GSA Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)

Today, one week following the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision requiring the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to set-aside contracts and Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) orders for eligible veteran-owned businesses under the Rule of Two, the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing on how the decision will affect VA procurement going forward. Chairman David Vitter (R-LA) orchestrated the two-panel hearing alongside Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). Chairman Vitter made clear that the Senate wanted to understand how the Kingdomware decision will affect veteran-owned businesses and how to ensure that the VA is implementing the statute’s proper interpretation.

The first panel featured Thomas J. Leney, the Executive Director for the VA, and John A. Shoraka, an Associate Administrator of Government Contracting and Business Development for the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Speaking on behalf of the VA, Leney stated that the VA is committed to implementing the Supreme Court’s decision and has already started its review of current procurements. According to Leney, to enforce the decision, the VA is working on creating formal rules and new policy guidelines to regulate how veteran-owned businesses are considered under the Rule of Two. The Supreme Court clarified that the Rule of Two requires setting aside contracts for every competitive VA acquisition, including FSS orders, when two or more eligible veteran-owned concerns will submit offers and an award can be made at a fair and reasonable price. While his remarks emphasized the VA’s approach moving forward, Leney struggled to respond to Senator Vitter’s inquiry into why the VA has spent years improperly applying the Rule of Two to veteran-owned small businesses. While the VA was unable to set a hard cutoff date for when it can assure that all awards will comply with the guidelines of the decision, Senator Vitter set a July 15, 2016, deadline for the VA to issue an update to the Committee to demonstrate their improved procurement methods. According to the chairman, a delay in implementing the Rule of Two would be equivalent to resisting the decision of the Supreme Court – even a three month delay would be unwarranted.Continue Reading Senate Hearing: Ramifications of the Supreme Court’s Kingdomware Decision

In a unanimous decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is required to set-aside contracts for every competitive acquisition, including Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) orders, when two or more eligible veteran-owned concerns will submit offers and an award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.  This ruling effectively increases the number of contracts (whether standalone or FSS orders) that will be set aside exclusively for veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs) and service disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs) because the VA is statutorily prohibited from competitively awarding contracts to non-VOSB concerns when that requirement can be met.

In 2006, Congress passed the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act (VA Act), which established requirements for the VA to meet VOSB contracting goals.  38 U.S.C. §§ 8127-28 (2006).  The “Rule of Two,” at Section 8127(d), requires the VA to set aside competitive contracts for VOSBs if the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation that two or more VOSBs will submit offers and that the award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.

Since 2011, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has consistently held that the VA is statutorily required to apply the Rule of Two to any competitive acquisition.  However, as the GAO issues “recommendations,” the VA has publicly disagreed with and declined to follow the GAO’s interpretation of the VA Act.  Accordingly, the GAO notified Congress of the VA’s declination to follow GAO recommendations.Continue Reading SCOTUS Says: Veterans Affairs Must Prefer Veterans

Confused about the VA Federal Supply Schedule? Let Tom Fuchs, Managing Director at BDO, and I help you navigate the FSS contracting rules that apply to the sale of medical devices. During our interactive webinar we’ll share our accounting and legal perspectives with you. Specific to the medical/surgical supply and equipment industry, we will review:…

GSA-Schedule-logoThe General Services Administration (GSA) recently announced that beginning June 15, 2015, it will be using a new contractor assessment report to evaluate contractors with Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts. The new report, which is available here, will be issued to contractors after GSA industrial operations analysts (IOAs) conduct their contract assessments. The report will be limited to performance against contract terms and conditions and will be provided only to GSA and the individual contractor. The idea is to provide timely and tailored feedback to contractors and the acquisition community on issues pertinent to MAS contract compliance. GSA leadership spent two years developing the new report, which is intended to replace the Contractor Assistance Visit Report and the Administrative Report Card. GSA stated that assessments will be more frequent with contracts likely to have compliance issues, based on yearly sales. GSA hopes the Contractor Assessment Report will allow contractors and Contracting Officers to address problems before they become major issues.
Continue Reading GSA’s New MAS Contractor Assessment Report – Is It Better?

According to GSA, the lack of transparency in prices paid on government contracts has led to significant price variations of up to 300% or more of purchases made by federal agencies and unnecessary duplication of contract vehicles.  In an attempt to address this concern, the General Services Administration (GSA) has issued a proposed rule (RIN-3090-AJ51) to increase visibility on prices paid by government buyers through the implementation of a transactional data reporting clause added to GSAR 552.216.

The proposed rule would require vendors to report prices paid for products and services during the performance of the contract including under orders and blanket purchase agreements.  The report would include 11 transactional data elements such as unit measures, quantity of item sold, prices paid per unit, and total price.  Contractors would submit these reports electronically through a “user-friendly, online reporting system.”  The rule would apply to orders placed against Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts and other GWAC and IDIQ contracts administered by GSA.  The reporting requirement, however, would not apply to the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs FSS contracts for pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, etc.  The rule, once finalized, would go into effect immediately for GWACs and IDIQ contracts but conducted in phases for FSS contracts.Continue Reading GSA’s New Vision for FSS Contractors: No More Basis of Award Customer Monitoring in Exchange for Transactional Data

DHS Technologies LLC and subsidiary DHS Systems LLC recently agreed to pay $1.9 million to settle claims it defrauded the federal government by failing to disclose that it offered greater discounts to a commercial company as part of the renewal of its General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule contract in 2007.

Sharon McKinney, a…

Bryan King, Amy Sanders and Shannon Wiley teamed up to author an alert titled, “RAC Dispute Could Have Far-Reaching Effects on Government Contracting” that was published by Bass, Berry & Sims on December 4, 2014. The article investigates the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in CGI Federal Inc., v. United States,…

Government contractors who have recently registered or re-registered in the System for Award (SAM) database have come across a new disclosure requirement regarding their corporate structure. New questions inquiring about an “immediate owner” and a “higher-level owner” have sparked confusion as to what these requirements are and where they are coming from.

The requirements were prompted by a new FAR Subpart 4.18 – Commercial and Government Entity Code (CAGE) requiring all SAM registrants, if owned by another entity, to identify that entity by name, CAGE code and type of ownership. CAGE codes are a five-character identifier used extensively within the Federal Government and provide for standardization of identifying a legal entity across the Federal Government.Continue Reading New CAGE Code Requirements for Contractor’s Ownership Chain

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

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.