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…
Continue Reading Takeaways From Recent FCA Decisions On Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act Compliance

[This article was originally published in Law360 and has been modified for the blog.]

Earlier this year, President Trump revealed his plan to facilitate new (and much-needed) federal real property projects in part through a $10 billion “mandatory revolving fund,” commonly known as the Federal Capital Financing Fund or the Federal Capital Revolving Fund (the “Revolving Fund” or “FCRF”).  In this article, we take a close look at the Revolving Fund, and discuss the interaction between the Revolving Fund and the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) budgetary scoring rules.  As described below, the Revolving Fund is structured to allow federal agencies to meet the large, upfront dollar obligations often required by OMB’s budgetary scoring rules.  But despite this welcome and significant development, questions still remain about the scope and operation of the Revolving Fund.Continue Reading How Trump Plans To Finance Federal Real Property Projects

Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) sustained a bid protest challenging the agency’s decision to exclude the protester from consideration based on a potential organizational conflict of interest (“OCI”).  The GAO decision serves as a reminder that an offeror that is excluded from a competition on the basis of a perceived OCI can challenge that decision in a protest before GAO.  And although GAO will give the agency a fair amount of deference, it will nonetheless sustain a protest where it concludes that the agency’s decision was unreasonable.
Continue Reading In Archimedes Bid Protest, Government Contractor Takes on Herculean Task of Challenging the Agency’s OCI Determination, and Wins

As the Senate approaches the end of its debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, provisions of the bill regarding access to and review of information technology code deserve close attention.  These sections, if enacted, would significantly impact Department of Defense contractors and also would affect matters associated with investments subject to review by U.S. national security agencies.

As drafted, the provisions could expose current and prospective contractors to intrusive scrutiny and significant risks.  They lack clarity on key definitions, leaving the precise scope of those risks unclear.  We summarize major issues and concerns below.  We expect these provisions to receive scrutiny during the House-Senate conference on the NDAA over the summer. 
Continue Reading Senate Armed Services Committee Proposes Expansive but Unclear Software Review Provisions

[Updated August 13, 2018]

If an agreement qualifies as a “subcontract” under a government contract, then it may be subject to certain flow-down, compliance, and reporting requirements.  These requirements are intended to protect the government’s interests, and have significant ramifications for contractors, e.g., increasing transaction costs, expanding potential areas of exposure.  These compliance obligations and risks can even deter some companies from performing under government contracts, especially those companies offering commercial items.

Currently, there is no uniform definition of “subcontract” in the applicable procurement regulations or in the procurement chapters under Titles 10 and 41 of the U.S. Code.  Indeed, there are more than twenty varying definitions of “subcontract” in the FAR and DFARS, with many clauses failing to specify which definition applies.  Now Congress is looking to address this lack of uniformity through the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).Continue Reading Congress Aims to Redefine the “Subcontract”

[This article was originally published in Law360.]

A steady flow of M&A activity in the government contracts industry continues. Indeed, last year we saw over 100 publicly reported deals involving government contractors, and this pace has continued into 2018. This M&A activity has taken a variety of forms, including a number of “carveout” transactions, where a government-focused business is separated from its existing corporate structure. For instance, earlier this month L3 announced an agreement to sell its Vertex Aerospace to American Industrial Partners in what L3 described as an effort to optimize its portfolio of operations. Similarly, last month Siemens’ sold its federal business Dresser-Rand to Curtiss-Wright in order to allow Siemens to refocus on its core strengths.

Whether a carveout is absorbed by another company — such as Lockheed Martin’s sale of its IS&GS business to Leidos — or a carveout results in a new, stand-alone company — such as iRobot’s sale of its robot defense and security government business to private equity firm Arlington Capital, carveout deals can create great opportunities. They can allow a seller to realize the value of the carved-out business, while also creating exciting opportunities for both the remaining and sold businesses to refocus resources on their missions. Also, carving out a business that is less than a natural fit with its larger organization can allow for the realization of synergies if the carved out business is placed in a structure more suited to the carved out business’s specialties.Continue Reading 4 Considerations For Gov’t Contractor Carveout Deals

In corporate transactions involving government contracts, “novation” has become a dreaded process.  Many buyers and sellers express uneasiness and concern about having to subject their deal to the U.S. Government’s discretionary framework for accepting the transfer of a government contract from one party to another.  In particular, they fear the uncertain timeline and arcane requirements for securing approval.

While the cumbersome novation approval process has drawn significant attention in recent years, the National Defense Authorization Act mark-up released by the House Armed Services Committee earlier this month was again silent on the issue.  In the absence of Congressional enthusiasm, the government contracts bar seems to have focused its efforts to fix the novation process on the Section 809 Panel, which is considering ideas to streamline and simplify the defense acquisition system.  The American Bar Association Section of Public Contract Law offered thoughts on the current novation process in comments to the panel late last year, and it remains to be seen how the Section 809 Panel will react to those comments in the two public reports the Panel is expected to publish over the coming months.

The ABA comments focused on three primary issues with the current novation process under FAR 42.1204:  (1) the timing of novation approvals; (2) corporate entity conversions; and (3) the content of novation packages.Continue Reading The Future of Novations in Contractor M&A

[A modified version of this blog post was published in Law360.]

Last month, Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced legislation to “improve the requirement to purchase domestic commodities or products” under the National School Lunch Program (the “NSLP”) and the School Breakfast Program (the “SPB”).  Even if this legislation fails to make it out of Committee, it signals a continued trend to strengthen the “Buy American” requirement under these programs.Continue Reading Bipartisan Legislation Aims To Strengthen “Buy American” Requirement Under National School Lunch Program

This past March marked the beginning of a more fulsome required debriefing process for defense contracts.  The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (“DPAP”) issued a class deviation memorandum, effective March 22, 2018, requiring contracting officers to: (1) provide unsuccessful offerors an opportunity to submit additional questions within two days after receiving a debriefing; and (2) hold the debriefing open until the agency delivers written responses.  The class deviation implements Section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (“NDAA”).
Continue Reading Any Questions? : Department of Defense Implements FY 2018 NDAA Requirement for Post-Debriefing Q&A Process

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