By Hal Perloff
Energy is a national security issue. The U.S. defense industry represents one of the world’s largest markets for energy, and the cost and availability of energy directly affects military capabilities and readiness. Department of Defense leaders are revamping how DOD uses energy and determining which fuels offer the best overall investment, prices,…
Section 827 of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act [pdf] permanently enhances whistleblower protections for employees of DoD and NASA contractors and sub-contractors. Section 828 establishes a“pilot program” to provide enhanced whistleblower protections for employees of civilian
agency contractors and subcontractors for the next four years. In plain English, here is a look at what the enhanced…
Congress continues to promote opportunities for small business contractors to do business with the federal government. It also continues to increase the penalties for those taking unfair advantage of small business opportunities. Here is a look at the most recent set of carrots and sticks, which appear in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
1. Subcontracts with “similarly situated” small businesses
Section 1651 of the 2013 NDAA provides a new exception to the small business subcontracting cap, which restricts small businesses from subcontracting more than 50 percent of the amount paid under a services contract. With the passage of NDAA, the amount paid under any subcontract with a small business concern that has the same small business status as the prime contractor is excluded from the small business subcontracting cap. The term “similarly situated entities” includes service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, women-owned small businesses, and economically disadvantaged women-owned small businesses.
This provision also changes the method for calculating the 50-percent subcontracting cap. Previously, the subcontracting limits in FAR 52.219-14 counted only direct labor costs. Under section 1651, “amount paid” under a subcontract, including labor, material, and other direct costs, is used to determine the 50-percent subcontracting cap. This is a strong incentive for small business prime contractors to award subcontracts to similarly situated small businesses. The old formula continues to govern subcontracting limitations for construction contracts, but the NDAA directs the SBA to establish similar limitations on construction contracts.
The penalty for violating the subcontracting cap is the greater of $500,000 or the dollar amount expended over the cap. The “amount expended” clause is a new penalty.
BP’s November 2012 settlement of the federal criminal charges stemming from the Deepwater Horizon spill left some important issues unresolved. It left open claims for billions in civil penalties and natural resource damages, which go to trial on February 25, 2013. And even though the Gulf of Mexico spill had no connection to BP’s government contracts, the criminal settlement led to BP’s formal suspension [pdf] from federal contracting. The suspension means that BP will be unable to obtain new oil supply or lease contracts with the United States government until the EPA Suspension and Debarment Official finds it to be “presently responsible.”
BP is by no means the only company to have been suspended or debarred as a result of environmental violations. EPA has authority to suspend or debar companies for violating the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Indeed it is common for the EPA to seek suspension or debarment in environmental crimes cases. A company convicted of violating the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act may even be automatically suspended or debarred. Although such a mandatory suspension or debarment applies only to the facility where the violation occurred, EPA can expand the sanction to the entire company. That is precisely the approach that EPA took with BP after the Deepwater Horizon spill.
The Department of Labor has announced that new regulations addressing Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts will go into effect on January 18, 2013. (See 77 Fed. Reg. 75780 (Dec. 21, 2012) [pdf].) DOL issued the final regulations in August 2012 after receiving comments on proposed rules published in June. Our comments on the impact of the proposed rules appear here.
The DOL’s action means that all Service Contract Act contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold awarded on or after January 18, 2013 will include a contract clause requiring prime contractors and subcontractors to make good faith offers of employment to SCA-covered employees employed under the predecessor contract.
Here are some of the highlights of the new regulations and the new contract clause:
Yet another U.S. Postal Service manager has pled guilty to fraud and corruption charges relating to USPS transportation contracts. In March 2012, the former USPS Manager of Postal Vehicle Service Operations for the Bay Valley District in Oakland, CA was indicted in a $4.4 million fraudulent billing scheme. Last year, five Postal Service officials at the Detroit, MI Vehicle Maintenance Facility were charged with similar crimes. One might well wonder how many more such episodes need to be uncovered before the Postal Service issues binding procurement regulations and institutes effective protest procedures. Here’s what happened in the most recent case.
The June 26, 2012 decision in Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. United States Department of Defense, No. 11-4111 (N.D. Ala. June 26, 2012) [pdf] reflects an important limitation on the government’s authority to suspend contractors simply because they are affiliated with companies accused of wrongdoing.
Agility Defense and Government Services, Inc. and Agility International, Inc. filed suit seeking to undo their suspensions after spending 31 months on the Excluded Parties List and being unable to convince the Defense Logistics Agency to lift the suspensions. DLA suspended the two companies not because they had engaged in wrongdoing, but because they were indirect affiliates of their ultimate parent company, Public Warehousing Company, K.S.C. The parent company was under indictment for defrauding the government of over $6 billion on food supply contracts in the Middle East. ADGSI and Agility had proposed a management buyout and other measures designed to remove PWC’s ability to control them and to assure their compliance with federal procurement laws. DLA nevertheless refused to lift the suspension.
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.
DCAA’s March 28, 2012 memorandum summarizes DCAA’s approach to the new DFARS Contractor Business Systems rules. As we discussed in our earlier entries, the DFARS regulations and clauses call for a determination of the adequacy of a contractor’s business systems—accounting, estimating, purchasing, material management—and allow a contracting officer to withhold five percent of contract payments…
What happens when a government contractor who thinks its contract performance complied with applicable statute or regulation later learns that it actually was out of compliance? Are its invoices for that performance false claims that violate the False Claims Act?
The answer depends on whether the contractor acted “knowingly.” A March 30, 2012 decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the fact that proving a False Claims Act violation requires not only the submission of a claim that is false, but also that the false claim was submitted “knowingly”—the contractor knew the claim was false or acted with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claim. United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey Healthcare System Inc., No. 10-1819 (4th Cir. Mar. 30, 2012) [pdf].
