Photo of Michael Wagner

Mike Wagner helps government contractors navigate high-stakes enforcement matters and complex regulatory regimes.

Combining deep regulatory knowledge with extensive investigations experience, Mr. Wagner works closely with contractors across a range of industries to achieve the efficient resolution of regulatory enforcement actions and government investigations, including False Claims Act cases. He has particular expertise representing individuals and companies in suspension and debarment proceedings, and he has successfully resolved numerous such matters at both the agency and district court level. He also routinely conducts internal investigations of potential compliance issues and advises clients on voluntary and mandatory disclosures to federal agencies.

In his contract disputes and advisory work, Mr. Wagner helps government contractors resolve complex issues arising at all stages of the public procurement process. As lead counsel, he has successfully litigated disputes at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and he regularly assists contractors in preparing and pursuing contract claims. In his counseling practice, Mr. Wagner advises clients on best practices for managing a host of compliance obligations, including domestic sourcing requirements under the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act, safeguarding and reporting requirements under cybersecurity regulations, and pricing obligations under the GSA Schedules program. And he routinely assists contractors in navigating issues and disputes that arise during negotiations over teaming agreements and subcontracts.

As the fallout from COVID-19 continues, federal contractors in every industry are seeing significant impacts on their ability to perform, ranging from scheduling delays to supply chain interruptions and increased costs of performance.  We previously addressed the rules and regulations governing excusable delays, which permit a contractor to avoid default if a failure to perform arises from causes beyond its control.  This next post addresses key FAR provisions that may entitle a contractor to a price adjustment or other recovery due to changes in contract requirements as a result of the pandemic.

Continue Reading Can I Recover the Added Costs of Work Caused by COVID-19?

The global spread of the COVID-19 virus may put many federal contractors at risk of missing contractual deadlines. In a growing number of cases, supply chains may become cut off, work spaces may be closed, or employees may need to stay home, all of which could impact a contractor’s ability to perform in a timely manner. This is the first in a series of blog posts aimed at helping contractors navigate performance delays, changes, and other complications caused by the coronavirus outbreak.

When confronting challenges caused by the coronavirus, contractors should know that their contracts may contain clauses that would excuse these delays such as FAR 52.249-14 (cost reimbursement and time and material contracts), FAR 52.249-8 (fixed price supply and service contracts), and FAR 52.212-4 (commercial contracts). All of these clauses share a common thread – a contractor should not be in default because of a failure to perform the contract if the failure arises from causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the contractor.
Continue Reading “Excuse Me, My Performance Has been Interrupted”– How Excusable Delay Provisions in the FAR May Help Federal Contractors Affected by the Coronavirus

On February 18, 2020, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) Inspector General Geoffrey Cherrington announced that special agents from WMATA would be partnering with the Department of Justice’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force (“PCSF”) to prevent and detect fraud affecting WMATA.  The announcement portends a growing partnership amongst federal, state, and local entities in the procurement fraud space that could reverberate well beyond the Washington metro area.
Continue Reading A Coalition Grows: What WMATA’s Partnership with the Procurement Collusion Strike Force Means for Government Contractors

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a decision that provided further clarity on the False Claims Act’s standard for materiality.  The decision, United States ex rel. Janssen v. Lawrence Memorial Hospital, further demonstrated that materiality should be viewed through the eyes of the government customer rather than an hypothetical bystander.  The decision also reconfirmed that the FCA is not a “general antifraud statute” and that contractual or regulatory language conditioning payment on compliance will not necessarily prove that noncompliance was material.  Lawrence therefore serves as an important reminder to government contractors, practitioners, and other stakeholders about the significance of the materiality element in FCA litigation.

Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Provides New Material on FCA’s Materiality Standard

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Acetris Health, LLC v. United States, No. 2018-2399 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2020) (“Acetris”), that would permit pharmaceutical manufacturers to source a drug’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) from India, China and other non “designated countries” and yet still offer the end product for sale to the U.S. Government.  Under the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”), if a drug’s API was sourced from outside of the United States or a designated country, at least some Government agencies previously had taken the position that the U.S. Government could not purchase it.  In Acetris, the Federal Circuit explained that the TAA inquiry should turn not on where the API (or some other component) is sourced, but instead on where the pill (or other end product) is manufactured.  Consistent with this approach, the court held that a pill manufactured in the United States was compliant with the TAA and implementing regulations even though the pill’s API was sourced from India.

Although the full implications of the Acetris decision are not yet clear, there is no doubt that the ruling alters the TAA compliance landscape and offers broader lessons outside of the pharmaceutical manufacturing context.  Consequently, the decision warrants close attention by contractors seeking to maximize supply chain efficiency.
Continue Reading A New Path to TAA Compliance: U.S.-Made End Products in Acetris

Last week, the FAR Council issued a Final Rule, setting forth new FAR provisions that require the reporting of certain counterfeit and suspect counterfeit parts and certain major or critical nonconformances to the Government – Industry Data Exchange Program (“GIDEP”).[1]  This Final Rule comes more than five years after the rule was first proposed in the Federal Register in June 2014.  The FAR Council describes the Final Rule as “significantly de-scoped” from the version proposed in 2014, but it nonetheless constitutes a significant expansion of the existing counterfeit part reporting obligations, which to date have applied only to electronic parts under DOD contracts.

Continue Reading New FAR Rule Expands Counterfeit Reporting Obligations

On November 6, 2019, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) aimed at resolving what OFCCP describes as a “decade of confusion.”[1] At issue is a long-standing question concerning the scope of OFCCP’s enforcement authority over health care providers participating in TRICARE, a federal health care program covering millions of military personnel, veterans, and their families. In particular, the NPRM requests comments on proposed regulations that would amend OFCCP’s definition of “subcontractor” and thereby remove TRICARE providers–and potentially other categories of providers–from OFCCP’s regulatory authority entirely. The deadline for filing comments is December 6, 2019.

Continue Reading OFCCP Proposes Rule Removing TRICARE Health Care Providers from Its Regulatory Authority

The government has released its long-awaited annual report on federal suspension and debarment activities, and the data reflect a number of trends and developments that should be of keen interest to federal contractors and grantees.  The report, which is published by the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (“ISDC”), shows that suspension and debarment remain potent tools that are used frequently across the executive branch, even if the total number of exclusion actions dipped slightly from the previous year.  But more importantly, the report also demonstrates that federal agencies are adopting increasingly sophisticated approaches to managing suspension and debarment actions, a trend that presents both opportunities and potential pitfalls for the contracting community.  Below we highlight the five biggest takeaways from this year’s ISDC report.

Continue Reading Suspension & Debarment Update: Five Takeaways from the ISDC’s Annual Report

After nearly two years of planning, GSA has released an RFP seeking prototypes of online shopping portals that would allow federal customers to buy COTS items from their computers.

GSA’s plan implements Section 846 of the NDAA for FY 2018, which instructed the agency to create an internet marketplace exempt from many standard procurement regulations.  As we have previously discussed in this blog, GSA began planning in 2017, sought input from industry in 2018 and 2019, and the announced earlier this year that it would proceed with proofs of concept. But while the new solicitation was a long time coming, GSA clearly is ready to move quickly: contractors will have less than a month before the proposal deadline to digest the solicitation and assess how its terms might affect their business approach, data rights, and competitive standing.


Continue Reading GSA’s E-Commerce Portal Program Is Here: What the New Solicitation Means for Government Contractors

Changes are coming to the suspension and debarment practices of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and contractors should ready themselves for an uptick in suspension and debarment activity as a result.  That’s the takeaway from a new audit report released last week by the SBA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) criticizing aspects of the agency’s suspension and debarment practices.  Although the SBA’s suspending and debarring officials (SDOs) for Financial Assistance Programs (FAP) and All Other Programs (AOP)[1] disputed certain OIG findings about existing practices, the agency was largely receptive to the OIG’s recommendations.  As a result, it appears that the SBA soon will be adopting a series of changes aimed at formalizing its suspension and debarment policies, expediting its processing of debarment referrals, and devoting additional resources to suspension and debarment actions – all of which is likely to drive an increase in exclusion actions.
Continue Reading Suspension & Debarment Update: SBA to Sharpen Suspension & Debarment Procedures