Picking Your Teams: Joint Ventures Versus Prime/Subcontractor Teams (Part One, Workshare)

Federal contractors often ask: “It is better to team up for government work with a prime-sub arrangement or with a joint venture?” Well, (spoiler alert) the answer is: it depends. But I won’t leave you with just that. This three-part series will provide insight on some of the major differences between these two types of “teams” that offerors should consider when making the decision between a joint venture or prime/subcontractor team in competing for and performing federal contracts. While this series will not provide a comprehensive list of all the differences between these two types of teams, it will cover some of the big ones that seem to come up more frequently in this decision-making process. The focus of this first article will be work share.

Continue reading

SBA Adds to Compliance Rules for Limitations on Subcontracting

Recently, the SBA released a final rule that clarifies some of the mysteries surrounding the limitation on subcontracting rules. The new rule, which goes into effect on December 30, 2019, provides clearer guidelines for contractors, while also creating some new requirements and definitions as discussed below.

Continue reading

GAO: Agency Erred By Issuing Out-of-Scope Task Order

An agency’s task order award was improper because the order was outside the scope of the underlying IDIQ contract.

In Threat Management Group, LLC, GAO sustained a protest holding that the Air Force violated the Competition in Contracting Act by issuing a task order for some work beyond the scope of the awardee’s IDIQ contract. GAO’s decision highlights the fact that an order must be within the scope of the underlying contract–and the award of an out-of-scope order can be successfully challenged in a bid protest. Continue reading

GAO: No Protest Under Omitted FAR Clause

A would-be protester had no valid basis to allege agency wrongdoing when the protester’s allegation was that the awardee would violate a FAR performance of work clause–but the clause was not included in the solicitation.

In a recent decision, the GAO held (unsurprisingly), that a protester could not challenge the awardee’s supposed failure to comply with FAR 52.236-1 because the clause was omitted from the solicitation.

Continue reading