The government was not required to exercise option years in a “long term” contract to lease aircraft, according to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
In Sundowner 102 LLC v. United States, No. 12-304C (2013), the Court held that the use of the words “long term” in a contract did not limit the government’s discretion to decline to exercise option years.
As I have previously written, the GAO lacks authority to hear bid protests of task orders valued at less than $10 million, except if the protester can show that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract against which the order was issued.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the “scope” exception applies only if the task order changes the underlying scope of work–denying the protester’s argument that any task order that is not evaluated in accordance with the contract’s requirements necessarily goes beyond the contract’s scope.
A construction company with cash flow problems did not make payments on its SBA loan–and was terminated from the 8(a) program as a result.
The decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals in C.J. Hearne Construction Co., SBA No. BDP-449 (2012) is an important reminder that unpaid debts to Uncle Sam can be the kiss of death for 8(a) program participation.
A director does not “control” a company under the SBA affiliation rules when that director can be removed at any time by the majority shareholder, according to a recent size appeal decision of the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
In Size Appeal of Environmental Quality Management, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5429 (2012), SBA OHA arrived at the commonsense conclusion that when a majority shareholder has unfettered discretion to fire a company’s directors, the majority shareholder–not the directors–control the company for purposes of the SBA affiliation rules.
For a procuring agency, is there anything worse than being schooled on principles of timeliness and fairness by a federal judge?
As the Department of Veterans Affairs found out in a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, there is something that may be worse: being schooled by a federal judge repeatedly quoting from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, the 1865 book by Lewis Carroll.
As we begin a new year with important legal ramifications for small businesses, I am pleased to introduce a new SmallGovCon series offering viewpoints on those legal issues from thought leaders throughout the government contracting community.
The new feature, Guest Perspectives, kicks off today with a guest post by Kevin J. Allis, the director of the Native American Contractors Association. The post, titled “Section 811 Stifles Native American Growth,” is well worth a read.
If you are interested in the possibility of contributing to Guest Perspectives, please contact me.
While an eleventh hour agreement avoided the “fiscal cliff,” it did not fully resolve potential spending cuts. The agreement delayed the sequester, but its impacts are still being felt by contractors, particularly by small businesses. These entities are at the end of the planning process, and delaying a resolution only prolongs uncertainty.
For Native contractors, there is little to be happy about, and much that raises significant concerns. The consequences of the uncertainty in the federal contracting environment caused by the still looming possibility of sequestration, coupled with the enormously harmful effects of Section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010 (“NDAA”), are painting a potentially very dreary picture for these companies and the communities they serve.