Photo of Brian Waagner

Brian Waagner

Subscribe to Brian Waagner's Posts

Brian is the leader of the Government Contracts practice group at Husch Blackwell LLP. Brian represents contractors in federal, state, and local bid protests, contract administration and compliance matters, and in litigation involving complex claims and disputes.

Follow:Read more about Brian WaagnerBrian's Linkedin ProfileBrian's Twitter ProfileBrian's Facebook Profile

The Contract Disputes Act gives prime contractors a straightforward procedure for resolving claims against the federal government. But there is no mandatory approach to resolving disputes between contractors and subcontractors. Private parties may agree to arbitrate their disputes or designate a specific court to hear them. They may identify the applicable law, provide for the recovery of attorney’s fees, and prescribe any number of other details.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States District Court for Western District of Texas, No. 12-929 (U.S. Dec. 3, 2013), holds that forum selection clauses in subcontracts on federal projects are enforceable. In this first blog post of a two-part series, we discuss the decision in Atlantic Marine and the limits of the Supreme Court’s analysis. In the subsequent one, we will discuss the use of subcontract dispute resolution clauses more broadly.

Let’s put the politics of the 2013 government shutdown aside and look at the practical questions. Like the government employees that are affected, contractors want to know if they should come to work. And if they do come to work, will they get paid? Will the options be exercised? Will their contract be terminated for…

The government often blames construction contractors for shortcomings in its own design and unanticipated difficulties encountered at the site. “You’re supposed to be the expert!”  “You should have known what to expect because of the magic language on page 97 of the geotechnical report.” “You’re the design-builder!”

At first glance, these arguments seem persuasive. But when they are presented to a judge at the Court of Federal Claims or a Board of Contract Appeals, their limitations become apparent. Contractors are not ordinarily expected to have the expertise of a designer or geotechnical engineer. And even when contractors have design-build responsibilities, they are entitled to rely on the design components that the government has furnished to them. And that single reference on page 97 of the geotechnical report?  It doesn’t override the interpretation that a reasonable contractor may draw from the boring logs and the geotechnical report as a whole.

There is no doubt that contractors have the power to challenge an erroneous assessment of their performance on a government contract. FAR 42.1503 requires the government to issue past performance reviews in draft. Contractors are entitled to rebut any inaccuracies in the draft. Even if the government declines to make a requested change, contractors are entitled to have their comments included in the final report. Under the FAR disputes clause, contractors may submit a claim challenging a faulty past performance assessment. Denial of such a claim can be appealed to a Board of Contract Appeals or the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Of course getting a court decision reversing a poor past performance assessment presents a number of hurdles. One such hurdle is the requirement that a contractor submit a “claim” and that the contracting officer issue a final decision denying it. Without a claim and a final decision or sufficient passage of time to establish a “deemed denial,” there would be no jurisdiction allowing a Board or the Court to consider a contractor challenge to a poor past performance assessment.

But what happens when a negative past performance assessment is linked to unresolved disputes over delays, change orders, or government backcharges? Wouldn’t a resolution in the contractor’s favor necessarily require a reassessment of the contractor’s performance? As a matter of common sense, yes. Unfortunately common sense doesn’t create Contract Disputes Act jurisdiction. The recent decision in Extreme Coatings, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-895C (Fed. Cl. Oct. 3, 2012), concludes that a claim involving affirmative contractor claims or government counterclaims does not meet the jurisdictional requirement for a claim challenging past performance.

The Prompt Payment Act requires agencies to pay interest on late payments. If the interest isn’t paid when due, the contractor is entitled to collect an additional interest penalty. A June 26, 2012 report by the Government Accountability Office looks at how much the Prompt Payment Act costs the Department of Defense.

According to GAO’s estimate, DOD paid late payment penalties totaling about $21 million in 2011. This number is comprised of $19 million in late-payment penalties reported on transactions processed by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. GAO estimates that DOD paid about $2 million in late payment penalties on transactions processed outside of DFAS, which includes transactions handled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and TRICARE. GAO estimates that DOD lost another $9 million by foregoing prompt payment discounts.

Contractors sued for False Claims Act violations face a potential judgment assessing stiff civil penalties and treble damages. Even assuming that the government can meet its burden of proving a violation of the False Claims Act, defenses to the damages elements of the case should not be ignored. Grossly disproportionate penalties One important limit on the assessment of civil penalties appears in the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the assessment of excessive fines. To prevail on an 8th Amendment defense, a contractor must show that the fine would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. Four factors are relevant here:

  1. the extent of the harm caused;
  2. the gravity of the offense relative to the fine;
  3. whether the violation was related to other illegal activity, and the nature and extent of that activity; and
  4. the availability of other penalties and the maximum penalties which could have been imposed.

In one recent case, the court accepted an 8th Amendment argument that wiped out a $50 million civil penalty against a contractor found guilty of bid rigging. See United States ex rel. Bunk v. Birkart Globistics GMBH & Co., No. 1:02cv1168, 1:07cv1198 (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2012). The contract involved moving services for military personnel stationed in Europe. The contractor submitted a bid with 51 line item prices. The court found a violation of the False Claims Act because one of the line item prices was affected by a subcontractor bid-rigging scheme. The government sought to assess a $5,500 penalty for each of the contractor’s 9,136 invoices, yielding a penalty of $50,248,000. Despite the False Claims Act violation, the court refused to assess the penalty because it was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. The entire contract price was only $3.3 million and the contractor’s profit was only $150,000. There was no evidence of economic harm to the government because the contractor’s services were acceptable and the prices were lower than any competitor’s prices.

The Contractor’s Perspective is up to three entries on the application of FAR 52.204-10, which requires some federal contractors and first-tier subcontractors to report the compensation of their top-five highest paid executives. Even though it has been almost two years since the requirement first appeared in the FAR, the topic still generates a lot of interest and a lot of questions. Here are answers to some of the questions we received in the executive compensation reporting segment of our recent webinar on Transparency in Government Contracting. We hope you find them useful.

Question: Does FAR 52.204-10 apply only to new contracts or does it also apply retroactively to existing contracts?

Answer: Even though the statutory requirement for reporting executive compensation became law in April 2008 when President Bush signed the Government Funding Transparency Act of 2008, the contractual requirement didn’t go into effect until July 8, 2010, when the FAR Councils published FAR 52.204-10 as an “interim rule.” According to the text of the interim rule, FAR 52.204-10 is required in all contracts over $25,000 that are awarded after July 8, 2010. It does not apply to contracts awarded before on or before July 8, 2010.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [pdf] puts an end to OFCCP’s effort to impose subcontractor status on retail pharmacies and health care providers serving TRICARE beneficiaries. The controversy had been brewing for some time. As we discussed in an earlier client alert, the October 2010 decision in OFCCP v. Florida Hospital, …

Since the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System opened to the public on April 15, 2011, contractors have been concerned that their trade secrets and other proprietary information might also become accessible. With good reason—the interim version of FAR 52.209-9 provided for the public availability of all newly submitted information other than “past performance reviews.”

The final rule on public access to FAPIIS specifically addresses the problem. Rather than simply ignoring Freedom of Information Act exemptions entirely as the interim rule did, the final form of FAR 52.209-9 (Jan. 3, 2012) [pdf] includes a mechanism that allows the contractor to identify information covered by a FOIA exemption.