Photo of Evan R. Sherwood

Evan R. Sherwood

Evan Sherwood helps government contractors to resolve disputes with the federal government, prime and subcontractors, and contractor employees. He has helped clients to successfully navigate large federal contract claims, cost/pricing audits, contract terminations, and related litigation and investigations. He looks for constructive solutions to disputes between contractors and their customers/business partners, so that companies can achieve their strategic goals.

Contact:Read more about Evan R. SherwoodEmail

Last year, we wrote about a trial court’s decision to dismiss a False Claims Act (“FCA”) complaint regarding alleged Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) non-compliances because the relator failed to plead fraud with “particularity” under Rule 9(b).  That decision offered a sweeping rebuke of speculative FCA claims, and emphasized why it can be difficult to present a valid FCA claim based on a potential violation of a complex regulatory scheme like the TAA.

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed that decision in United States ex rel. Berkowitz v. Automation Aids, Inc., — F.3d — , 2018 WL 3567836 (7th Cir. July 25, 2018).  In doing so, the Seventh Circuit provided additional guidance about various topics, including the Rule 9(b) standard for implied certifications and the power of the materiality defense.  Our takeaways are below.
Continue Reading Alleged Sales of Non-TAA-Compliant Products Under GSA Schedule Contracts Are Not False Claims, 7th Circuit Holds

Due to the government’s increased focus on domestic preference requirements – for example, through President Trump’s formal policy and action plan for agencies to “scrupulously monitor, enforce, and comply” with the so-called “Buy American Laws,” and Congress’s proposed legislation to make certain Buy American requirements more robust – contractors should not be surprised if there…

Non-incumbent awardees who are defending their awards against a bid protest often view sole-source “bridge” contracts issued to the incumbent as something akin to death and taxes — an unpleasant, yet seemingly inescapable fact of life.  But a recent Court of Federal Claims decision offers an important reminder that these types of contracts are not inviolate.  They can be successfully protested themselves when the need to sole-source arises from a lack of advance planning on the part of the agency.
Continue Reading A Bridge Too Far — Court of Federal Claims Sustains Protest of Fifth (Yes, Fifth) Sole-Source Bridge Contract Awarded to Incumbent During Protracted Bid Protest Litigation

For contractors who are concerned that filing a bid protest in the Government Accountability Office or Court of Federal Claims may alienate their customer, agency-level protests are a welcome, less-confrontational alternative that allows them to raise their concerns in a discreet, non-public fashion.  But as shown by GAO’s recent decision in GovSmart, Inc. – Protest and Costs, B-415871.3 et al., Apr. 19, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ __, an agency-level protest of a proposed purchase order or other time-sensitive contract may ultimately preclude an offeror from obtaining meaningful relief in a subsequent GAO protest of that same procurement.
Continue Reading When Not to Pass Go and Go Directly to GAO: Decision Highlights Risk of Protesting Purchase Orders and Other Time-Sensitive Contracts at the Agency Level

In a new rule announced yesterday, the FAR Council implemented prior statutory changes to GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction.  For task orders issued by the Department of Defense, NASA, or the Coast Guard, the rule provides that GAO will have jurisdiction only over task orders “valued in excess of $25 million.”
Continue Reading New FAR Rule Implements Increased Minimum Dollar Threshold for GAO’s Protest Jurisdiction Over DoD, NASA, and Coast Guard Task Orders

Contractors that must comply with the government’s domestic preference laws should take note of United States ex rel. Folliard v. Comstor Corp., __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2018 WL 1567620 (D.D.C. 2018) — a recent decision dismissing a country-of-origin fraud lawsuit initiated by serial relator Brady Folliard.
Continue Reading Alleged TAA Non-Compliance Is Not “Material” Under The False Claims Act, Federal Court Holds

Recent news reports have raised a substantial question about who has authority to run the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) in the wake of Dr. David Shulkin’s departure from the agency.  According to the White House, Dr. Shulkin resigned.  Meanwhile, Dr. Shulkin himself has publicly insisted that he did not resign and was instead fired.

This inconsistency sets up a potential dispute over whether, under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (“Vacancies Act”), President Trump had the authority to appoint Robert Wilkie, the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, to serve as Acting Secretary of the VA.

As a result, contractors doing business with the VA have found themselves confronted with a series of knotty questions about the impact this uncertainty may have on the VA’s procurement priorities and actions.Continue Reading If Shulkin Didn’t Resign, Who Runs the VA Until a New Secretary Is Confirmed? A Vacancies Act Puzzle

Following instructions from Congress to create a new online shopping system leveraging existing commercial practices, the General Services Administration (“GSA”), in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), has released an implementation plan (“Plan”) to begin e-commerce purchases by 2019.  As discussed in a previous blog post, GSA’s Plan is a first step toward implementing Section 846 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2018, which requires GSA to develop “e-commerce portals” – essentially online shopping sites – for commercially available off-the-shelf (“COTS”) item procurements.
Continue Reading GSA Unveils Plan for Commercial Online Shopping Portal

Few issues have bedeviled the GSA Schedules program as much as the provision of incidental supplies and services under Schedule orders.  For years, it has been unclear how such supplies and services are to be purchased and priced, since they are not themselves on Schedule.

But now, with GSA’s new Order-Level Materials (“OLM”) rule, GSA has resolved this issue by expressly permitting the government to easily and quickly obtain incidental supplies and services through the Schedules program.Continue Reading At Long Last – GSA Issues Final Rule on Purchasing “Order-Level Materials” on Schedule Orders

Federal contractors may be subject to a slate of new regulations in 2018, including rules that increase cyber reporting burdens, expand small business competition, and change the procedures for competitively awarding IDIQ contracts.

Among the proposed rules, announced in the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda of the FAR Council and the General Services Administration (“GSA”), are changes that would affect nearly every segment of the government contracts industry.  Although some of the rules may simplify the burdens on contractors, most come with enhanced compliance obligations, particularly with respect to data security and cyber incidents.Continue Reading Changes Coming to the FAR: Government Proposes New Rules on Data Breaches, Cost Evaluation of IDIQ Proposals, and Overseas Small Business Contracting