Photo of George Stewart

George Stewart

Subscribe to George Stewart's Posts

George began his career litigating construction disputes before state and federal courts, boards of contract appeals, and arbitration panels. He also has experience representing contractors in state and federal bid protests, and he frequently provides guidance to clients on a wide variety of other government contract issues, including subcontracting, compliance, and Freedom of Information Act requests.

Follow:Read more about George StewartGeorge's Linkedin Profile

The Pros and Cons of Agency-Level Protests

In my previous post, I wrote about the basics of an agency-level protest. In this post, I will explore some of the main advantages and disadvantages of filing an agency-level protest.

So, what are the benefits of filing an agency-level protest? First, they do tend to be quicker and less expensive than GAO or COFC protests, and they allow protestors a second opportunity to pursue their protest at GAO or COFC. In other words, an agency-level protest may let a protestor test the waters before all-out committing to the cost associated with a GAO or COFC protest.Continue Reading A Primer on Agency-Level Protests of Federal Procurements – Part II

The Nuts and Bolts

As most federal contractors are aware, unlike commercial contracts, federal contractors may challenge solicitation defects or contract award decisions made by the government through the bid protest process. Although protests at GAO and the Court of Federal Claims receive most of the attention due to the fact that their decisions are ultimately made public (at least in part), another forum also exists for disappointed offerors: protests made directly to the agency. This post is part one of a two-part series. This post will provide the basic nuts and bolts of the agency-level protest, and part two will provide the pros and cons of this specific approach.Continue Reading A Primer on Agency-Level Protests of Federal Procurements – Part I

Unlike private parties in a contract, the government has several unique rights that allows it to avoid its contractual obligations in certain circumstances. We have written about the government’s right to terminate contracts for convenience. But the government may also avoid contract liability by invoking the sovereign act doctrine as a defense. This defense is available where government’s obstruction to the contract is considered a public and general act as a sovereign.
Continue Reading ASBCA Finds COVID Mitigation is a Sovereign Act

On April 26, 2022, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council amended the FAR to include overseas contracts as part of agency small business contracting goals. This would allow small business contracting procedures to apply to overseas procurements. Prior to this rule, FAR 19.000(b) explicitly stated that small business programs did not apply outside the United States and its outlying areas. This new rule from the Councils follows an SBA regulation amendment that sought to apply the Small Business Act to overseas acquisitions—an area that the SBA’s regulations were silent about previously. The primary aim of the Councils’ and SBA’s rule changes are to expand overseas opportunities for small businesses.
Continue Reading Set Asides Will Now Apply to Overseas Procurements

As most federal contractors know, the standard FAR clauses grant the government the right to default a contractor for delay. These same clauses, however, protect contractors where the delay is “excusable” and involve “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.” Examples listed in the clauses include, among other…

Coronavirus 2019-nCOV medical still life concept on clipboard wi

Now that we are two years into the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, it should come as no surprise that several cases discussing whether COVID-19 is an excusable delay have made their way through the ASBCA and CBCA dockets. These cases show that although COVID-19 may be treated as an “epidemic” under the right circumstances according to the enumerated excusable delays in the FAR, the boards have no intention of treating the pandemic as a cure-all for contractors facing potential terminations for default.
Continue Reading Recent Board Decisions Explain Why COVID-19 Won’t be a “Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card” for Contractors Facing Terminations for Default

This past week, the FAR Council issued a proposed rule that would potentially speed up payments to small business prime contractors and subcontractors across the federal government. The proposed rule, found at 86 Fed. Reg. 53,923, seeks to incentivize agencies to pay prime contractors that are small businesses within 15 days instead of 30 days after receipt of a proper invoice if no payment date is specified in the contract. It also would apply to prime contractors that subcontract with small businesses, applying a similar 15-day requirement to pay small subcontractors when accelerated payments are received. According to the proposed rule, the FAR Council will apply this to most federal contracts by seeking determinations to make this new rule applicable to commercial contracts as well as those under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold.
Continue Reading New Proposed Rule Seeks to Implement Accelerated Payments to Small Business Contractors Across the Government

Imagine as a supplier of medical oxygen cylinders and tanks in your region, you enter into an arrangement with HHS or DHS to provide oxygen to nearby hospital facilities dealing with surges in the COVID-19 pandemic. However, due to the recent dramatic surge in your area and the significant demand for oxygen, the government moved quickly to award you a contract that appears very different from other federal contracts you have previously signed.
Continue Reading Terminations for Convenience Clauses vs. Mutual Termination Clauses: What are the Limits on the Government’s Right to Terminate?

In a previous post, we discussed the need to include a sum certain as part of a CDA claim. This requirement of course is but one of several needed for a CDA claim to be valid and for the Court of Federal Claims and the boards of contract appeals to take jurisdiction. Another equally important requirement is that the claim be certified. Like the sum certain requirement, failing to properly certify a claim has the potential to derail pending litigation, or worse, could even prevent an unwary contractor from asserting the claim altogether.
Continue Reading Perfecting a CDA Claim: Don’t Forget to Certify

If a dispute arises on a federal contract, the Contract Disputes Act requires a contractor to submit a written demand seeking as a matter of right a “sum certain” to the contracting officer as part of the claims process. What exactly is a “sum certain”? It is what it sounds like—contractors must provide an exact dollar amount of the overall damages they are claiming in their CDA claims. In other words, whatever damages the contractor is claiming cannot be qualified in any way. Contractors should never use the words “at least,” “approximately,” “no less than,” or “well over” with their damage figure. Instead, the contractor must provide an exact amount a set damage figure that represents the overall amount being demanded. It is okay if the damage figure is an estimate—even a flat calculation of $100,000—as long as an overall demand is made without any qualifying language.
Continue Reading Perfecting a CDA Claim: Sage Advice for the Sum Certain Requirement