seen at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/05/31/2016-12494/small-business-government-contracting-and-national-defense-authorization-act-of-2013-amendments.
Here is a summary view of some of the most significant changes being made:
(1) In the case of a contract for services (except construction), it will not pay more than 50% of the amount paid by the government to it to firms that are not similarly situated. (Any work that a similarly situated subcontractor further subcontracts will count towards the 50% subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded.)
(2) In the case of a contract for supplies or products (other than from a non-manufacturer of such supplies), it will not pay more than 50% of the amount paid by the government to it to firms that are not similarly situated. (Any work that a similarly situated subcontractor further subcontracts will count towards the 50% subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded.) Cost of materials are excluded and not considered to be subcontracted.
(3) In the case of a contract for supplies from a non-manufacturer, it will supply the product of a domestic small business manufacturer or processor, unless a waiver is granted.
(4) For a multiple item procurement where a waiver has not been granted for one or more items, more than 50% of the value of the products to be supplied by the non-manufacturer must be the products of one or more domestic small business manufacturers or processors.
(5) For a multiple item procurement where a waiver is granted for one or more items, compliance with the limitation on subcontracting requirement will not consider the value of items subject to a waiver. As such, more than 50% of the value of the products to be supplied by the non-manufacturer that are not subject to a waiver must be the products of one or more domestic small business manufacturers or processors.
(6) For a multiple item procurement, the same small business concern may act as both a manufacturer and a non-manufacturer.
All of these rule changes are effective on June 30, 2016.
With the increase in small business set-asides, capture managers and business development professionals would be wise to ask themselves an important question: Is our company’s teaming strategy an Achilles’ heel or a source of competitive advantage?
More often than not a company’s teaming strategy — the process by which prime and subcontractors connect, bid, and execute work — is an afterthought instead of a key dimension of the company’s overall business strategy.
As David Boyajian noted recently, small business set-asides have reached a 15-year high with set-asides representing “58 percent of the federal money obligated to small business in fiscal 2014.” In fact, for the second year in a row, the federal government hit its contracting goal for small business, according to the Small Business Administration (SBA) FY2014 Small Business Procurement Scorecard. Nearly 25% of all prime contracting dollars were awarded to small business in 2014, exceeding the federal goal of 23%.
This trend makes teaming critical for small and large contractors alike — and an area that top-performing capture managers and business development professionals must master. It affects the entire federal contracting industry and companies have two real choices: 1) identify ways to capitalize on this trend by integrating teaming into their overall business strategy or, 2) adopt a passive, and surely less profitable, approach.
Keep reading this article at: http://about.bgov.com/blog/contractor-teaming-strategy-achilles-heel-or-competitive-advantage/
The Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center (GTPAC) is hosting a seminar on the subject of Teaming Agreements on Wednesday, November 4, 2015, from 1 to 4 pm.
The program, entitled “The Risks and Rewards of Teaming Agreements,” will be conducted by representatives of the Gorby/Peters Law Firm.
Teaming agreements can make or break a business. This 3-hour program is designed to help new and experienced business owners understand the various types of teaming structures, the state and federal laws that impact teaming relationships, and the most common teaming agreement clauses that create risk (or shift rewards) for the parties.
The seminar will be conducted by Mary Donne Peters, a former federal prosecutor; Amy C. M. Burns, a former senior attorney at the Georgia Attorney General’s office; and Mike Gorby, an experienced litigator, author and lecturer.
This seminar is free of charge, but preregistration is a requirement. To register, click here, and then hit the “Sign Up” button.
