In the commercial world, it’s normal to buy a good customer a holiday gift. But when your customer is Uncle Sam, you might break the law by giving that same gift.
The government contracting ethics rules aren’t always as cut-and-dried as “don’t give the contracting officer a briefcase full of unmarked bills” (although you shouldn’t do that, either!) and the government’s rules sometimes vary from commercial norms. On June 10, please join me and Shane McCall as we cover the key ethics and related rules contractors should know, including gift/gratuity rules, the False Claims Act, Procurement Integrity Act, anti-kickback rules, contingency fee restrictions, conflicts of interest and much more.
This webinar is hosted by our friends at Govology and it’s easy to register: just click here. Shane and I hope to see you on June 10!
The SBA’s joint venture rules can be strict. Mistakes like failing to update a joint venture agreement, inserting ambiguous provisions in a joint venture agreement, or relying on an expired mentor-protege agreement can be costly.
Good faith mistakes are one thing–the joint venture may lose out on a contract, but probably won’t face other penalties. But when the government believes that a contractor knowingly violated the joint venture rules, the repercussions can be much more serious–as seen in a recent False Claims Act settlement involving allegations of fraud under the 8(a) joint venture regulations.
The Biden administration recently announced plans to increase enforcement of the federal prevailing wage laws for contractors–the Service Contract Act and Davis-Bacon Act. Non-compliance with these laws can be grounds for severe sanctions. (Heck, the DOJ just announced another False Claims Act settlement in a prevailing wage case yesterday!)
If you’re new to the world of prevailing wage laws, or just need a refresher, please join me on March 18 for an introductory “101” look at the SCA and DBA, hosted by the South-West Texas Border Small Business Development Center Network. It’s easy to register: just click here.
Hope to see you on the 18th!
Small businesses will see several major multiple-award solicitations in 2021, including CIO-SP4 and Polaris. As contractors develop their capture strategies for important procurements like these, one frequently-asked question is, “can I be on multiple teams?”
While there is no simple one-size-fits-all, yes/no answer to the “multiple teams” question, an often-overlooked FAR provision provides some important guidance. Let’s take a look at five things you should know about the FAR’s Certificate of Independent Price Determination.
Attorney-client privilege is a cornerstone of the American legal system. It protects conversations between an attorney and their client from disclosure during litigation. The goal of this protection is to allow an attorney to provide the best representation possible by protecting client communications from being later leveraged during litigation. Sometimes, however, invocation of attorney-client privilege protections can be complicated by required disclosures.
But federal contractors are required to notify the government about various circumstances that may impact their role as contractors. What if there is a conflict between mandatory government disclosures and attorney-client privilege? In a recent decision, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether certain mandatory disclosures under the FAR waived attorney client privilege.
Of late the pages of this blog have been entirely coronavirus and COVID-19 obsessed—and for good reason. But that does not stop the Government Accountability Office from deciding bid protests.
With all that’s been going on, writing about a GAO decision regarding run-of-the-mill unreasonable cost realism evaluation is downright refreshing.
SDVOSB fraud allegations, stemming from a “secret side agreement” between two joint venture partners, have resulted in a grand jury indictment against the companies and their owners.
According to a Department of Justice press release, an SDVOSB and non-SDVOSB executed a joint venture agreement that appeared to meet the SBA’s requirements, but later undermined the JV agreement with a secret agreement that provided that the non-SDVOSB would run the jobs–and receive 98% of the revenues.