SmallGovCon Week In Review: August 7-11, 2017

I don’t know about you, but I am ready for the weekend.  I’m looking forward to spending some time with the family before I turn into a bit of a road warrior.  Next week, I’ll be at the 21st Government Procurement Conference in Texas; the following week I head to the West Coast for the Navy Gold Coast Small Business Procurement Event, and I’ll wrap up the month in Oklahoma at the Indian Country Business Summit.

If you’ll be at any of these events, please stop by to say hello and talk about the latest happenings in the world of government contracts.  And speaking of latest happenings, it’s time for the SmallGovCon Week In Review. In this week’s edition, a look at what it takes for contractors to win at the end of the federal fiscal year, a defense contractor is caught billing Porsches, Bentleys and other luxury costs to the Pentagon, a former contractor will pay a $50,000 fine for SDVOSB fraud, and more.

Continue reading…

SBA All Small Mentor-Protege Program: Annual Evaluation Forms Now Available

The SBA’s All Small Mentor-Protege Program office has issued its annual evaluation forms for ASMPP participants.  The purpose of the reports is to “determine whether the business is eligible to continue to participate in the All Small Business Mentor-Protege Program.”

The annual evaluation process requires participants to complete two forms: a nine-page protege evaluation report, and a separate five-page mentor evaluation addendum.

Continue reading…

Ostensible Subcontractor Affiliation: Hiring Third-Party Employees OK

Under the SBA’s ostensible subcontractor affiliation rule, hiring incumbent employees can be evidence of affiliation, but the importance of that staffing plan in an affiliation analysis depends on what role the incumbent contractor will play in the awardee’s performance of the contract.

In a recent size appeal decision, the awardee proposed to hire 85% of its personnel from the incumbent contractor, but the incumbent wasn’t proposed as a subcontractor–in fact, the incumbent was the company protesting the awardee’s small business size.  Under these circumstances, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals held, the awardee’s hiring of incumbent employees did not establish ostensible subcontractor affiliation.

Continue reading…

Unequal Evaluation: Incumbent Not Credited For Retaining Its Own Employees

In its evaluation of proposals, a procuring agency gave a challenger a strength for proposing to recruit incumbent employees, but didn’t give the incumbent contractor a strength–even though the incumbent contractor proposed to retain the very same people.

Unsurprisingly, the GAO found that the evaluation was unequal, and sustained the incumbent’s protest.

Continue reading…

SmallGovCon Week In Review: July 31-August 4, 2017

Coming off their World Series win last year, my Chicago Cubs are back atop the National League Central division in hopes of repeating as champions.  While we still have few months of the regular season left, I’m hoping for a repeat of October 4, 1908, when a whopping 6,210 fans watched the Cubs successfully defend their 1907 title.

But enough baseball for now–this is a government contracts blog, after all.  And since it’s Friday, here is the SmallGovCon Week in Review.  In this edition, a contractor gets 60 months in jail for paying $3 million in bribes, the Federal Times takes a look at potential bid protest reforms, a commentator takes aim at no-bid contracts, and much more.

Continue reading…

Excusable Delay: Government’s Failure To Extend Was “Constructive Acceleration”

Federal contractors not so infrequently find themselves in a position where they are unable to complete performance of a contract by the agreed-upon deadline. So, what happens when the delay is neither party’s fault, but the government denies extension of the period of performance or provides inadequate extensions?

In IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. (ASBCA Nos. 59397, 59398, and 59399), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals found under the legal theory of “constructive acceleration” that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was liable for extra costs incurred by IAP due to the Corps insistence of timely contract delivery despite excusable delays.

Continue reading…