SmallGovCon Week In Review: April 3-7, 2017

Posted on April 7, 2017 by Steven Koprince

It’s been a rainy spring here in Lawrence, but the sun is finally out today. And speaking of sunshine, I’ll be in sunny San Diego on Monday to speak at the APTAC Spring 2017 Training Conference. I am looking forward to catching up with many of my favorite “PTACers” next week.

Before I head to the West Coast, it’s time for our weekly rundown of government contracting news and commentary. In this week’s SmallGovCon Week In Review, a contractor has agreed to pay nearly $20 million to resolve accusations of overcharging the VA, the GSA is considering removing a mandate requiring industry partners to participate in the new Transactional Data Reporting pilot, the GAO concludes that DoD’s buying power is on the rise, and much more.

Joint Venture Past Performance: Agency Properly Considered JV Members’ “Percentage Of Effort”

Posted on April 5, 2017 by Steven Koprince

In evaluating a WOSB joint venture’s past performance, the procuring agency considered each joint venture member’s contemplated percentage of effort for the solicitation’s scope of work, and assigned the joint venture past performance ratings based on which member was responsible for particular past performance.

The GAO held that the agency had the discretion to evaluate joint venture past performance in this manner–although it is unclear whether a relatively new SBA regulation (which apparently didn’t apply to the solicitation) would have affected the outcome.

Missing JV Agreement Sinks Offeror’s Proposal

Posted on April 4, 2017 by Steven Koprince

A small business joint venture’s proposal was excluded from the competition because the joint venture failed to submit a signed copy of its joint venture agreement, as required by the solicitation.

In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the procuring agency acted properly in excluding the joint venture’s proposal, even though the joint venture’s price was more than $300,000 lower than the lowest-priced awardee’s.

SmallGovCon Week In Review: March 27-31, 2017

Posted on March 31, 2017 by Steven Koprince

Here at Koprince Law LLC, we just celebrated our second anniversary (which we affectionately call our “firmaversary”). Thank you very much to our wonderful lawyers, staff and clients for a fantastic first two years.

It’s time for our weekly dose of the latest and greatest in federal government contracting news–the SmallGovCon Week In Review. In this week’s edition, the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule is gone, contractors weigh in on the President’s “skinny budget” proposal, a new bill would expand the USASpending.gov website, and much more.

GAO Report Highlights Recent Trends In Government Contracting

Posted on March 30, 2017 by SmallGovCon Contributor

Earlier this month, the GAO released a comprehensive report detailing the trends in government contracting over a five-year period (from fiscal year 2011 through 2015). The entire report is available here. If you have a few hours to spare, it’s worth a read; if not, this post will summarize a few of its most eye-catching nuggets.

SDVOSB Task Order Eligibility: SBA OHA Provides Some Clarity

Posted on March 29, 2017 by Steven Koprince

If an SDVOSB was eligible at the time of its initial offer for a multiple-award contract, the SDVOSB ordinarily retains its eligibility for task and delivery orders issued under that contract, unless a contracting officer requests a new SDVOSB certification in connection with a particular order.

In a recent SDVOSB appeal decision, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals confirmed that regulatory changes adopted by the SBA in 2013 allow an SDVOSB to retain its eligibility for task and delivery orders issued under a multiple-award contract, absent a request for recertification.

GovConVoices: Prime Management Of Subcontracts: Will ASBCA Decision Affect DCAA’s “Obsession”?

Posted on March 28, 2017 by Steven Koprince

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals recently dismissed a government claim that Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc. (LMIS), failed to comply with its prime contract terms by not adequately managing its subcontractors and therefore all subcontract costs (more than $100MM) were unallowable.

Although the government claim was directed at a large contractor, some of the amount in question, presumably, included invoiced amounts by small business subcontractors. At least by implication, had the government prevailed, it could have resulted in requirements for prime contractors to become far more demanding and intrusive in terms of subcontractor documentation and/or access to subcontractor records.