Is every routine contract dispute a potential false claim? Is it a false claim to adopt an interpretation of an ambiguous contract provision that was the subject of debate within the company? As a matter of law and common sense, the answer to these questions must be “no.” But Chief Judge Royce Lamberth’s August 3 decision in United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., No. 10-cv-530 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2011) [pdf], casts sobering doubt on this answer.

Corrections to the proposed rewrite of FAR 42.1503 reinstate the contractor’s role in past performance evaluations. As published on June 28, 2011, the rewritten FAR provision omitted language from the existing clause that protects the contractor’s interests in the process. As corrected on August 9, the contractor protections have been restored.

Contractors beware: the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) thinks that $1 out of every $20 spent by USPS on its contractors is fraudulent, and OIG is itching to find it. According to a July 18, 2011 OIG blog article, “conservative business estimates project up to 5 percent of contracted dollars are lost to fraud, meaning $1.45 billion of Postal Service funds are potentially at risk.” While these numbers are fanciful, there is no doubt that the OIG is taking this seriously. Read on for more details.

Secrecy is not often associated with fairness in the American system of justice. One law that requires secrecy is the False Claims Act, which encourages and rewards private citizens who bring actions against those whom they believe have defrauded the government. Because these cases must be filed under seal, the defendant remains blind to the allegations until a government investigation is well underway. Even before the government is notified of alleged fraudulent behavior, the whistleblower or “qui tam relator” can obtain documentation and information necessary to investigate and file suit without going through a formal discovery process. Whistleblowers and their attorneys may even use a “ringer” to obtain evidence and avoid alerting a contractor of the potential suit.

On July 7, 2011, the Department of Labor released its regulatory agenda for the next 6-12 months.  The agenda for the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) contains five items:  compensation, construction, veterans, disabilities, and sex discrimination.  OFCCP hosted a live Q&A session on its regulatory agenda on July 12, confirming its new aggressive approach.

On June 28, 2011, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) released a new directive specifically authorizing the use of Functional Affirmative Action Programs (FAAPs) and detailing applicable procedures.  While most covered contractors prepare affirmative action plans based on establishment, some contractors (typically, very large, multi-establishment companies) conclude that an affirmative action plans based on function or unit (such as sales, or R&D), which cut across establishments, more appropriately analyze the workforce.

Sounds crazy, but with a bit of accounting help from Congress, the U.S. Postal Service could go from pauper to prosperous faster than an Express Mail package. Even though the Postal Service is $13 billion in debt, has stopped making certain payments into the federal retirement system, and is projected to become insolvent and lose another $8 billion this year, it could happen. Because over the last 40 years, USPS has overpaid between $50 and $70 billion into the U.S. Treasury, or so says the agency and its independent regulators. Several bills are pending in Congress that could release these funds to the agency. Read on for the details. 

The FAR Councils have adopted a final rule [pdf] revising the categories of veterans protected by federal equal opportunity laws. The rule updates the FAR to reflect Department of Labor regulations addressing equal opportunity requirements for veterans. The FAR amendments identify four categories of veterans: disabled veterans, recently separated veterans, armed forces service medal veterans,…

Improving agency assessments of contractor past performance has been a priority since the Government Accountability Office published its 2009 report criticizing the system. A number of new FAR rules can be linked to GAO’s recommendations. For example, GAO pointed to the lack of reporting on default terminations and defective pricing. The FAR has now been amended to require default terminations and defective pricing be reported as part of a contractor’s past performance. See 75 Fed. Reg. 60258 (Sept. 29, 2010) [pdf]. The latest proposed revision to the FAR responds to GAO’s recommendation that there be greater uniformity in past performance reporting. See 76 Fed. Reg. 37704 (June 28, 2011). The proposed rule would revise FAR 42.1503 to include five minimum evaluation factors for which contractors are to be evaluated:  (i) Technical or Quality; (ii) Cost Control (as applicable); (iii) Schedule/Timeliness; (iv) Management or Business Relations; and (v) Small Business Subcontracting (as applicable).  The proposed rule would also impose a uniform ratings scale for use by past performance evaluators. As defined in the CPARS Policy Guide, past performance would have to be described as exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory.