A recent Federal Circuit decision has sustained an expansive judicial reading of what constitutes an expressly unallowable cost under FAR Part 31. This decision, reached in the context of lobbying expenses, provides the potential for expansive precedent for future disputes regarding what expenses constitute expressly unallowable costs. Including expressly unallowable costs in submissions to the government can result in penalties up to two times the amount of the disallowed cost. Taking into account this decision as well as the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s (“DCAA”) expressly unallowable cost guidance released earlier this year, contractors should review their policies and procedures for identifying and excluding unallowable costs from invoices and proposals on government contracts, and consider whether to broaden their policies. Continue reading “Federal Circuit Maintains That Contractors Must Read between the Lines to Determine Expressly Unallowable Costs”
The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) has released its Annual Report to Congress summarizing bid protest activity for Fiscal Year 2019 (B-158766). The report shows that the number of protests has fallen, the effectiveness rate has remained high and remarkably stable, and hearings have made a bit of a comeback.
The chart below summarizes the GAO protest statistics from FY 2014 to FY 2019.
Here are four key takeaways from the latest report. Continue reading “Still Effective: Four Takeaways from the FY 2019 GAO Protest Statistics”
Contractors are well aware that being suspended or debarred renders them ineligible for federal contracts and subcontracts. Many contractors may believe that suspension and debarment are not realistic risks for them if they already have a robust ethics and compliance program or strong internal controls. Nevertheless, the risk of suspension and debarment can crop up suddenly and unexpectedly, such as when misconduct has been concealed or errors have gone undetected. For this reason, contractors should have a baseline understanding about what to do if they must engage with a Suspending and Debarring Official (“SDO”). This post explores ten common misconceptions about suspension and debarment, with the aim of helping contractors understand the landscape and respond effectively.
Common Misconception #1: We have already settled with another agency and paid a fine, so we will not be suspended or debarred. Continue reading “Examining and Dispelling Common Misconceptions about Suspension and Debarment”
Over the past couple of months, there have been two important developments that could affect a lender’s decision whether to finance real estate transactions involving entities and individuals in the healthcare field.
Advisory Opinion No. 19-05 (Purchasing Real Estate from an Excluded Party)
In September 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“HHS OIG” or “OIG”) issued an advisory opinion regarding the proposed purchase of real estate from a company owned and managed, in part, by an excluded individual. The Proposed Arrangement involved a community health center that receives Federal grant funding and owns and operates community health centers enrolled in the Medicare program (“Health Center”). The Health Center sought to purchase the real estate on which one of its community health centers is located. The Company from which the Health Center sought to purchase the property is owned and managed, in part, by an individual who was excluded from participation in all Federal healthcare programs by HHS OIG (“Excluded Person”). Continue reading “Real Estate Financing in the Healthcare Space: Keep Your Eye on the Ball”
As part of a recent wave of supply chain requirements, Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) imposed major new limitations on the use of certain Chinese telecommunications products and services in federal procurement, and recent implementing regulations mandate a range of compliance actions relating to the ban. This blog post provides practical guidance on the new rules and five compliance tips.
Ban against Procuring “Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services”
The Department of Defense (“DoD”), General Services Administration (“GSA”), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) recently released an interim rule implementing the first part of Section 889. This ban, which became effective August 13, 2019, sweeps broadly by prohibiting agencies from procuring the following “covered telecommunications equipment or services”:
- Telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei and ZTE Corporation;
- Video surveillance and telecommunications equipment used for public safety, surveillance of “critical infrastructure,” or national security purposes and produced by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, or Dahua Technology Company;
- Telecommunications or video surveillance services provided by such entities for any purpose; or
- Telecommunications or video surveillance equipment produced or provided by an entity that the Secretary of Defense determines is owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of the People’s Republic of China.
The ban includes all affiliates and subsidiaries of the listed companies. Continue reading “5 Tips for Complying with New Section 889 Supply Chain Regulations”
We discussed in a previous blog post how the current state of the law at the U.S Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) and within the Federal Circuit limits offerors’ ability to effectively challenge agency corrective action. See Is There No Balm in Gilead? The Federal Circuit’s Decision in Dell Federal Systems L.P. v. United States Reinforces Contractors’ Dwindling Options to Effectively Challenge Agency Corrective Action. Specifically, we demonstrated that GAO has adopted a highly deferential, “hands off” position with regard to agency corrective action, holding that “the details of a corrective action are within the sound discretion and judgment of the contracting agency.” Northrop Grumman Tech. Servs., Inc., B-404636.11, June 15, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 121 at 3. Under governing GAO case law, agencies have discretion to decide the scope of corrective action, including whether discussions will be held, the breadth of such discussions, which offerors shall be included in the corrective action, and the scope of permitted revisions to proposals. Deloitte Consulting, LLP, B-412125.6, Nov. 28, 2016, 2016 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 348 at *1, *11 (citing Computer Assocs. Int’l., B-292077.2, Sept. 4, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 157 at 5). Indeed, GAO will not disturb an agency’s proposed corrective action so long as the corrective action is deemed reasonable—that is, so long as the corrective action is “appropriate to remedy the flaw which the agency believes exists in its procurement process.” Onésimus Def., LLC, B-41123.3, B-41123.4, July 24, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 224 at 5. Continue reading “Evaluations That Prompt Corrective Action Must Be Documented”
On August 15, 2019, the Defense Health Agency (“DHA”) and Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) agreed upon a joint approach to healthcare logistics. Under the Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”), DLA will be responsible for materiel acquisitions, while DHA will take the lead on medical services acquisitions. The MOA clarifies the agencies’ complementary roles and responsibilities and avoids duplication of effort. The MOA covers all aspects of medical logistics support provided by DLA to DHA, and DHA’s consideration for that support in performance areas including pharmaceuticals, medical-surgical supplies, healthcare technology equipment, cataloging, and Class VIII surge and sustainment materiel required by the services to meet the demands of the national military support strategy.
The uninformed might question the need for DHA and DLA to formally enter into a MOA. After all, DHA and DLA are both under the Department of Defense (‘DoD”) umbrella. Why is an agreement required to coordinate the two agencies’ efforts? Why wasn’t such coordination and avoidance of duplication of effort simply ordered by DoD senior command? Good questions perhaps, but the MOA was necessary to ensure the agencies stay in their respective lanes. Continue reading “Defense Health Agency and Defense Logistics Agency Memorandum of Agreement: A Good First Step, but What about Coordination with the Department of Veterans Affairs?”