Author Archives: Shane McCall

Losing Key Owners of SBA Set-Aside Businesses – Now Out in Contract Management Magazine

Posted on by

Clients who own businesses under one of SBA’s socioeconomic designations have often asked us, what happens after I’m gone? Meaning, if the key owner becomes incapacitated or dies, what happens to the set-aside designation for future contracts and ongoing contracts, and are there restrictions on transferring the ownership interest?

While we can’t answer all their questions, my recent article in the March 2019 issue of Contract Management Magazine (the monthly publication of the National Contract Management Association), outlines some of the key issues and answers from the government contracting perspective.

The magazine has nicely allowed us to reprint the article. Click here to read!

SBA OHA: Common Investment Affiliation Analysis Not Tied to Entity Treatment on Tax Returns

Posted on by

Common investment affiliation can arise when SBA believes that two individuals’ common investments in multiple entities may make the individuals in question act with a common purpose. As few as two common investments can form the basis for affiliation.

A recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals opinion examines the argument that the number of common investments should be counted the same way the number of entities is treated for tax purposes. OHA’s answer: Nope.

Continue reading →

GAO Investigates Buy American Act Exceptions and Waivers

Posted on by

The Buy American Act includes a number of waivers and exceptions. The Section 809 panel, for one, has called for expanding these exceptions, at least for the DOD. A recent GAO report examines how agencies apply the existing waivers and exceptions to the Buy American Act.

GAO’s general opinion is that agencies should improve their Buy American Act data reporting and enhance training on its waivers and for procument personnel. The report also provides some interesting details about the scope of the Buy American Act, and how agencies implement it.

Continue reading →

Section 809 Panel Recommends Increased Flexibility of Time Frame to Spend DOD Contract Dollars

Posted on by

As we’ve written about before, the Section 809 Panel is the Congressionally-mandated group that has made a number of far-reaching recommendations to change current programs that affect DOD acquisitions.

The third volume of the Panel’s recommendations, stretching over 500 pages, includes a recommendation that DOD be granted additional flexibility to spend its appropriated dollars from Congress. As the Panel puts it, Congress should “[p]rovide increased flexibility to the time periods within which contract obligations are permitted to occur.”

Continue reading →

GAO: Federal Supply Schedule Shorter in Duration than Blanket Purchase Agreement Spells Doom for Protester

Posted on by

Many GAO protests can hinge on fairly minute details that render a proposal unacceptable. A recent GAO case is a reminder that a contractor’s GSA Federal Supply Schedule must have sufficient duration to cover the period of performance for a blanket purchase agreement or the contractor may be ineligible for award.

Continue reading →

Section 809 Panel Recommends Changes to Domestic Purchase Preferences

Posted on by

The Section 809 panel is the Congressionally-mandated group that has made a number of far-reaching recommendations to change current programs that affect DOD acquisitions.

Another one of their ideas is to eliminate certain domestic purchasing preferences by having Congress create exceptions for DOD purchases and create a public interest exception for the Berry Amendment. The panel’s concern is that the purchasing restrictions can result in higher prices, reduced volume, or delivery delays.

Continue reading →

COFC Dismisses Claim for Failure to State Dollar Amount, Despite Claimant’s Attempt to Camouflage Claim

Posted on by

A government contractor must include certain details in a certified claim, including a sum certain, signature, and a request for a final decision. With regards to the “sum certain,” a contractor cannot avoid this requirement by attempting to portray its claim as one not for monetary relief, when the contractor is really just asking for money.

Continue reading →