Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)

In Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. Murphy, Kellogg Brown & Root Services (KBR) filed a claim with the Army to recover costs associated with a subcontractor’s work on a dining facility in Iraq. The Army denied the claim and KBR appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the Board). On the Army’s motion, the Board dismissed the claim, finding the six-year statute of limitations under the Contracts Dispute Act (CDA) had expired. KBR appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the Board’s decision, finding the claim did not accrue, and thus the limitations period did not begin to run, until KBR had a basis for a “sum certain” to “fix” its liability.

Under a cost-plus-award-fee contract with the Army, KBR subcontracted work to the joint venture of KCPC/Morris. KBR later terminated the subcontract for delay and KCPC/Morris stopped work on September 12, 2003. On January 24, 2005, after KCPC/Morris had filed suit against KBR, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that liquidated a portion of KCPC/Morris’ claim. On the remainder of the claim, the parties agreed to cooperate to submit an invoice to the government.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies “Accrual” of Claims under Contract Disputes Act

Preparing a proposal in response to a government solicitation can be a daunting project. It’s not always possible to discern from the solicitation language exactly what the procuring agency wants, and so a certain amount of guessing and hoping is usually involved. However, this process is made doubly more frustrating when it seems that the agency is holding out on you. It is probably unwise for an agency to withhold important information about their procurement, if only for the sake of competition. Even so, there are certain situations where an agency holding back crucial information is a violation of the FAR, and may lead to a successful protest.

This principle was on display in a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protest decision, Crowley Logistics, Inc. GAO’s decision in Crowley hinged on the discussions between the procuring agency and the offerors, and whether those discussions were proper. In a negotiated procurement, agencies have the ability to make an award based solely on the proposals initially submitted by offerors. However, the procuring agency also has the option to use the initial proposals to establish a competitive range that includes the offers most likely to receive an award. Once the competitive range is established, the agency then holds discussions with the offerors in the competitive range, allowing those offerors to submit revised proposals in response to the discussions with the agency. If a procuring agency chooses the latter option, the discussions that it holds must be meaningful and equitable across all offerors in the competitive range.Continue Reading Learning from Bid Protests: Procuring Agencies Cannot Hold Out on You

The Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed an amendment to the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) that, among other changes, clarifies that FAR Subpart 22.12, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, and the associated Department of Labor regulations, applies to subcontracts under DOE’s management and operating (M&O) contracts. M&O contractors and their subcontractors need to be aware of these changes, particularly the impact on the requirement to hire service employees working on incumbent contracts set forth in contract clause FAR 52.222-17.

FAR Subpart 22.12 implements Executive Order 13495 (January 30, 2009), and requires a successor contractor and its subcontractors to offer “service employees,” as defined by the Service Contract Act, under the predecessor contract (of the same or similar services at the same location) and whose employment will be terminated as a result of the successor contract award, a right of first refusal of employment under the new contract. Employment openings are generally prohibited until such right of refusal has been provided, meaning an incoming contractor will have limited opportunity to staff its current employees on the contract. Importantly, each bona fide express offer of employment must have a stated time limit of not less than 10 days for an employee response, a time period that successor contractors should account for when determining how long it will take to transition the contract. The contract clause, FAR 52.222-17, has to be flowed down to service subcontracts over the simplified acquisition threshold, typically $150,000. The requirements of FAR Subpart 22.12 do not apply to service contracts performed entirely outside the United States. 77 Fed. Reg. 75768 (Dec. 21, 2012).Continue Reading DEAR Department of Energy M&O Contractors: The FAR Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Requirements Apply To You, Too

Next month, I’ll be headed to Las Vegas to discuss the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” proposed rule and accompanying guidance at the Labor Management Cooperation Institute’s (LMCI) Attorneys Conference. The conference aims to bring labor and management lawyers from a diverse array of construction and industrial sectors together to discuss issues of common concern.…

A final rule issued on October 30, 2015 removes Cuba from the definition of “state sponsor of terrorism” in two DFARS clauses. The new rule implements the State Department’s action to remove Cuba from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The new rule affects DFARS 252.255-7049, Prohibition on Acquisition of Commercial Satellite Services from…

Next week I will head to Oak Ridge to speak at the SCS’ 2015 Annual Government Contracting Seminar. During the session, “Contractors Beware: The Davis Bacon Act and the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order,” I will discuss the Davis Bacon Act, which requires that contractors and subcontractors on federally funded or assisted…

Yesterday I presented an hour-long webinar discussing how to prepare for and navigate the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” proposed rule and accompanying guidance.

On May 28, 2015, the Obama Administration published the much anticipated proposed DOL guidance and accompanying Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) proposed rule implementing EO 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces (July…

ASBCA logoThe Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently granted a claim sponsored by the prime contractor for its subcontractor’s employee severance costs under a fixed-price contract. Appeal of Government Contracting Resources, Inc., ASBCA No. 59162 (March 12, 2015).

Government Contracting Resources, Inc. (GCR), sought additional compensation for severance costs it incurred, along with its subcontractor, upon expiration of its service contract with NASA for the distribution of mail at the Kennedy Space Center. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between GCR subcontractor Creative Management Technology Inc. (CMT) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) granted severance pay to CMT bargaining unit employees who were not rehired by a successor company at the end of the service contract. The provisions of the CBA had been incorporated, through a modification, into GCR’s service contract with NASA.Continue Reading Sponsored Claim for Subcontractor Severance Pay Granted under Fixed-Price Service Contract

On March 2, 2015, new anti-human trafficking rules applicable to government contractors went into effect.  (New requirements applicable to Department of Defense (DoD) contractors, available here, went into effect on January 29, 2015.)  While government contracts have been subject to anti-human trafficking provisions for some time, these revised requirements, which implement Executive Order 13627 and parts of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, include a new certification provision, mandatory reporting obligations, involvement of suspending and debarring officials in the review of reported violations, full cooperation with agency investigations, and publication of violations on FAPIIS, among other changes.

It is important that contractors recognize that all new contracts are subject to many of these new requirements, available here, and ID/IQ contracts will be modified to include them in future orders.  If they have not already done so, contractors should promptly determine which of the new requirements they are subject to and, if necessary, revise compliance policies and procedures accordingly.Continue Reading Contractor Alert: New Anti-Human Trafficking Rule

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.