This past November, we observed a change in the rules regarding SAM registration requirements for procurements. Prior to this rule change, both GAO and the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) had found that the FAR requires offerors to maintain SAM registration throughout the evaluation period for a procurement. With the rule change, FAR 52.204-7 (the regulation at issue) now only requires that an offeror be registered at the time of offer submission and at the time of contract award. A lapse in SAM registration in between those events, in other words, would not be fatal to an offeror’s proposal. Unfortunately for one company, this resulted in a COFC case that essentially reversed its victory at a prior COFC protest. Today, we’ll look at this second case and what happened.
Continue readingTag Archives: Court of Federal Claims decisions
A Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part II)
Recently, we looked at part of a Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision regarding the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In that post, we observed how, unsurprisingly, the government’s insistence that a contractor carry out the express terms of a contract is not strong ground for a claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In this post, we’re going to continue our review of this case (with regards to the duty of good faith and fair dealing) and give more general thoughts on this duty. We’ll finish up with a third post that addresses the biggest issue in this case.
Continue readingA Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part 1)
The duty of good faith and fair dealing in contract law is, admittedly, a bit poorly named. It does not require that a party act in bad faith to breach it. You do not need to act nefariously to run afoul of it. But then the question arises: What is it? How does one breach it? This was (among other things) a question explored in a recent Court of Federal Claims decision regarding an Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contract. We will look at that decision’s review of the duty of good faith and fair dealing here in a 2-part series.
Continue readingNo Protesting Canceled Contracts, Says COFC
Often contractors will protest an award, then learn that the contract at issue was cancelled by the government due to corrective action. When that occurs, contractors of course feel as if their concerns were not resolved, or the protested other parties were let off the proverbial hook. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims recently explained that if that happens, there is no procurement left to protest, even if there are related research and development projects or actions continuing within the Government.
Continue readingExtraordinary Actions v. Day-to-Day Decisions for Joint Ventures: A Cautionary Tale
Back in 2020, we discussed an SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) decision stating that the managing venturer must control every aspect of the joint venture. This position, which we questioned in that article, has changed since that time, and we explored the changes to the regulatory language in question not long thereafter. But this regulatory language was still vague. Since that time, there has been much case law development. The Court of Federal Claims (COFC) held in 2022, “[a] minority owner’s control over “extraordinary” actions, such as actions intended to protect the investment of minority shareholders, will not result in a finding of negative control” and applied this idea to a populated joint venture. Swift & Staley, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-1279, 2022 WL 1231428 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 31, 2022), aff’d, No. 2022-1601, 2022 WL 17576348 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2022). It now appears, fairly established at this point, that non-managing venturers can have a say in what can best be described as “extraordinary actions.” These are the sorts of decisions that can completely change the trajectory of the joint venture. But contractors must still be very careful in giving the non-managing venturer a say in the joint venture’s decisions. As one firm learned the hard way in a recent COFC case, a joint venture with too many actions controllable by the non-managing venturer may end up ineligible for set-asides. Here, we explore this decision.
Continue readingAgencies Do Not Have Unlimited Discretion to Cancel Solicitations, Says the COFC
In its recent decision, the Court of Federal Claims decided whether and when an agency can cancel a FAR part 15 procurement and start from scratch. Agencies have historically been afforded extremely broad discretion in cancelling solicitations. But in this case, the court agreed with the protester that cancellation was wrongful. It also laid out the details of a proper versus improper solicitation cancellation quite nicely. Thus, this landmark decision provides crucial guidance on the subject for agencies and federal contractors alike.
Continue readingFederal Court Confirms Strict SDVOSB Unconditional Ownership Requirements
As we’ve discussed, the SBA will soon take the reins over from VA to run the certification process for Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) and Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs). Self-certification for SDVOSBs will go away on December 31, 2023, so be sure to get your SDVOSB ownership and control documents up to snuff in order to stay compliant with the SDVOSB rules. One of those rules concerns unconditional ownership by the veteran. A recent federal court case sheds some additional light on that topic, as explored in this post.
Continue reading