When drafting small business joint venture agreements, the devil is in the details. A template JV agreement—like the one from the Small Business Administration—may not guarantee a JV’s eligibility for a contract award. The details of the agreement, like which contracts the JV will pursue and what each side will contribute, are critical.

Even if approved, a generic JV agreement may not survive a protest.

In CVE Protest of Veterans Contracting, Inc., the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals sustained a protest challenging a JV’s status as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business because its JV agreement was too generic to establish the JV’s eligibility as an SDVOSB. The JV in that case (CRNTC) was a joint venture between CR Nationwide, LLC (the SDVOSB partner) and Trumble Construction, Inc.

The Department of Veterans Affairs approved CRNTC’s SDVOSB status for a period of three years in June 2018. The approval was based on the JV agreement between CR Nationwide and Trumble, which made CR Nationwide the majority owner. But the JV agreement did not identify any particular solicitation that CRNTC would pursue or otherwise outline what each partner would contribute to the JV. The agreement specified that the parties would identify the contract and scope of work at a later date and would set those out in a jointly executed statement that would be submitted to the relevant contracting authority.

Six months later, CRNTC submitted a bid in response to an SDVOSB set-aside IFB for a construction project at the VA medical center in Cleveland, Ohio. The VA selected CRNTC as the apparent awardee in March 2019, and an unsuccessful bidder, Veterans Contracting, Inc., protested the award and challenged CRNTC’s status as an SDVOSB.

In its response to the protest CRNTC attached a copy of its JV agreement and highlighted the fact that its majority owner, CR Nationwide, was an SDVOSB. That was not enough for the Office of Hearings and Appeals. OHA reopened the record and required CRNTC to provide additional evidence to establish its eligibility as an SDVOSB. It highlighted the fact that CRNTC’s JV agreement did not specify the contributions of CR Nationwide and Trumble, and there was no evidence of a jointly executed statement outlining their contributions, like the JV agreement had contemplated.

Details after award do not necessarily prove the JV’s eligibility prior to award.

CRNTC subsequently provided OHA with a copy of the VA’s letter approving CR Nationwide as an SDVOSB. It also provided a document showing an apparent breakdown of work for the solicitation at issue, but the document was unsigned and undated. The VA’s contracting officer separately informed OHA that she did not receive a jointly-executed statement outlining what scopes of work CR Nationwide and Trumble would provide for the IFB’s scope of work.

OHA concluded that this evidence was not sufficient to prove that CRNTC was an SDVOSB either on the date that it submitted its bid, or the date when it was awarded the contract (eligibility on both dates is required). Because the JV agreement was prepared months earlier and did not even mention the IFB at issue, OHA concluded that it did not satisfy the SBA requirements of itemizing the resources each JV partner would contribute and specifying each partner’s responsibilities for contract negotiation, source of labor, and contract performance. The lack of a contemporaneous jointly executed statement addressing each party’s contribution also meant that CRNTC could not show that CR Nationwide (the SDVOSB partner) was actually performing 40% of the work, as required under SBA’s regulations.

OHA also refused to consider the “breakdown” document that CRNTC submitted during the protest. It noted that CRNTC’s eligibility had to be determined at the time it submitted its bid (December 2018) and when it received award (March 2019). The unsigned and undated “breakdown” document had no bearing on CRNTC’s eligibility on those dates because the document appeared to have been created only after OHA reopened the record and asked CRNTC to provide additional evidence of its eligibility.

Determine each party’s specific contribution before submitting a proposal.

In our experience, the factual situation from this case is fairly common. Eager to establish a new relationship, partners often rush to sign a template JV agreement before they have identified how or what they will do together. As a result, the JV agreement often does little more than identify the partners and ensure that the small business partner will be the majority owner. Although that may be sufficient for preliminary size or status approval, any resulting contract award could still be at risk. In order to prove the JV’s eligibility, attention to detail is required. The parties should be sure to clearly outline their respective contributions and responsibilities for a particular procurement before they submit their bid and receive award of the contract.


Continue Reading

Iran sanctions lifted as part of the Iran Nuclear Deal went back into effect today, November 5, 2018. Companies seeking or performing US government contracts should take this opportunity to confirm that none of their international vendors, suppliers, and subcontractors are on the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list.

Contractors are now familiar with the Supreme Court’s June 2016 decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar [PDF]. That decision recognizes False Claims Act liability for implied false certifications. But it also holds that FCA liability is available only when the false statement or omission is “material” to the Government’s decision to pay a claim. Our discussion of Escobar is available here.

Over the last 18 months, courts across the country have been asked to determine the impact of the Escobar decision. Ten of the eleven U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have interpreted Escobar. Numerous U.S. District Courts have applied Escobar in resolving pre-trial motions. Cases based on “garden-variety breaches of contract or regulatory violations” are being thrown out. Even jury verdicts are being overturned for insufficient evidence of materiality. There is one inescapable conclusion from these post-Escobar decisions: materiality matters.

In this entry, we discuss two recent decisions that illustrate the impact of Escobar. One reaffirms the notion that, after Escobar, minor non-compliance with a regulatory requirement will not normally support FCA liability. The other highlights the critical role the government’s actions can play in establishing materiality. Together they reject jury verdicts imposing more than $1 billion in False Claims Act liability.
Continue Reading

The standard form construction contract documents published by the American Institute of Architects are used widely throughout the construction industry. With assistance from federal agencies, the AIA created specific construction contract documents, such as the B-108-2009, to address the unique nature of federally-funded and insured projects. This year the AIA issued its once-a-decade revisions

On August 29, 2017, the White House Office of Management and Budget announced that it would immediately pause the pay-data collection requirement of the revised EEO-1 form that was scheduled to take effect in March 2018. The data collection requirement would have significantly expanded employers’ reporting obligations to the EEOC to include pay data by gender, race and ethnicity on the annual EEO-1 form. The EEO-1 is required of employers with 100 or more employees and federal contractors and subcontractors with 50 or more employees.

The expanded EEO-1 reporting requirements had their genesis in an April 8, 2014 Presidential Memorandum, which directed the Secretary of Labor to propose “a rule that would require Federal contractors and subcontractors to submit to DOL summary data on the compensation paid their employees, including data by sex and race.” In a January 29, 2016 fact sheet, the Obama administration explained that the heightened EEO-1 reporting requirements would “help focus public enforcement of our equal pay laws and provide better insight into discriminatory pay practices across industries and occupations.”

President Trump’s OMB sees things differently. In its memorandum halting implementation of the proposed rule, OMB says that the heightened reporting requirements “lack practical utility, are unnecessarily burdensome, and do not adequately address privacy and confidentiality issues.” Further, these burdens outweighed any benefit that might come from implementing the expanded requirements at this time. OMB directed the EEOC to submit a new information collection package for the EEO-1 form for OMB’s review and to publish a notice in the Federal Register confirming that businesses may use the previously approved EEO-1 form in order to comply with their FY 2017 reporting obligations.  


Continue Reading

Small business status impacts government contractors in several ways. Set-aside procurements and financial assistance programs are available for small businesses. Small business status is important for those seeking to meet the goals and commitments set forth in their small business subcontracting plans. Looming over all determinations of small business size status is the concept of affiliation. If the Small Business Administration finds that two business concerns are “affiliates” (one controls or has the power to control the other or a third party controls or has the power to control both), a business may no longer be a “small business.”

Affiliation determinations are likewise essential for pharmaceutical companies seeking to have the Food and Drug Administration waive the user fee for reviewing a new human drug application. Under § 736(d)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 379h(d)(4), a small business is entitled to a waiver of the prescription drug user fee when the business meets three criteria:

  1. The business must employ fewer than 500 persons, including employees of its affiliates.
  2. The business does not have a drug product that has been approved under a human drug application and introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce.
  3. The application must be the first human drug application, within the meaning of the FD&C Act, that a company or its affiliate submits to the Food and Drug Administration for review.


Continue Reading

The 1996 Congressional Review Act has been getting a lot of use since President Trump’s inauguration. On March 27, 2017, President Trump signed House Joint Resolution 37, revoking the “blacklisting regulations” put in place following former President Obama’s July 2014 Executive Order on Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces (EO 13673). As we discussed in an earlier post, the EO and the regulations implementing it directed federal agencies to take into account an employer’s workplace safety and other labor law violations as part of the their procurement decisions.

The CRA is an obscure legislative tool that can rescind recent executive actions, and thereby limit agency authority. Under the CRA, Congress has 60 legislative days (which are counted differently than calendar or business days) to pass a “joint resolution of disapproval” in the House and Senate. Joint resolutions of disapproval cannot be filibustered. A simple majority in both houses of Congress can overturn agency rules and regulations if the president signs the joint resolution.

There were significant questions regarding due process concerns with the blacklisting regulations. Industry strongly criticized the regulations because they allowed agencies to exclude contractors based on mere accusations, such as safety citations that had not yet gone through any adjudicatory proceedings.

Revoking the blacklisting regulations was the first of several actions President Trump and his allies in Congress intend to pursue to reduce the administrative/regulatory burdens on employers.


Continue Reading

The Congressional Review Act of 1996 may be an effective tool for rolling back recent federal regulations implementing President Obama’s policy initiatives. But it is limited. It applies only to very recent rules. It requires action by both houses of Congress and the President’s signature. It is strongly limited by political factors. In the 21 years since it was adopted, it has been used only once.

Congress is seeking stronger weapons. H.R. 5, the “Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017,” represents a substantial rewrite of the existing Administrative Procedure Act. H.R. 5 includes provisions that would allow courts to review agency rules on a “de novo” basis, without any deference to the agency’s interpretation of Constitutional or statutory requirements and other regulations.

H.R. 26, “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017,” introduces a new mechanism for Congressional review of a broad category of Federal agency regulatory actions defined as “major rules.” Basically, the mechanism in H.R. 26 is designed to prevent a broad class of actions by Executive Branch agencies and independent regulatory agencies from becoming effective without a Joint Resolution of approval passed by Congress and signed by the President within a narrowly prescribed period (70 legislative days).

Even if these bills get through Congress and are signed by President Trump, they will likely face challenges in the Supreme Court. H.R. 26 in particular faces an uphill climb. For the reasons discussed in this article, the Joint Resolution mechanism in H.R. 26 suffers from the same Constitutional infirmities as the “one-House veto” that was popular in the 1970s but declared unconstitutional in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
Continue Reading

According to Shakespeare, “What’s done cannot be undone.” This may not be true with respect to many of the regulations implementing President Obama’s Executive Orders.

Let’s look at the fate of the rules implementing Executive Order 13673 (July 2014), formally called “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces.” The DOL guidance and the FAR provisions implementing this Order were commonly referred to as “the blacklisting rules.”

The final blacklisting rules were published on August 25, 2016. Industry moved quickly to challenge them. An October 24, 2016 preliminary injunction issued by United States District Judge Marcia Crone stopped most of them from going into effect. Judge Crone’s order cites two constitutional problems with the blacklisting rules. First, they likely violate contractors’ due process rights because they require contractors to report mere allegations of labor law violations without the benefit of judicial or quasi-judicial safeguards to contest them. Second, they likely violate contractors’ First Amendment rights because they require contractors to “to report that they have violated one or more labor laws and to identify publicly the ‘labor law violated’ along with the case number and agency that has allegedly so found” even when there had been no adjudication.
Continue Reading

Earlier this year we wrote about the final regulation consolidating most of the Federal Small Business Mentor-Protégé program under one office at the Small Business Administration. See 81 Fed. Reg. 48558 (July 25, 2016). The regulation expands the popular Mentor-Protégé program and should provide significant benefits to many more large and small companies. You can read our original post here.

One of the questions raised in comments on the draft regulation was how the SBA would cope with the expected significant increase in its workload. Accuracy and turn-around time are important elements of the SBA’s review role. In the final regulation, SBA generally addressed those concerns by promising to find new and improved ways to deliver the service. They committed to take one step at a time and scale up as needed.

It has now been five months since the final rule was published. We asked SBA Mentor-Protégé Director Holly Schick for a progress report on the transition. Director Schick says that the SBA has moved steadily if incrementally, to ramp-up the program.


Continue Reading