1 / 16

Recent Developments in Federal Procurement 2004 – 2005

Recent Developments in Federal Procurement 2004 – 2005. NCMA Cape Canaveral Chapter June 2005. E. S. Cavallucci Harris Corporation Legal Department. Glossary. Recent Developments in Federal Procurement 2004 – 2005 ADA: Anti-Deficiency Act B&P: Bid and Proposal

noreen
Download Presentation

Recent Developments in Federal Procurement 2004 – 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Recent Developmentsin Federal Procurement2004 – 2005 NCMA Cape Canaveral Chapter June 2005 E. S. Cavallucci Harris Corporation Legal Department

  2. Glossary Recent Developments in Federal Procurement 2004 – 2005 ADA: Anti-Deficiency Act B&P: Bid and Proposal CDA: Contract Disputes Act C&PD: Cost & Pricing Data CAFC: Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CAS: Cost Accounting Standards CO: Contracting Officer COFC: Court of Federal Claims DOJ: Department of Justice FCA: False Claims Act FOIA: Freedom of Information Act FR: Federal Register Kor: Contractor OGE: Office of Government Ethics QT: Qui Tam TINA: Truth in Negotiations Act T/C: Termination for Convenience T/D: Termination for Default USSC: United States Supreme Court

  3. GFY 2004 Statistics for Q.T. Cases • $545,000,000 recovered where U.S. intervened (more than $667,000,000 FCA total) • $9,400,000 recovered where no U.S. intervention • $108,000,000 recovered by whistleblowers

  4. False Claims Act (FCA)/ Qui Tam Actions • U.S. ex rel. DRC, Inc., et al. v. Custer Battles, LLC (CV-04-199A) • U.S.D.C. Eastern District of VA 1:04-CV-00199-TSE-TRJ • Issue: Are officials of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) “officers or employees of the U.S.” for FCA purposes? • Involves security Kor for Baghdad Airport and Iraq Currency Exchange • Government argues that “Iraqi funds” in CPA possession is U.S. money/property for FCA. Also: • Brewer was head of CPA • Most CPA officials were Americans • Jurisdictional hearing: May 12, 2005

  5. Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) • Appeal of UTC (ASBCA Nos 51410, 53089, 53349), 2005 ASBCA Lexis 10 (January 19, 2005) 2004-1 B.C.A. (CCH) P32,556 • Reconsideration of previous ASBCA decision holding that AF had not proven entitlement • Offsets proven by UTC exceeded AF claims • Held for UTC: • AF could show no reliance on data: no review by CO • Award based on competition, not cost data • SAIC Defective Pricing Case • AF Kor at Kelly AFB; 8FFP delivery orders worth $24M • Q.T./FCA case raising violation of TINA • “undisclosed contingencies”/management estimates • Controversy: AFGC Notice of February 11, 2005 • NDIA and PSC responses to notice: withdraw/clarify • Case settled before trial • See FederalContractsReport (Vol. 83, No. 14, April 12, 2005)

  6. Cost Principles • Ford Motor Co. v. U.S. (August 2004) 56 Fed. CL. 85 • CAFC decision on Kor liability for environmental damages • Contract written during WWII • Kor “reservation of rights” language • Language held to protect Kor from subsequently discovered damage • FAC 2001, December 30, 2004, Item VI; FAR Case 2001-018 • FAR $ threshold raised from $500K to $550K for contracts subject to penalties for including “expressly unallowable costs”.

  7. Cost Principles (con’d) • Southwest Marine, Inc. ASBCA No. 54234 (Slip Op. February 23, 2005) 2005-1 B.C.A. (CCH) P32,892; • Costs incurred by Kor in unsuccessful defense of suit under the Clean Water Act held unallowable • Follows Boeing NA v. Roche, 298 3D 1274 (Federal Circuit 2002) • Kor argued FAR 31.205-33 makes costs allowable • Government argues costs unallowable under FAR 31.205-47(b)(2) • Board sides with Government saying that suit here equal to “Government suit” under 31.205-47 therefore unallowable. Also holds no apportionment possible.

  8. Performance • Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt • USSC decision (No. 02-1472, March 1, 2005) 125 S. Ct. 1172; 161 L.Ed. 2d 66 • Holding: When government enters into contract using general appropriations, it is binding whether funds available or not. • affirms CAFC; reversed 10th CCA • Unanimous decision • Government “ran out of funds” to pay certain administrative costs relating to tribal health care. • SC held agency can’t avoid contract by claiming funds spent elsewhere if Congress appropriated “unrestricted” funds. • SUFI Network Services, Inc. (August 17, 2004), 2004-2 B.C.A. (CCH) P32,714, ASBCA No. 54503 • Board found AF breached contract by allowing lodging guests to use calling cards rather than contract long distance phones. • Breach allowed Kor to stop work and collect lost profits.

  9. Performance (con’d) • CW Government Travel, Inc. v. U.S. (COFC No. 04-718C) December 30, 2004 63 Fed. CL. 369 • Kor can get declaratory relief by following CDA even if Government only threatening breach. • True even if CO responds to request for relief but states (incorrectly) that response is not a final decision. • Kor established enough of a “live dispute” to get relief. • Blackstone Consulting, Inc. v. U.S. (Federal Circuit No. 02-1728C) March 25, 2005 WL 850874 (Fed.CL.) • Involves government assertion of “impossibility of performance” due to its inability to award a contract because of bid protests making award impossible.

  10. Performance (cont’d) • CAFC agrees with government and found impossibility • Bid protests made contract performance impossible • Not government fault • Not foreseeable • Risks of protests not on government. • Bannum Inc. v. U.S. 404 F.3d 1346 (Federal Circuit No. 04-5008 April 21, 2005) • Interprets FAR 42.1503 – Kor performance evaluations • Where disagreement about Kor performance exists, evaluation must be made by “independent party above the CO” • Involved bid protest by plaintiff against Bureau of Prisons • Court held administrators who did not have authority over the CO not consistent with FAR • Plaintiff lost protest: errors not sufficient to effect the outcome

  11. Performance (con’d) • NECCO, Inc. GSBCA No. 16354, March 1, 2005, 2005 Westlaw 487676 • Following advise or commitment of a COR held insufficient to constitute a change to the contract schedule • T for D held proper • Contract had express language re limits of COR authority • International Data Products Corp. v. U.S. Nos 01-45C, 03-2515C, (March 28, 2005) 64 Fed.CL.642 • COFC decision involving IDIQ contract • Kor terms: • Minimum guarantee $100,000 • Total estimated quantity $100,000,000

  12. Performance (con’d) • After 2 years agency T for C’d the Kor with orders of $35M • Kor submitted T for C claim of $1.7M (claiming costs based on $100,000,000 quantity) • SJ for government – held: once government meets contract minimum no further legal obligation under contract • Contract allocates the risk to Kor; T for C doesn’t shift the risk • Riley & Ephriam Construction, Inc. v. U.S. (CAFC, May 18, 2005) 61 Fed. CL. 405 • CDA requires actual delivery of F.D. to Kor or agent before clock starts on CDA appeal. • Delivery to P.O. Box and fax of F.D. where receipt denied by Kor’s lawyer insufficient to establish proof of receipt (no CO follow up to confirm receipt)

  13. Miscellaneous • FOIA • McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Dept. of the AF, No. 02-5342(D.C. Circuit, July 27, 2004) 375 F.3d 1182 • Held: disclosure of line item pricing (including option year pricing was protected by FOIA exemption 4 and the Trade Secrets Act • Rejected AF agreement that price just one of many competitive aspects of bid/proposal • Can’t argue facts or law not previously raised in lower administrative procedures • DoD Memo: “Competition at the Subcontractor Level” • July 12, 2004 • Issued by Michael Wynn • Concern about industry consolidation and impact on “competitive environment”

  14. Miscellaneous (con’d) • Emphasizes need for: • Effective acquisition strategy by CO • Appropriate “incentive tools” • Use of competition in assembling team • DCMA tasked to assist in review of “subcontractor competition plans” • Protection of Intellectual Property Rights • Campbell Plastics Engineering & Mfg., Inc. v. Secretary of the Army (Federal Circuit, November 10, 2004) 389 F.3d 1243 • Held: Kor’s failure to comply with 60 day notice requirement of clause causes forfeiture of patent rights • Other contractor reports within period held irrelevant; insufficient notice to government • Strict compliance with Patent Rights clause required • New Postal Service Procurement Regulations 70 FR 20291 • Effective May 19, 2005 • Seeks to become “more commercial” • Complete rewrite of regulations, and purchasing manuals

  15. Miscellaneous (con’d) • Post-Druyun/Sears Fallout • AF expands review of all contracts handled by Druyun • Bid protests by LM, BAE, L3 on C-130 upgrade and other contracts • Procurement Fraud Working Group • Paul McNulty, USA for Eastern District of VA • FBI, DoD, HLS, NRO, other agencies • Focus on contract “F,W, & A” • Mike Wynn memo on “Ethics and Integrity” • March 1, 2005 • Secretary of Defense memo re post-employment restrictions • October 25, 2004 • Imposed on DoD employees (reporting and certification) • Office of Government Ethics (OGE) – FR, Vol. 70, No. 83 (May 2, 2005)

  16. Miscellaneous (con’d) • OGE Notice (con’d) • Conducting review of criminal conflict of interest laws regarding executive branch employment • Comments due June 20, 2005 • AIA, DII and other industry groups asked to comment • Defense Science Board Task Force • March 2005 report • Reviews Management Oversight in Acquisition Organizations • Critical of current acquisition practices regarding oversight and review of contract award and administration • Legislation S. 1042 • Portion of DoD Authorization Act • Subtitle C, Section 821 • Requires Kor to report “compensation paid” to “officers and employees” of DoD

More Related