8(a) JV Agreement Denied: Participant Brought Only Its 8(a) Status to Relationship

Posted on July 2, 2018 by SmallGovConContributor

When companies seek to join forces under an 8(a) joint venture agreement, they often focus on meeting the SBA’s specific joint venture requirements. In doing so, however, they might overlook the threshold goal of an 8(a) joint venture: to allow an 8(a) to develop the necessary capacity to perform a contract.

As a recent Court of Federal Claims decision shows, overlooking this requirement can cause an 8(a) joint venture agreement to be rejected by SBA—and lead to the joint venture being found ineligible for an award.

SmallGovCon Week in Review: June 25 – 29, 2018

Posted on June 29, 2018 by Steven Koprince

I hope everyone has a safe and happy 4th of July as we celebrate our nation’s independence. If you’re still struggling to think of top-notch grilling ideas for Independence Day, might I suggest this delicious recipe from the fine folks at the Big Green Egg?

But before firing up the grill, let’s take a look at the latest and greatest in government contracting news. In this week’s star-spangled edition of the SmallGovCon Week in Review, a former government employee pleads guilty to criminal charges related to using her position to benefit her husband’s company, Alaska Native Corporations celebrate as three military branches agree to reinterpret a limit on high-dollar sole source 8(a) contracts, and much more.

Limitations on Subcontracting: FAR Revisions May Be Delayed

Posted on June 28, 2018 by Steven Koprince

At least a couple times a month, I’m asked when the FAR’s limitations on subcontracting provisions will be updated to correspond with SBA regulations adopted in 2016, and underlying statutory changes adopted way back in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

Well, now it seems that the FAR updates may take longer than I’d hoped. In its most recent “Open Cases” update, the FAR Council says that it’s made a switch in the procedure that will be used to implement the changes to the limitations on subcontracting–and that switch will likely delay the implementation of those changes by several months.

CBCA: Overhead Costs During Delay Depend on Uncertain Date for Work Resumption

Posted on June 25, 2018 by Shane McCall

A contractor can become entitled to costs during a delay in performance. But when is a government contractor entitled to unabsorbed overhead costs during a government-caused suspension or delay? A recent Civilian Board of Contracts Appeals case answers that question in part.

SmallGovCon Week in Review: June 18 – 22, 2018

Posted on June 22, 2018 by SmallGovConContributor

Summer has officially started! Let’s get it started off with the SmallGovCon Week in Review.

This week’s edition includes a new FAR provision relating to the Kaspersky ban, NIH’s CIO-SP3 HUBZone awards, and much more.

SBA Inspector General: 89% of WOSB Sole Source Contracts Were Improper

Posted on June 21, 2018 by Steven Koprince

Nearly 90% of women-owned small business sole source contracts reviewed by the SBA Office of Inspector General were improper, according to a startling report issued yesterday.

In the study, the SBA OIG concluded that because of pervasive flaws in the award of WOSB and EDWOSB sole source contracts, “there was no assurance that these contracts were awarded to firms that were eligible to receive sole-source awards under the Program.” And if that wasn’t enough, the SBA OIG reiterated its position that, as a legal matter, it is improper to award any WOSB or EDWOSB sole source contract to a self-certified company.

GAO: Where RFP Requirements Clearly Not Met, Protest Costs Reimbursable

Posted on June 20, 2018 by Shane McCall

As Koprince Law attorneys have discussed in depth, GAO will in some instances award costs for a clearly meritorious protest where an agency does not take corrective action before the due date for the agency report. But what are the standards for a “clearly meritorious” protest?

It’s instructive to look at a recent GAO decision that reviewed protest grounds dealing with past performance evaluation and a requirement that the Army be able to set up the proposed product within 60 seconds.