The GovCon 2020 Small Business Summit will take place in less than two months in Tampa. Todd Overman will be a panelist with industry representatives discussing the importance of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for growing companies, and Richard Arnholt will moderate a panel with several mid-tier firm representatives on the use joint
I will present at Tennessee PTAC’s SBIR/STTR Technology & Commercialization Forum: DOE/DOD Research Update which takes place at the Oak Ridge Associated Universities Pollard Technology Conference Center on February 18, 2020.
Attendees will hear directly from Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD) program experts about funding opportunities for innovation and how to…
On November 8, 2019, the Small Business Administration (SBA) released an expansive proposed rule to merge its two mentor-protégé programs, while also modifying a number of rules applicable to participants in the program. Under the proposed rule, the SBA will combine its 8(a) Mentor-Protégé Program into its All Small Mentor-Protégé Program (ASMPP).
The 8(a) program is about two decades old and is reserved for 8(a) firms, while the ASMPP was created in 2016 and is open to any small business. According to the SBA, the benefits to participants in both of the programs are identical and the merging of the two programs is being done to “eliminate confusion regarding perceived differences between the two programs, remove unnecessary duplication of functions within SBA, and establish one, unified staff to better coordinate and process mentor-protégé applications.” Below is a summary of the material proposed changes and new recertification rule that could have a big impact on who qualifies for set-asides under unrestricted multiple award contracts.
In line with recent actions taken across the government to enhance the resilience of the nation’s cybersecurity apparatus, the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) recently released a set of best practices for small businesses. These Cyber Essentials, according to CISA, are intended as a starting point to nurture a “culture of security, and specific actions for leaders and their IT professionals to put that culture into actions.”
The Cyber Essentials provide guidance for both organization leaders and IT professionals across six elements:
- Your Staff
- Your Systems
- Your Surroundings
- Your Data
- Your Actions under Stress.
On October 31, 2019, President Trump signed Executive Order (EO) 13897 – “Improving Federal Contractor Operations by Revoking Executive Order 13495.” Taking effect immediately, EO 13897 revokes EO 13495 previously issued by the Obama administration in January 2009. EO 13495, titled “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts,” required successor contractors to an expired service contract to offer a right of first refusal of employment to those “qualified” employees from the predecessor contract if the follow-on contract is awarded for the same service, at the same location.…
As the Department of Defense (DoD) pushes to overhaul cybersecurity requirements with a new Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program to be implemented in the fall of 2020, I recently provided insights for an article in Law360 that highlighted some potential challenges the quick rollout and still-unanswered questions could present. Contractors generally welcome the unified and modernized approach to cybersecurity, but because there are many questions left unanswered since the initial drafts released in May and in September, there are concerns among some that the perceived rush is creating undue stress and confusion.
As a result, the September draft of the CMMC program received a large volume of public comments, which Todd noted was unusual given the limited time available for comment. For solutions the DOD could address in the final rule, I suggested the Department ensure minimum cybersecurity levels are included in contracts as pass-fail threshold requirements, rather than as subjective assessments that potentially open up new grounds for bid protests.
Given the continued high volume of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions in the federal marketplace, buyers and sellers need to be aware of the developing body of case law at Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Court of Federal Claims (COFC) regarding how acquisitions are impacting pending bids and the steps that parties can take to protect those bids in certain situations.
This post will highlight recent cases and provide practical guidance on diligence, deal timing and communications with government customers regarding transactions. Additionally, this post will outline bid protest decisions involving asset deals and corporate reorganizations, and their impact on pending bids.
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Bitmanagement Software GMBH vs. The United States determined the United States was not liable for copyright infringement because, based on the interactions between the parties, the Navy was authorized to copy Bitmanagement’s software on 350,000 computers. Bitmanagement is a German company that develops software for rendering three-dimensional graphics and one of their primary products is a three-dimensional renderer named BS Contact Geo.
Background: Floating Software Licenses Led to Copyright Infringement Allegations
In 2006, the Navy was developing a software application called SPIDERS 3D that provides a virtual reality environment for engineers and technicians to view and optimize configurations of Navy installations. During the development of this application, the Navy realized a need for the inclusion of a three-dimensional visualization software within SPIDERS 3D. To fill this need, the Navy procured BS Contact Geo on three separate occasions in 2006, 2008 and 2012 through a software reseller, Planet 9, who Bitmanagement used to market and sell Bitmanagement’s products in the United States.
In 2016, the Small Business Administration (SBA) established a new government wide mentor-protégé program for small businesses called the All Small Mentor-Protégé Program (ASMPP). The purpose of the program was for established government contractors to serve as mentors to protégé small businesses by providing business development assistance and to improve the protégé’s ability to successfully compete for federal contracts.
This relationship between the two companies is intended to be mutually beneficial. For protégés, the program creates a framework under which firms obtain valuable technical, management, financial, and contracting assistance from established government contractors. For mentors, one of the benefits was the ability to form a joint venture with their protégé to pursue small business set aside contracts without the two companies being considered affiliated for purposes of SBA’s small business size standards.
Three Findings from SBA’s OIG Review of ASMPP
The SBA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed the ASMPP with the objectives of determining whether SBA implemented effective controls to ensure that it conducted initial application reviews and annual evaluations in accordance with the program regulations and if the SBA successfully measured program success.
A major shift in cybersecurity requirements for Department of Defense (DoD) contractors is about to come into effect—earlier this month the DoD released for public comment the long-anticipated Version 0.4 of the draft Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC). This new framework to safeguarding controlled unclassified information (CUI), which includes a certification requirement by a third-party auditor, presents both significant opportunities and challenges for DoD contractors.
In an overview briefing on the new model, DoD emphasized that the new framework will impose a unified cybersecurity standard for all DoD acquisitions and, in so doing, “reduce exfiltration of [CUI] from the Defense Industrial base.” To achieve this goal, the new model significantly bolsters the existing compliance regime around cybersecurity—which currently, for the most part, requires compliance with the security standards set forth in NIST SP 800-171 through DFARS 252.204-7012.