An agency must use-it or lose-it under a fixed-priced contract.  When an agency makes it impossible to receive a contractor’s service under a fixed-priced contract, it must still pay the full contract price. So long as the contractor is willing to live up to its end of the bargain, the contractor is entitled to payment…

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 [pdf], signed into law just before Thanksgiving, authorizes $607 billion for Department of Defense activities in FY 2016. It also implements a number of acquisition reforms intended to enhance the Government’s cybersecurity efforts and streamline the various acquisition regulations.  Here we break down some of the key acquisition provisions:

  • Rapid acquisition authority for cyber attacks. Section 803 of the 2016 NDAA expands the DoD’s ability to employ rapid acquisition procedures established under the 2003 NDAA to enhance its ability to respond to combat emergencies and urgent operational needs. Under Section 803, rapid acquisition procedures may now be used to acquire “needed offensive or defensive cyber capabilities, supplies, and associated support services” to respond to a cyber attack that “has resulted in critical mission failure, the loss of life, property destruction, or economic effects.” The term “cyber attack” is broadly defined as including any “deliberate action to alter, disrupt, deceive, degrade, or destroy computer systems or networks or the information or programs” in those systems. Acquisitions made pursuant to this authority are subject to an aggregate limit of $200 million in each fiscal year.
  • U.S. Cyber Command acquisition authority and liability protection for cybersecurity contractors. In addition to expanding DoD’s rapid acquisition authority to deal with cyber attacks, Section 807 of the NDAA provides new limited acquisition authority for the Commander of the United States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM). The Commander is authorized to procure “cyber operations-peculiar equipment and capabilities,” subject to an annual limit of $75 million for each fiscal year from 2016 through 2021. Section 1647 of the NDAA also requires the evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of all major DoD weapons systems by the end of 2019. Section 1641 of the NDAA provides enhanced liability protection for reporting cyber incidents for both “cleared” and “operationally critical” contractors, so long as there is no willful misconduct.

The Government Accountability Office has been publishing its annual bid protest statistics report to Congress since fiscal year 1995. That year GAO received 2,334 new protests and closed 2,528. For FY 2015, GAO reports that it received 2,496 new protests and closed 2,647.

Given the changes in contract law and the significant increase in expenditures on federal contracts over the last 20 years, these figures are remarkably consistent.

For Fiscal Year 2015, GAO reports that protesters obtained some form of relief in 45 percent of cases closed, either as the result of an agency’s voluntary corrective action or a decision sustaining some or all of the protest grounds. This “effectiveness rate” is marginally higher than it has been in the previous several years, when it hovered between 42 percent and 43 percent.

Winning bases for bid protests

One interesting piece of data added to GAO’s annual report in the last couple of years is the summary of the “most prevalent grounds for sustaining protests.” This new data element is the result of a requirement in a 2013 amendment to the Competition in Contracting Act. See 31 U.S.C. § 3554(e)(2).

In FY 2015, GAO identified five grounds of protest as the most prevalent. Even though it is drawn from only a small subset of protests that are actually resolved on the merits, GAO’s list of reasons for sustaining protests provides a roadmap for future protesters. Here is GAO’s list, along with a brief summary of the decision that GAO cites to illustrate it.

Most court cases filed on the heels of a Department of Labor investigation focus on misconduct by a contractor. In that respect, the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Gate Guard Services, L.P. v. Perez, 792 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2015), is unusual. The case is the result of an action by a contractor challenging misconduct by the Department of Labor. According to the decision, DOL investigators and attorneys acted unethically, frivolously, and in bad faith. Ultimately, DOL was forced to close the investigation by making a $1.5 million payment to the contractor.

What happened? Gate Guard provides gate attendants at remote drilling sites for oilfield operators. The gate attendants remain at the drilling sites and record the license plates of vehicles entering and leaving the site. Because many locations are isolated, attendants often live on site and Gate Guard hires service technicians to deliver supplies to them. Gate Guard considers attendants to be independent contractors and pays them between $100 and $175 per day.

In July 2010, DOL investigator David Rapstine received a tip that Gate Guard had misclassified its gate attendants as independent contractors instead of employees. If that were true, Gate Guard would be violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying overtime and by not keeping detailed time records. Rapstine had little training or experience in contractor misclassification cases, but he decided to open an investigation. 

Criminal charges for minimum wage violations are certainly rare. But the November 2015 indictment of electrical contractor Marcus Butler shows that they are possible. Mr. Butler faces jail time and heavy fines for allegedly making false certifications regarding $126,514 in Davis-Bacon Act wages on three HUD multi-family housing projects.

Given the rarity of criminal indictments for wage-and-hour violations, I infer that Mr. Butler’s alleged conduct was much worse than simply miscalculating the prevailing wage or losing track of some payroll records. But there is nothing in the indictment that would reveal the underlying aggravating factors that motivated it. The Government asserts simply that Mr. Butler participated in a “scheme” and that he “knowingly and willfully” overstated wages and benefits on his 61 separate certified payrolls (DOL Form WH-347).

It will probably be some time before we see whether this is case is the result of overreaching conduct by DOL and government attorneys (like another recent DOL case) or the application of the new Justice Department policy set forth in the Yates Memorandum on Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing. This new policy will almost certainly increase the number of criminal charges arising from ordinary non-compliance and administrative oversight. Husch Blackwell’s client alert on the Yates Memorandum is available here.

Either way, now is the right time for federal contractors to take on the task of reviewing and updating their own HR policies and practices.

Unpaid for work you performed on your HCR contract?  Can’t agree with the Postal Service on a contract price adjustment?  Not given a chance to bid on new work in your area?

Learn about remedies for these problems at our new seminar, “Claims and Disagreements under Postal Service HCR contracts.”  Husch Blackwell partner David Hendel…

Contractors supplying goods or services to the government through Federal Supply Schedules should expect increased scrutiny of their pricing in the coming months. In a July 2015 report [pdf], GAO released the results of a year-long performance audit analyzing government competition and pricing practices for FSS orders. The report highlights inconsistencies across FSS procurements, including purchasers’ frequent failure to ask FSS contractors for discounts to list prices (required by FAR 8.405-4 for orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold).

The main issues identified in the GAO report are nothing new. GSA is already taking steps to address the inconsistent usage of the FSS system among buyers. In March 2015, GSA proposed a rule that would impose a new transactional data reporting requirement upon FSS vendors. (For an explanation of current Price Reduction Clause requirements, take a look at our discussion here.) The proposed rule is aimed at increasing transparency in pricing across government procurements, with the end goal of an overall reduction in prices paid for FSS supplies and services. While the rule is still pending, a number of the nearly three dozen comments submitted during the comment period reveal considerable opposition to the proposed changes. Regardless of whether the proposed rule is enacted, contractors can prepare to effectively contract through supply schedules in a few simple ways.

Contracts with Virginia agencies, counties, municipal governments, and school boards are governed by the Virginia Public Procurement Act. The Act requires the use of competitive procedures in the solicitation and award of public contracts. It also establishes a procedure for the submission and resolution of bid protests. See Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-4360(A).

How and when to protest a contract award decision

An actual or prospective bidder seeking to challenge the award of a Virginia government contract must submit a protest to the procuring agency or to an official designated by the agency. The protest must be submitted in writing. It must include the basis for the protest and the relief sought. A bid protest must be submitted no later than ten days after the award or the announcement of the decision to award, whichever occurs first. This deadline is extended if the protest depends on obtaining access to documents. In those situations, the protest must be submitted within ten days after the records are made available. The VPPA does not specifically allow for the submission of a pre-award protest that challenges the terms and conditions of a solicitation.

If a protest is timely filed, the award and performance of the contract is automatically stayed unless the agency determines in writing that “proceeding without delay is necessary to protect the public interest or unless that bid or offer would expire.”  Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-4362.

The Colorado Procurement Code grants the right to submit a protest to “[a]ny actual or prospective bidder, offeror, or contractor who is aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of a contract.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-109-102(1).

A protest must be submitted in writing within seven working days after the protester knew or should have known of the grounds for the protest, usually directly after the contract award decision by the agency issuing the solicitation or bid request. The protest must be submitted to the head of the agency or his designee, who is usually the purchasing agent for the agency.

The purchasing agent for the agency may settle and resolve protests concerning the solicitation and contract award. Absent a settlement, a written decision is required within seven working days after the protest is filed. This decision is to be based on and limited to the issues raised in the protest. It must explain each of the factors taken into account in reaching the determination and must advise the protester of its appeal rights. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-109-107. The protest decision must be mailed or otherwise furnished immediately to the protester and is final and conclusive unless the protester files a timely appeal or initiates a court proceeding to challenge the decision.

Public procurement in Missouri is conducted according to statutes and the rules published by the Division of Purchasing and Materials Management within the Missouri Office of Administration. See Chapter 34, Revised Statutes of Missouri; Missouri Code of State Regulations, Title 1, Division 40, Chapter 1—Procurement [pdf]. Although many protesters opt to bring their protest actions directly in court, there are voluntary procedures for the submission and resolution of bid protests involving purchases by Missouri state government agencies in 1 Mo. CSR 40-1.050(9).