A contractor’s failure to follow the requirements of DFARS 252.232-7007 (Limitation of Government’s Obligation), also known as the “LOGO” clause, resulted in the contractor performing more than $288,000 in free work for the government.
The contractor’s dilemma is an important reminder to be aware of–and scrupulously comply with–the LOGO clause and similar FAR clauses.
In the 1990s comedy Groundhog Day, Bill Murray played a weatherman who found himself living the same day over and over again. I am having the same feeling reading SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals cases these days (yes, this is what qualifies as my reading material of choice; don’t judge).
As it has at least five other times since December, SBA OHA has shot down the SBA’s rejection of an 8(a) application under the “social disadvantage” factor. As was the case in several other recent decisions, the latest volley from SBA OHA states that the SBA failed to properly consider the evidence and explain its rationale for denying an 8(a) applicant.
An Alabama-based construction company has agreed to pay more than a million dollars to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by fraudulently representing that it was mentoring a minority-owned small business under the Department of Defense’s mentor-protege program.
The settlement puts to rest the Justice Department’s False Claims Act contention that the contractor used its so-called “protege” as little more than a pass-through entity and failed to provide real mentoring services to the small business.
A Treasury Department solicitation did not require contractors to be certified HUBZone participants at the time the solicitation was issued, despite language in the solicitation arguably requiring just that in order to receive a high rating for socioeconomic status.
In a recent GAO bid protest decision, the GAO held that the agency properly interpreted the solicitation to require HUBZone certification at the time proposals were due, not the time the solicitation was issued. The GAO’s ruling comports with the HUBZone program regulations, which do not require contractors to be certified at the time a solicitation is issued in order to be considered HUBZone participants for purposes of that solicitation.
A contractor was awarded an “Excellent” past performance score despite submitting only three past performance references, not the five past performance references required by the solicitation.
Although one might think that a contractor would be penalized for failing to satisfy such a requirement, the GAO held that the procuring agency properly gave the contractor in question a high past performance score, based on the three submitted references and past performance information obtained from other sources.
A contractor is not economically dependent upon another firm where it receives only a small proportion of its revenues from the other firm as of the self-certification date for a set-aside contract–even if the contractor previously received more than 70% of its annual revenues from the other firm.
This was the commonsense decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in a recent size appeal case, in which SBA OHA held that a contractor’s prior economic dependence on another company does not necessarily mean that the companies are still affiliated under the SBA’s affiliation rules.
The SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals has overturned yet another SBA 8(a) Program denial decision–at least the fifth such instance since December 2012.
As with the four previous cases, SBA OHA’s most recent 8(a) appeal decision indicates that the SBA improperly evaluated the applicant’s evidence of social disadvantage, both by misapplying the regulatory test for social disadvantage and by requiring the applicant to meet a higher standard of proof than called for by law.