On August 25, 2016, DoD, GSA, and NASA issued a final rule amending the FAR to implement President Obama’s Executive Order on “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” (“E.O.”) The Department of Labor (“DOL”) also issued final guidance to assist in the implementation of the E.O. The new FAR rule follows a proposed FAR rule that generated substantial comments. The final rule and guidance represent significant new obligations and risks for contractors and subcontractors, who should start preparing now to address them. This post focuses on the final FAR rule because it imposes specific requirements on contractors and subcontractors. Notably, this post provides only a high-level summary because the new rule, related commentary published in the Federal Register, and DOL’s guidance are lengthy and sometimes complex documents. Mayer Brown also published a Legal Update that discusses these developments in greater detail.
Continue Reading Substantial New Rules Implementing “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order Create Risks for Contractors and Subcontractors

GSA FSS LogoThe Federal Circuit’s decision in CGI Federal Inc. v. United States addressed the relationship between FAR Part 12—which applies to acquisitions of commercial items—and FAR Subpart 8.4, which addresses the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program. The case involved an RFQ issued under the FSS program by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Editor’s note: This is the fourth post in a series focused on protest allegations related to cost and price analyses. The first post explained the basic principles of price and cost realism. The second post focused on the adjustments an agency may make during a cost realism analysis. The third post concentrated on the role of comparisons to benchmarks in price analyses. Planned future posts will discuss price reasonableness and recent protest decisions involving cost/price analysis issues. 

hand-562565_1280If you have read the prior posts in this series, you are aware that agencies conduct realism analyses as part of proposal evaluation for cost-reimbursement contracts to ensure that “the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.” FAR 15.404-1(d). The last element―consistency with an offeror’s proposed technical approach―provides a basis for a protest when a disappointed offeror learns or suspects that an agency failed to consider its technical approach when assessing its proposal for realism. This post describes the facts and rulings in three cases that illustrate the protest issues that can develop from such analyses.

Continue Reading The Intersection of Price & Performance ―Cost Analysis Must Be Consistent with the Technical Proposal

iStock_000016952672LargeYesterday, the FAR Council issued an interim regulation addressing inverted corporations involved in government contracting. This interim regulation goes into effect immediately, and companies with inverted corporate structures—or those considering a restructuring—need to understand this development.
Continue Reading FAR Council Issues Interim Rule Regarding the Prohibition on Certain Corporate Inversions

iStock_000023483293LargeRecently, GAO denied a protest in which the contractor asserted that the solicitation contained an overly restrictive data rights clause and should have used an alternate clause. Gallup, Inc. provides a useful reminder that contracts may give the Government extensive rights over a contractor’s data and software–and, in many cases, contractors must either accept the data rights provision or opt out of the procurement. Contractors should be familiar with the relevant FAR provisions and the possible allocations of rights—or risk losing valuable rights in intellectual property.  
Continue Reading Contractors Are Left with Little Recourse when it Comes to Data Rights

Mislead Inform Switch Shows Misleading Or Informative Advice

Editor’s note: This is the third post in a series of posts focused on protest allegations related to discussions with offerors. The first post addressed differences between clarifications and discussions. The second post focused on the requirements for discussions to be meaningful. Planned future posts will cover what constitutes unequal discussions and a round up of recent protests involving discussions.

Agencies often engage in discussions with offerors as part of the procurement process. Discussions can be useful to contractors because the questions asked and issues raised can direct an offeror to areas of its proposal needing improvement. In some situations, discussions can help a contractor turn an unacceptable proposal into a successful offer. However, information provided by an agency during discussions can also lead an offeror in the wrong direction. If the agency selects another proposal, the disappointed offeror may file a protest and argue that the discussions were misleading. But what qualifies as misleading discussions? How specific does an agency need to be when it engages in discussions? These are issues that contractors should be mindful of as they engage in discussions—and that they must understand to frame potential protest issues when they are not the prevailing offeror.
Continue Reading Don’t Be Misled: What Contractors Should Know About Misleading Discussions

FAR 52.246-2 is a fundamental clause governing inspection of supplies under fixed-price contracts, and it is ordinarily construed in the course of routine contract administration. A recent Fifth Circuit decision analyzed the clause in the context of allegations under the civil False Claims Act (“FCA”). In a significant holding, the Court concluded in United States ex rel. Spicer v. Navistar Defense, L.L.C., that the delivery of nonconforming vehicles by the contractor—which had been rejected by the Government under FAR 52.246-2 (and were then replaced)—could not be the basis for FCA liability under the facts of that case. This is a helpful ruling and demonstrates an appropriate limitation on relators’ attempts to transform ordinary contract issues/disputes into FCA claims.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Rejects Efforts To Base False Claims Act Liability On FAR Inspection of Supplies Clause