We get a lot of questions about federal government contracting as federal government contracting attorneys, which makes sense. One thing we get asked about a lot is the Buy American Act. This is also unsurprising, as the government really did not do the best job in making it clear what this act does. We have talked about the Act before, but now, let’s take a deeper dive into it.
Continue readingAuthor Archives: John Holtz
A Better Leg to Stand On: Federal Circuit Court Eases Way for Protesters to Show Prejudice at COFC
If you’re a contractor thinking about protesting an award decision to the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), you have to show that the agency’s mistake prejudiced you in some way (the same goes for GAO, as we have explored before). That is, you have to show that there was a substantial chance you would have received contract award if not for the agency’s mistake. In a recent decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, it appears that the COFC will have to give protesters a good bit of benefit of the doubt on this question going forward. We explore that here.
Continue readingClearing Things Up? A Quick Look at the Proposed Plain Language in Contracting Act
In 2010, Congress passed the “Plain Writing Act,” which essentially requires that federal agency communications to the public must be in language that “the public can understand and use” and is “clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience.” In other words, the idea was that agencies should stop using so much jargon and legalese. However, this arguably didn’t apply to contract opportunity notices. Congress is now looking at making sure that omission changes with the proposed “Plain Language in Contracting” Act, at least with regards to small business set-asides. We explore this more in depth in this post.
Continue readingBeyond Tax Returns: Federal District Court Says Contractors Must Include Information Outside Tax Returns in Calculating Size
When it comes to calculating a company’s receipts for size purposes, the procedure for is (or at least was) pretty simple: Look at the company’s tax returns. Indeed, it has long been SBA’s position that they can only consider tax returns, as noted in Nordstrom Contracting & Consulting Corp., SBA No. SIZ-5891 (Mar. 7, 2018) (“[T]here is no authority for an area office to consider any evidence apart from tax returns…when calculating a firm’s average annual receipts.”) among other cases. In other words, if something was not mentioned in a tax return, it couldn’t be considered by SBA. The only exception was if the tax returns were not filed, in which case SBA will review financial statements or similar information in lieu. 13 CFR § 121.104. Therefore, other than that exception, a contractor only needs to rely on the information in its tax return when making its size representation.
But the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia (DDC) thinks otherwise. On May 18, 2023, it entered a decision on opposing motions for summary judgment in a size protest that had become a False Claims Act case. In this decision, it concluded the opposite: Contractors must in some cases consider information outside their tax returns. Let’s take a deeper dive.
Continue readingWhy File: A Request For Equitable Adjustment
If you are a government contractor, odds are you have faced a situation where some aspect of the contract you were performing changed outside of your control, or you ran into something that neither you nor the government expected. As a result, your work requirements likely changed, and with that, your costs likely changed as well. When this happens, there are multiple paths to getting reimbursements for those new costs, and one of the most common ones is a request for equitable adjustment. Today, we’re going to explore when you should submit a request for equitable adjustment as opposed to the other routes.
Continue readingPlaying Dr. Frankenstein: DoD Memo Tries to Revive Joint Venture Facility Clearance Requirements
Back in 2021, GAO came down with a clear decision on whether Department of Defense (DoD) agencies could require a joint venture (JV) to have its own facility clearance level (FCL) if its component members held the required FCL themselves. Infopoint LLC, B-419856 (Aug. 27, 2021). That decision was “no,” and it was based on a very strong foundation: The 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (2020 NDAA), an act of Congress, contained a provision, Section 1629, expressly forbidding DoD agencies from doing such. We in fact did a blog post on this GAO decision and litigated this very matter. Despite this, in October 2023, the DoD quietly released a memorandum describing how they think they can still require JVs to have their own FCL. Today, we look at this memorandum to see what DoD is saying.
Continue readingA Bridge (Not) Too Far: Prohibition on Dividing up Contracts to get Under 8(a) Sole Source Dollar Limit Doesn’t Apply to Bridge Contracts
Under 13 C.F.R. § 124.506, if an 8(a) contract price would exceed a certain threshold ($7 million for manufacturing contracts, $4.5 million for others), in most cases, the agency must compete the set-aside. 13 C.F.R. § 124.506(a)(5) is a provision meant to close up what otherwise would be a loophole in the rules. It states that “[a] proposed 8(a) requirement with an estimated value exceeding the applicable competitive threshold amount may not be divided into several separate procurement actions for lesser amounts in order to use 8(a) sole source procedures to award to a single contractor.” But this rule does not apply in all circumstances. In particular, it does not apply to bridge contracts.
Continue reading