Join me on Thursday, August 24, 2017 for lunch (11:30 am to 1:30 pm) and learn about the Small Business Administration’s All Small Mentor Protégé Program. The event is sponsored by Design-Build Institute of American Mid-Atlantic and will be held at Maggiano’s in Tysons Corner.

For months, we poured over the proposed and final rules – speculating about how the Program would look and operate.  Now it is here.  With the SBA accepting and processing applications at a healthy clip, there is no better time than the present to get up to speed.

During the event, we will walk through the basics of the All-Small Program, including the application and approval process.  We will also talk about big picture issues, including the Program’s general shield against affiliation and the most important questions for contractors (both large and small) considering taking the leap.

The event will also offer insights for contractors that have already investigated the Program.  For example, we will discuss the newly published requirements for mentor-protégé agreements and joint venture agreements formed between Program participants.  Careful consideration of the issues captured in these agreements can make the difference between a successful partnership . . . and the undesirable alternatives.

I hope that you can join us on the 24th.  I am happy to chat after the presentation about any specific questions facing your business.  If you can’t make the event, you can always contact me here to discuss your questions.

Contractors seeking to recover additional time and/or costs on government contracts typically choose to proceed with either a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) or a Claim.  These remedies fall under the general umbrella of the Disputes clause (FAR 52.233-1).

Often times, REAs and Claims can be a study in contrasts.  From a procedural perspective, submissions to the government are the subject of numerous technical hurdles that require strict compliance.  For example, a Claim must be “certified” by the contractor if it includes a demand for a sum certain in excess of $100,000.  The proper certification language is set forth at FAR 33.207(c).  An REA does not require a corresponding certification unless it submitted to an agency of the Department of Defense, in which case the certification found at DFARS 252.243-7002 is required.

On the other hand, resolving REAs and Claims often involves informal negotiations and compromises.  Contractors seeking to resolve disputes with the government are well served by remaining flexible and engaging in the kind of give-and-take usually reserved for the alternative dispute resolution universe.

In order to achieve maximum effectiveness in resolving disputes, government contractors need to be able to excel with a foot in both worlds – that is, maintaining compliance with the applicable rules and regulations while remaining open to outside-the-box solutions.  Straying too far in either direction can result in a negative outcome.

For example, a recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) decision highlights the case of a contractor that failed to comply with some hard and fast rules during its settlement negotiations with the government.  As a result, the Board denied its appeal – leaving the contractor empty handed.

The appeal involved an Army contract for the operation of a solid waste burn pit in Afghanistan.  The government terminated the contract for convenience and directed the contractor to submit a settlement proposal.  In response, the contractor submitted a properly certified claim for $160,000 in costs on October 24, 2013.  Just four days later, the contracting officer issued a final decision denying the claim and informing the contractor of its right to appeal (90 days, if filing at the ASBCA).

Even after the contracting officer’s final decision, the parties continued to negotiate.  The contractor floated a comprehensive settlement agreement including all labor and leased equipment expenses.  The contracting officer responded that the government intended to deny the proposal due to a lack of supporting documentation, but also invited the contractor to supplement the proposal.  The contractor responded with a revised settlement proposal.  Critically, the contractor did not certify this revised submission, which was also later denied by the government.

About three years later, the contractor filed its Notice of Appeal from the government’s denials with the ASBCA.  The government promptly filed a motion seeking to dismiss the appeal as untimely because it was filed well beyond the 90 day deadline included in the contracting officer’s final decision.  The Board agreed and dismissed the claim.  Tangentially, the Board also commented that it lacks jurisdiction over the contractor’s revised proposal due to the lack of a proper certification.

This decision offers a variety of lessons for contractors pursuing or considering claims against the government.  First, the case highlights the substantial latitude for negotiations during the dispute resolution process.  While they did not bear fruit here, the government and the contractor exchanged multiple volleys with the opportunity to refine and supplement the original submission.  Contractors should endeavor to keep an open line of communication during the REA/Claim process and promptly respond to requests for supplemental information.

The case also provides contractors with some good examples of what not to do.  Here, the contractor failed to certify its claim and then made matters worse by waiting an unreasonable amount of time to pursue its appeal.  Most claim miscues can be corrected or at least mitigated if they are discovered early in the process.  However, in this case, the nearly three year delay was simply impossible to overcome.

This Thursday, June 29 (1:00 – 2:30 EST), I will be hosting a webinar to discuss document retention requirements for government contractors.

Implementing corporate document retention policies is an essential business practice for two reasons:

First, there is a legal duty for contractors to comply with contractual document retention requirements.  If the government requests to inspect your company’s records (for example, as part of a DCAA audit) and they are not available, it opens the door to some serious negative consequences (like False Claims Act allegations).

Second, proper document management is essential to supporting claims for time and costs against the government.  If a contractor fails to maintain its records for the specified period, the contracting officer can disallow all or part of the claimed cost that is not adequately supported.  In other words, failed document retention polices can have a real world impact on your business’s bottom line.

During the webinar, I’ll cover the basics of document retention – plus how it impacts more nuanced topics like electronic transfers and storage, the Freedom of Information Act, and the new hot-button issue – Cybersecurity.

Finally, the webinar will cover best practices for document retention under the FAR.  Specifically, I’ll discuss how a contractor can utilize a FAR 52.203-13 Code of Business Ethics and Conduct to not only master document retention practice – but also to implement an overall culture of compliance.

If you are unable to attend the webinar, please feel free to contact me.  I’ll be happy to share the information – or discuss any specific issues facing your business.

This is not a unique story – but there is still a lesson for Federal contractors to learn.

A recent GAO decision considered an electronic proposal submitted by email just prior to the 4:00 p.m. deadline.  Although the contractor beat the clock, the proposal did not arrive in the contracting officer’s electronic mailbox until about two hours later – after the deadline.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) takes a hardline (but easy to follow) position on untimely proposal submissions.  Late is Late.  With some very limited exceptions, proposals received in the designated government office after the exact time specified are late and will not be considered.

The contractor’s argument to GAO is a familiar one – surely, a contractor that hits “send” on an electronic proposal can rely on that transmission.  After all, the proposal is out of its hands and there was no indication of an error or electronic bounce-back.  Not so, says GAO.

After a lengthy back and forth between the contractor and the government over whose system was responsible for the delivery delay, the GAO ruled that it does not matter.  The FAR places the burden on the contractor to ensure that the electronic proposal has sufficient time to make its way through any filters or email traffic.  Specifically, FAR 15.208(a)(1) provides that a late proposal can still be timely if it is “transmitted through an electronic commerce method authorized by the solicitation,” and “received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure” not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the deadline for the receipt of proposals.

In other words, if you electronically submit your proposal one day early, you can get off the hook if a government transmission problem delays its arrival in the contracting officer’s mailbox.

While it may seem one-sided to shift the burden for a successful transmission away from the government, that is nothing new for experienced government contractors.  In fact, in this case, it may even provide a benefit.

I am a longtime advocate of contractors submitting proposals a day early.  It solves lots of last minute logistical problems.  While we see many “late is late” problems for contractors that submit proposals at the 11th hour, I have yet to see a case where a contractor was unable to resolve a transmission problem over the course of 24 hours.

It is not always realistic, but getting your proposal teed up a day early is worth the effort.

 

Earlier this month, we had the pleasure of opening the 2017 Associated General Contractors of America Federal Contractor Conference in Washington, DC with a presentation focused on the emerging issue of Cybersecurity in Federal contracting.  Data breaches are big news in the private sector, but the issue has remained somewhat under the radar for public contracts – until now.

New rules and regulations (with the imminent promise of more on the way) are setting the stage for Cybersecurity to be the next big government enforcement target under the Civil False Claims Act (which the Department of Justice used to claw back $4.7 Billion in recoveries from Federal contractors in FY 2016 alone).

The New Cybersecurity FAR Clause

A Final Rule published by the Department of Defense, NASA, and the General Services Administration in 2016 created a new Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart (4.19) and contract clause (52.204-21) that deal exclusively with Cybersecurity.

The Regulation broadly applies to “covered contractor information systems” that process, store, or transmit “Federal contract information.”  These terms are interpreted expansively to cover any information provided by or transmitted to the Federal government in connection with contract performance.  In other words, if the new clause is not included in your Federal contracts yet, it soon will be.

The Regulation imposes 15 “basic” security controls for contractors.  The controls are intended to impose minimum safeguarding measures that the government believes any responsible contractor should have in place as part of the cost of doing business.  A complete list of the security controls is available here.

The DFARS Cybersecurity Clause

Compliance with FAR clause 52.204-21 should be viewed by contractors as a baseline Cybersecurity requirement – but it does not take the place of other, more complex requirements.

For example, DoD contractors must comply with DFARS 252.204-7012 (Safeguarding Covered Defense Information & Cyber Incident Reporting).  The DFARS clause is more far-reaching than the FAR clause, and includes investigation and rapid reporting requirements for breach incidents.  It also requires compliance with NIST 800-171 (Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations) by no later than December 31, 2017.

Other requirements related to the handling of Classified and Controlled Unclassified Information also remain in place.  And we fully expect more (and more demanding) Cybersecurity requirements to be published by the government in the coming months and years.

The Contractor’s Guide to Cybersecurity Compliance

For Federal contractors, the future is now.

Cybersecurity requirements will soon be included in almost every Federal contract, so the only question is how to achieve and maintain compliance.

The good news is that compliance with FAR 52.204-21 is a great first step.  Again, the government considers the Regulation to be a basic safeguarding requirement that every responsible contractor should have in place.  If your business does not have at least those 15 security controls covered right now, it is time to figure out why.

To track and maintain compliance with expanding requirements, we also recommend making Cybersecurity part of your Federal Business Ethics and Compliance Program.

All Federal contractors have (or should have) a written Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct.  The Code should be a living document that your business routinely updates and uses in connection with internal audits and employee training.

By adding Cybersecurity to your Ethics Program and written Code, you are ensuring that it becomes a part of your company’s culture.  You are also increasing the likelihood that Cybersecurity breaches, or other instances of non-compliance, are identified by your Internal Control System – not by the government.

Cybersecurity is an emerging, complex subject – but that does not mean that the government will relax its enforcement efforts while your business gets up to speed.  In fact, we think the opposite is true.  Contractors that do not make Cybersecurity compliance a priority now will be behind the power curve and are more likely to face harsh consequences (including False Claims Act allegations, suspension, or debarment) later down the road.

 

I’d like to you invite you to join Fox’s Government Contracts team of Reggie Jones, Doug Hibshman and Nick Solosky at the upcoming 2017 Associated General Contractors of American Federal Contractor Conference in Washington, DC.

We will lead a presentation and discussion entitled “Updated Federal Regulations Contractors Must Know – Cyber Security, Ethics & Compliance, SBA All-Small Program & More,” from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 1, 2017.

cropped-favicon

The presentation will offer insights into the new cybersecurity requirements facing federal contractors – including unpacking the FAR and DFARS cybersecurity clauses and the steps that contractors need to get to get (and stay) compliant.  Cybersecurity is a cutting edge issue, but failing to stay ahead of the curve could land contractors in hot water.

In addition to cybersecurity, we’ll also be detailing the hot button government contracting issues of 2017.  For example, we’ll outline what all contractors – both large and small – need to know about the SBA’s “All Small” Mentor-Protégé Program (and how it could open the door to new business development opportunities for contractors).  We’ll also pull straight from the headlines by covering the new administration and the President’s “Buy American, Hire American” initiative.

If you’re unable to make it to DC or attend the presentation in person, we can still discuss cybersecurity or any other Federal contracting regulations with you.  Please feel free to contact us for more details.

A response to an RFP is the government contractor’s chance to put its best foot forward and stand out from the crowd.  Particularly when it comes to best value procurements, this is your chance to tell the contracting officer that your company does it best (whatever it is).

But, a recent bid protest decision reminds us that contractors must carefully walk the line between well-deserved boasting and playing make-believe.

The protest concerns a U.S. Department of the Navy IDIQ contract.  The RFP required contractors to submit detailed information documenting their relevant depth and breadth of experience on similar contracts.  In other words, the agency wanted the ultimate awardee to prove it has the chops to do the work required under the contract.

The agency rejected one contractor’s proposal as technically unacceptable because it lacked specific details concerning prior projects.  Instead, the contractor submitted only general information about its past work – and instead focused on hypothesizing about the stellar work that it could perform, if given the opportunity.

On review, the Court of Federal Claims sided with the Navy.  It is reasonable, the Court concluded, for an agency to require contractors to submit satisfactory evidence of qualifying past performance experience.  The contractor’s decision to submit general (not specific) information concerning its prior contract performance and focus on hypothetical statements of future potential did not meet the RFP’s requirements.

For contractors – and especially greener contractors – the Court’s decision presents and chicken-and-egg scenario.  It is difficult to win a contract award including a past performance element when your firm has limited experience.  But how can you get the experience without the award?

Two thoughtsFirst, as this case demonstrates, this is one area where you can’t “fake it till you make it.”  Focus on actual, supportable experienceSecond, if your firm’s past performance is really holding you back, consider teaming options for situations where the RFP allows you to lean on the past performance experience of a partner or subcontractor.

Government contractors must be prepared to perform their Federal contracts – even in the face of a dispute with the government over essential contract terms.  Failing to perform can have devastating consequences, including default termination.

In a recent case before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Board considered a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ contract for HVAC system upgrades.  After the contract was awarded, the contractor promptly raised concerns over the Agency’s design.  The Agency acknowledged the disagreement, but directed the contractor to complete the project as originally intended.

The dispute did not end there.

Rather than accept the government’s decision and complete the project, the contractor continued to lobby the Agency to consider a re-design.  The Agency again refused – and matters only got worse.  The Agency and the contractor repeatedly butted heads over seemingly simple issues, such as the format of project submittals.  Finally, after issuing multiple Notices to Cure and receiving no response from the contractor, the Agency cut bait default terminated the contractor.

The contractor appealed the determination, arguing that the problems on the project were all caused by the Agency’s design errors – as well as the Agency’s failure to acknowledge and resolve those errors.  These arguments did not persuade the Board and the appeal was denied.

The Board’s decision includes some fairly detailed analysis concerning the competency of the Agency’s decision making.  Was the design defective?  Did the Agency wrongfully refuse to consider the contractors proposed alternatives?  The Board answered all of these questions in the negative.

In my opinion, however, the far more important aspect of the Board’s decision stays out of these technical weeds.  The Board explained that the contractor’s failure to continue the work during the contract dispute justified the default termination.

While the Board hinted that the contractor’s failure to perform could have been deemed “excusable” under the right set of facts, that would not be my advice.  Experience shows that government contractors very rarely come out on the winning end of a dispute when they refuse to perform.

Consider the options:

  • On one hand, a contractor that performs during a dispute has a better chance of completing a job with a satisfied customer.  And any issues of excess costs or delays resulting from the dispute can be taken up as part of a claim or REA – so a contractor that continues to perform is not releasing the ability to recover later if the government really is responsible (just be sure to read that bilateral modification or final payment form before you sign it).
  • On the other hand, a contractor that refuses to perform knows that its work is not getting done and that its customer is unhappy.  While it may ultimately prevail, will that victory be worth the damaged relationship?

Against this backdrop, government contractors should also consider the power of the performance evaluation.  A contractor that works through a dispute is far more likely to get the passing marks (or even flying colors) that will help in future past performance evaluations.  Can the same be said for the refusing contractor?  Performance ratings matter – and they tend to stick with your business – particularly when a default termination is part of the equation.

Timing and circumstances matter.  Sometimes a conflict presents an obstacle to performance so great that it cannot be overcome.  My experience shows that should be the exception to the rule.  Whenever possible, government contractors should perform through a contract dispute and simultaneously position themselves to recover those costs/time later down the line.

Government contractors need to be conscious of the paperwork they sign on Federal contracts.  Signing a waiver or release of claims at any point during a project can result in a lost opportunity to recover damages – even if the event giving rise to those damages was already discussed in detail with the Contracting Officer.

In a recent post, we discussed the hazard associated with bilateral project modifications.  Even when a modification includes requested relief (like a time extension), it also likely includes broad waiver/release language that will apply to all pending claims.  A contractor should not sign a bilateral modification without a full and complete understanding of what claims (if any) are being surrendered with the stroke of a pen.

The same logic and advice applies to requests for final payment – and really any other document executed during the course of a Federal project.

In a case before the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals, the contractor notified the Agency that it underestimated the paving area for the project – resulting in a significant labor and materials overrun.  The contractor informally requested that the Agency share in the associated costs, arguing that the government was aware of the estimating mistake prior to award.  The Contracting Officer disagreed with the contractor’s position and referred it to the contract’s disputes clause.

As the project approached the finish line, the contractor – who still intended to pursue a cost overrun damages claim – requested final payment on the contract.  In connection with that submission, the contractor executed a “Contractor’s Release.”  The Release expressly stated that the contractor released the Agency from any further claims, without exception.

After signing the Release, the contractor proceeded to pursue its cost overrun claim.  The Agency denied the claim in full, relying on the Release language.

On appeal, the Board sided with the Agency and likewise denied the claim for damages.  Notably, the Board rejected the contractor’s position that its conversations with the Contracting Officer were sufficient to preserve the claim (in other words, the Agency was indisputably on notice of the claim).  The express language of the Contractor’s Release trumped any equitable argument.

The lesson here for contractors is an easy oneRead your paperwork and understand the consequences of a waiver/release before you sign it.  Broad releases are almost never in a contractor’s best interests, so develop a strategy in advance for preserving your right to recover what your company is lawfully owed on a contract.

Government contractors looking to identify and mitigate indications of affiliation sometimes need look no further than their own family tree.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) assumes that two businesses owned and controlled by members of the same family are affiliated based on that family relationship alone.  It is up to the family members to rebut the presumption.

The SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) reaffirmed this “Familial Identity of Interest” standard in spades in a recent decision.  OHA found two businesses affiliated based on the ownership and control of two brothers.  To be clear, the brothers did not co-own the businesses – each brother owned and controlled his own business.

The OHA decision is significant because it reaffirms the presumption of affiliation in such cases.  The businesses argued that they should not be considered affiliated because there is no evidence that either brother could control the other’s business.  OHA rejected this argument as immaterial.  There is no need for a finding of affirmative control when it comes to family relationships – the relationship alone is sufficient to create a presumption of identical interests.

So how do family members rebut the presumption of affiliation?

There are two generally recognized ways.  The first is to show that the family members are estranged.  Family members that are not in contact with each other are not presumed to share identical interests.  Obviously, this is a subjective question that will require at least some actual evidence to support the claim.

The second way to rebut the familial identity of interest is to show that there is no – or at least very little – involvement between the family businesses.  In the case under review here, the brothers shared some fairly significant overlap in their businesses, including ownership interests, contracts/subcontracts, and a common NAICS code.  OHA concluded that these shared interests went beyond the minimal contacts allowed in earlier decisions.

The bottom line:  Government contractors with close family members that own a business – particularly a business in the same general field on industry – need to proceed with caution.  The best practice is to conduct zero business between the two entities and document affirmative efforts to wall off any actual or perceived shared interest.  Even a small amount of interaction can start to tip the scale towards a finding of affiliation.