On January 30, the Department of Defense (DoD) released the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) outlining cybersecurity requirements that DoD contractors and subcontractors must meet to certify they adequately satisfy the DoD standards. These new requirements may go into effect for certain procurements as soon as the end of September 2020.
In this 60-minute webinar,
We recently wrote about the impacts of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) on pending bids in Bloomberg Law and our GovCon & Trade Blog. A key point discussed in both articles is that a bidding company’s buyer may not have standing to protest if the buyer is not the complete successor-in-interest to the bidding company. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims recently affirmed this principle in a decision it handed down in the case of Centerline Logistics Corp. v. United States issued in May 2020.
The case involved Centerline’s protest of the U.S. Shipping Command’s determination that Centerline’s proposal to transport bulk fuel was “unacceptable.” Prior to the determination, the agency inquired as to whether Centerline was the complete successor-in-interest to Harley Marine Services (Harley Marine), the company that originally submitted the proposal to the agency, to which Centerline chose not to respond. Despite Centerline’s assertion to the court that it was the same legal entity as Harley Marine, the court found that Centerline was incorporated in Delaware, while Harley Marine was incorporated in Washington state, and that Mr. Harley, Harley Marine’s namesake, did not have an equity stake in Centerline. Further, the court could not ascertain whether Harley Marine retained some of its assets or if Centerline had sufficient assets to perform the contract. For these reasons, the court held that Centerline was not the complete successor-in-interest to Harley Marine and, thus, lacked standing to protest the agency’s determination.
Continue Reading Recent Decision Impacts Complete Successor-In-Interest Claims
On Wednesday, June 24, Bass, Berry & Sims continued its COVID-19 M&A Environment: Dealmaker Perspectives Webinar series with leading professionals in the government contracts services industry. The panelists included Bass, Berry & Sims members Jason Northcutt and Todd Overman, who were joined by Craig Reed, Chief Growth Officer and Senior Vice President at Serco; Kate Troendle, Director at KippsDeSanto & Company; and Eric Wolking, Operating Partner at Bluestone Investment Partners. A recording of the webinar can be found here.
The panelists’ discussion focused on market considerations for deal professionals in the new and evolving era of COVID-19. Some of the key takeaways from this installment are listed below.
Join Bass, Berry & Sims attorneys and leading industry dealmakers for a series of lively panel discussions focused on the nuts and bolts of executing a buy- or sell-side deal in a post-pandemic environment. Each discussion in this series will focus on industry-specific guidance, including food and beverage, retail and healthcare, among others. The June 24 installment of the series will focus on the government contracts services industry.
With social distancing and travel limitations, regulatory changes and approvals, COVID-19-specific diligence, and financing considerations top of mind, our panelists from within the government contracts industry will share their experiences and perspectives on what deal professionals should consider in a new and evolving market.
This Friday, June 12, I will be participating in a Solvability Freedom Friday webinar discussing legal developments for government contractors during COVID-19.
Discussion topics will include the following:
Details follow for this complimentary session:
Time: June 12
The recently passed Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) injected previously unthinkable amounts of stimulus funds into the struggling U.S. economy. To oversee the disbursement of these funds and to curb fraud and misuse, the CARES Act created various oversight and enforcement mechanisms. Notable among these is the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR). As we explained in a recent post, the SIGPR is conferred broad powers to audit and investigate waste, fraud and abuse involving hundreds of billions of dollars in CARES Act funds. Additional primary oversight bodies include the Congressional Oversight Commission and the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC).
While arguably the most significant oversight leadership position, the SIGPR remains vacant; however, that may not be the case for much longer. President Trump’s pick for the SIGPR role, Brian D. Miller, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate – although Miller’s confirmation hearings were held on May 5 and his nomination was advanced to the Senate floor on May 12. The actions of similar special inspectors general offices, and in particular that established to oversee the stimulus package Congress passed after the 2008 financial crisis (the Special Investigator General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or SIGTARP), suggest the office of the SIGPR will be particularly aggressive in pursuing fraud and misuse related to disbursed CARES Act funds. Yet, even if the Senate confirms Miller soon, considerable time may pass before the Office of the SIGPR can bring to bear its full investigative and audit powers. After all, the Office of the SIGPR is not yet in existence and should Miller, who served as the GSA Inspector General from 2005 through 2014, be confirmed, he will need to lay the agency’s operational groundwork from scratch, including hiring a full staff of employees (Miller expects to hire 75-100 employees), securing office space, and equipping the office, etc.
I recently discussed various COVID-19-related contracting policies that will impact federal contractors during the pandemic. The article in Law360 examined the following four policies: CARES Act Section 3160, contractual change clauses, accelerated progress payments, and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
In the article I explained that Section 3160 of the CARES Act is “a recognition
We recently wrote an article in Bloomberg Law discussing the impact mergers, acquisitions, spin-offs, and restructuring transactions can have on pending bids for government contracts. The article overviews recent bid protest decisions and provides practical guidance on diligence, deal timing and communications with government customers regarding transactions.
The effect of transactions on pending government contract bids is largely governed by the Anti-Assignment Act, which generally prohibits the transfer of a government contract to another party without a government waiver or post-closing novation. “However, transfers ‘incident to the sale of an entire business or sale of an entire portion of a business,’ i.e., transfers occurring ‘by operation of law’ are excepted from the statute,” we clarified in the article.
When evaluating whether a transaction will materially affect a bidder’s ability to perform the contract, we recommend that parties to the transaction consider the following:
Continue Reading How Transactions Involving Government Contractors Can Impact Pending Bids
On April 8, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Class Deviation 2020-O0013 laying out the framework for implementing Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). DoD is to be commended for swift action to implement this useful permissive authority, which is but one of the many tools available to contracting officers to ensure affected contractors with contracts or agreements under Other Transaction Authority are fairly compensated and are prepared, to the maximum extent possible, to continue to support DoD’s mission.
The legislative provision, which we commented on when it first appeared in the Senate version of the bill, raised questions that the class deviation and subsequent implementation guidance and FAQs helpfully address. Hopefully, DoD’s guidance will be helpful to agencies across the government that are eager to use the authority at Section 3610 but have been delayed due to uncertainty caused by unclear legislative language.
For example, the legislation authorizes agencies to reimburse at the “minimum applicable contract billing rates,” a term that is not defined, but only if the employees cannot perform work at a site that has been “approved by the Federal Government” without guidance on what such approval entails. Further, Section 3610 provides that the maximum reimbursement authorized shall be reduced “by the amount of credit a contractor is allowed pursuant to division G of Public Law 116-127,” which is a reference to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) payroll tax credits for paid sick and family/medical leave, and “any applicable credits a contractor is allowed under this Act,” which is not defined.
On March 27, President Trump signed into law the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill, named the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The law, the most expensive single piece of legislation ever passed, includes hundreds of billions in funds to help businesses remain afloat. To provide oversight into how these funds are used, the CARES Act establishes a Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR), along with two other oversight bodies.
This action is not without precedent, as Congress established a similar watchdog to oversee the stimulus funds disbursed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP). SIGTARP’s broad interpretation of its mandate, as well as its aggressive pursuit of fraud involving stimulus funds, are instructive to forecasting how SIGPR will fulfill its mission and to how recipients of CARES Act funds can protect themselves.
The CARES Act tasks the SIGPR with monitoring fraud, waste and abuse involving the $500 billion of CARES Act funds allocated to the Treasury Secretary (Economic Stabilization Fund) to support businesses, states and municipalities impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The SIGPR, who will be appointed by the president and requires Senate confirmation, will be empowered to “conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the making, purchase, management, and sale of loans, loan guarantees, and other investments” relating to the Economic Stabilization Fund.