Regulations

Subscribe to Regulations via RSS

One common complaint we hear from our subcontractor clients is “HOW CAN WE GET PAID????” Our experience has shown that whether through inadvertence, lack of subcontract management resources – or even as a predatory business strategy – some prime contractors will dance, dither and delay upon receipt of requests for payment by their subs for work performed, services rendered and/or products delivered. This can be particularly onerous for small business subcontractors whose payroll and other obligations depend upon prompt payment by their customers. Subs are put in an untenable position. Should they stop work and risk breach of contract? Should they threaten to sue and risk breaching the relationship? New changes to the FAR now impose mandatory reporting obligations on primes should they fail to make timely and full payments to their small business subs. Chronic and unjustified payments now must go into an agency’s evaluation of the prime’s past performance in bidding contests. Primes are well advised to make sure their supply chain management is in order to minimize the additional obligations and risks confronting them should they fail to meet their obligations to their small business subs.
Continue Reading New FAR Changes Incentivize Prime Contractors Not to Be Deadbeats in Meeting Their Payment Obligations to Their Small Business Subcontractors

If you are aware of German Christmas folklore (and really, who isn’t?), you know that Belsnickel is a legendary companion of St. Nick who carries a switch with which to punish naughty children and a pocketful of sweets to reward good ones. This holiday season, many are feeling the sting of a switch of another kind, this one involving the December 20, 2016, issuing by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of a preholiday revision of Special Publication 800-171 (SP 800-171), Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations. If SP 800-171 sounds familiar, it is because the publication is the source of the cybersecurity controls that defense contractors must follow and flow down to subcontractors pursuant to DFARS Subpart 204.73 and its operative clauses (e.g., DFARS 252.204-7008 and DFARS 252.204-7012). Essentially accompanying St. Nick (perhaps Santa Clause may be more appropriate) this season, the NIST’s revised publication may resemble Belsnickel’s switch (pun intended) to contractors who already have existing SP 800-171 controls in place (as the controls have been required, in various forms, since November 2013) or who have started down the road toward SP 800-171 adherence in advance of the DFARS-directed December 2017 deadline. With that in mind, let’s take a quick look at the implications that switch (pun still intended) brings to the security requirements for protecting the confidentiality of CUI in nonfederal systems and organizations:
Continue Reading Switches and Sweets: Belsnickel Brings Defense Contractors and Subcontractors New Cybersecurity Controls in Preholiday Revisions of NIST Cybersecurity Publication

If you’ve recently considered filing a bid protest, you may have found yourself out of luck due to the expiration of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (“GAO”) statutory jurisdiction to hear certain protests involving task and delivery orders. Since 2008, the GAO has been the exclusive forum for prospective contractors to assert a protest challenging task order solicitations and awards with an anticipated value of $10 million or more, which have historically accounted for approximately 10% of protests filed at the GAO since that time. However, the GAO’s authority to hear protests involving civilian agency task orders – aside from those arguing that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the underlying contract – expired on September 30, 2016, when Congress failed to pass legislation that would have extended the GAO’s task order protest jurisdiction.
Continue Reading Task and Delivery Order Bid Protests Are Back in Business at the GAO

Etymology, particularly the Greek or Latin roots of words, aids our understanding in much the same way as root cause analysis does. The Greek word for disclosure is αποκάλυψη, transliterated to apokálypsi, or “apocalypse.” Nomen est omen. This came to mind while reading the pronouncements proffered by various agencies this year – each of which influences voluntary disclosures of export control violations.
Continue Reading Apocalypse Soon? Permanent Disqualification From Department of Defense Contracts May Result From Voluntary Disclosures of Export Violations

Colleges and universities receive billions of dollars in federal funds, whether through research grants or student financial aid, or even by billing Medicare or Medicaid for services rendered at academic medical centers. As a result, institutions of higher education must be vigilant to ensure that their receipt of federal funding does not implicate the broad scope of the civil False Claims Act (FCA), a federal statute that seeks to combat fraud against the government. Those found liable of violating the FCA by submitting false claims to the government face treble damages and penalties ranging from $10,781 to $21,563 per violation. In recent years, there has been an unprecedented and steady rise in the number and types of cases brought under the FCA. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recovered more than $4.7 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases involving fraud against the government under the FCA, a $1.2 billion increase over the $3.5 billion recouped last year in 2015.
Continue Reading Universities Are Prime Targets for False Claims Act Liability

Carrier. UTC. Boeing. Swamp-draining rhetoric. While many ponder what America can expect from the next administration, one thing is clear – it appears to have its eyes on government contractors. However, it is important for those eyes to study the volumes of acquisition regulations under which the government is required to operate when contracting with commercial companies. Accordingly, we thought it would be helpful to describe – through a series of explanations of 140 or fewer characters – why recent tweets about Boeing’s Air Force One contract do not reflect the current state of government contracts law and, in particular, the provisions governing termination of contracts.
Continue Reading Government Contractors Should Not Fear Contract Termination Over Twitter #ComplicatedRegulations #CostlyTerminationProvisions

On August 8, 2016, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) promulgated an Open Source Software (“OSS”) policy via the Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies, M-16-21 (“Memorandum” or “M-16-21”). The high-level purposes of the Memorandum are to promote reuse of federal contractor and employee custom-developed code, and to improve the quality of such software through public participation. To these ends, the Memorandum has two major directives: (1) all custom-developed code must be broadly available for reuse across the federal government subject to limited exceptions (e.g., for national security and defense) and (2) under a three-year pilot program, federal agencies are required to release at least 20% of their custom-developed code to the public as OSS. The intent here is to enable continual quality improvements to the code as a result of broader public community efforts. As discussed below, the requirement to release custom-developed code as OSS may effectively reduce the creator’s ownership rights, and have economic impacts on both the value of ownership and pricing when bidding on government contracts.
Continue Reading U.S. Government Open Source Software: OMB’s Memorandum on Federal Source Code Policy Exposes IP Ownership Risk

The comment period for DoD’s proposed rule amending DFARS 212 has been extended to November 10. Click here.

The passage of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 saw the dawning of a new era in procurement policy, pursuant to which sweeping changes to the procurement laws and regulations governing the acquisition of goods and services offered and sold in the commercial marketplace took hold. These goods and services are referred to, and defined, in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) as “commercial items.” Two major effects of these legislative landmarks were: (1) the streamlining and modification of certifications and clauses required in solicitations and contracts for commercial items; and (2) the exemption of commercial item suppliers from the requirement to submit certified cost or pricing data under the Truth in Negotiations Act (“TINA”).Continue Reading Developments in DoD’s Treatment of Commercial Item Assertions

New FAR Rules and U.S. Department of Labor Guidance Implement the Long-Anticipated (and Much-Dreaded) Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order

Burdensome disclosure obligations, pay transparency, and other affirmative requirements as a condition of doing business with the federal government continue. Sound familiar? The trend continues with new Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) rules and accompanying U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) guidance issued on August 25, 2016, implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order. In a nutshell – boiling down over 800 pages of rulemaking materials – the rules will soon require:Continue Reading Federal Contractors and Subcontractors Subject to yet More Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

The late, great Yogi Berra once said that “Baseball is 90 percent mental. The other half is physical.” Sometimes it seems as if Yogi’s logic is equally applicable to the claims process in the world of Government contracting, where 90 percent of the early battle is following the correct claim initiation procedures prescribed by the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109.
Continue Reading Government Contractors Can Learn From Yogi Berra: Failure to Follow Correct Claim Submission Procedures Results in Jurisdictional Doom