Recovering COVID-19 Costs Where Section 3610 of the CARES Act Does Not Apply

Stephanie M. Harden

The financial relief offered to contractors under Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) is limited to contractors who: 1) cannot perform work at their approved sites due to site closures, and 2) cannot telework. For contractors that do not meet these two conditions, the traditional Request for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) and claims processes are still available and may permit recovery of some cost increases due to COVID-19.

Below we provide a brief refresher of key considerations for contractors considering COVID-related REAs or claims. Of course, the particular facts and terms of each contract will ultimately determine whether cost increases are recoverable.

What Types of Costs May Be Recovered?

Costs stemming from COVID-19 may be recoverable under several Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) clauses:

  • The Changes Clause (g., FAR 52.243-1): A wide array of costs may fall under the Changes clause, such as costs stemming from government direction to alter or stagger work hours, provide additional personnel, use more costly procedures, use procedures requiring additional training for personnel, provide personal protective equipment, or perform additional cleanings. A recent Department of Defense Memorandum is instructive as to how such costs are likely to be viewed, advising that contracting officers should consider whether such costs are “reasonable to protect the health and safety of contract employees as part of the performance of the contract.”
  • The Stop Work Order Clause (FAR 52.242-15): Costs stemming from the government’s direction to stop work will generally be recoverable under this clause. As discussed in our previous blog post, this may include the cost of “idle time” where employees are unable to access work sites, potentially providing some relief to contractors who are not covered by Section 3610 of the­ CARES­­ Act. Arguably, this clause should cover situations in which employees cannot work due to government-required quarantine procedures or government-caused delays, even if the work site is technically open—though this remains an open issue.
  • The Government Delay of Work Clause (FAR 52.242-17): Where the government causes a delay, the costs stemming from such a delay, such as increased material costs, may be recoverable under this clause.

Notably, while the Excusable Delays clause (e.g., FAR 52.249-14) excuses a contractor’s failure to perform for reasons including “epidemics” and “quarantine restrictions,” this clause does not provide financial relief, but rather, provides a basis for excusing what might otherwise give rise to a termination for default.

What Is the Difference between an Equitable Adjustment and a Claim?

A claim is a formal written demand subject to the detailed procedures set forth in the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). Once a claim is made, the Contracting Officer must issue a final decision within 60 days (or, for claims over $100,000, provide a firm date by which a final decision will be issued), which may be appealed to the Boards of Contract Appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. Claims must include a “sum certain”—i.e., the amount of damages being claimed—and claims of $100,000 or more must be certified by the contractor as current and accurate.

An REA is generally considered less adversarial than a claim and is not subject to a formal disputes process. There is no set timeline for resolution of an REA; however, if an REA is not resolved satisfactorily, it can be converted into a claim.

In the context of COVID-related costs, there are advantages and disadvantages of both options.  The less formal REA process provides agencies more leeway as they work to coordinate internally on how to address costs relating to COVID-19, which may ultimately be to the benefit of contractors. However, the claims process puts the government “on the clock” and, thus, may result in a faster response. Note that contractors are entitled to interest that accrues while a claim is pending, but not while an REA is pending. As for legal costs, they are allowable when incurred to support an REA, but are unallowable when incurred in support of a claim.

Timing Considerations

Whether a contractor ultimately submits a request for equitable adjustment or claim, it must notify its Contracting Officer of the delay, disruption, or right to an adjustment, with different deadlines depending upon which clause applies. For example:

  • FAR 52.242-15 (Stop Work Order Clause) requires contractors to assert their right to an adjustment within 30 days after the end of the period of work stoppage;
  • FAR 52.242-17 (Government Delay of Work) requires contractors to notify the Contracting Officer within 20 days of the act or failure to act giving rise to the delay; the contractor must also assert the amount of the claim in writing as soon as practicable after the termination of the delay or interruption, but not later than the day of final payment under the contract; and,
  • FAR 52.243-1 (Changes) requires the contractor to assert its right to an adjustment within 30 days from the date of receipt of a written change order. There is an exception “if the Contracting Officer decides that the facts justify it,” where the request is made before final payment of the contract.

Claims are also subject to a six-year statute of limitations.

As COVID-19 issues permeate virtually all aspects of commerce nationally and internationally, we stand ready to help. Blank Rome’s Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) Task Force includes interdisciplinary resources across every business sector.

Adapting JV Proposal Strategies after GAO Downgrade Ruling

Albert B. Krachman

A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office decision involving a Small Business Administration-approved small business joint venture, or JV, suggests that JVs between large and small firms should adjust their proposal strategies to avoid downgrades on past performance when the small business JV member, and the JV itself, lack relevant past performance.

Background

Proposing on a set-aside contract as an SBA-approved JV between a small and large business has been an effective strategy for many years. A basic assumption of this approach—and a primary motivation for using a JV structure—has been that an agency evaluating the JV’s past performance would normally look at the combined past performance of the JV members.

In many respects, this evaluation assumption has been a main motivation for using the JV structure, in contrast to a prime-subcontractor structure.

Typically, the large business JV member will have greater and more relevant past performance than the small business. The thinking had been that the JV structure would allow both members to leverage the large JV partner’s past performance for evaluation purposes by imputing the large business’ past performance to the JV.

However, the recent GAO bid protest decision in ProSecure LLC calls this assumption into doubt, suggesting the need for adjustments to proposal strategies for large and small firms in JVs or that plan to use JVs.

To read the full article, please click here.

“Adapting JV Proposal Strategies after GAO Downgrade Ruling,” by Albert B. Krachman was first published in Law360 on June 17, 2020.

What Does a Potential One-Year Delay for Part B of Section 889 Mean for Your Compliance Efforts?

Justin A. Chiarodo, Merle DeLancey Jr., and Robyn N. Burrows

In remarks to Congress and statements this week, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) announced that it is considering a one-year delay for full implementation of Part B of the Section 889 ban (we previously summarized the ban, which prohibits the government from contracting with entities using certain Chinese telecommunications equipment, here). The ban is currently scheduled to go into effect on August 13, 2020. What does this welcome development mean for contractors? We think it warrants prioritizing near-term compliance efforts to high-risk areas, pending forthcoming rulemaking that will provide needed specifics on the way forward.


During June 10 remarks before the House Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord expressed the DoD’s full support for the intent of Section 889, but admitted she is “very concerned” about being able to accomplish Part B implementation by August 13. As to whether the DoD can meet the current timeline given COVID-19 disruptions and the lack of an interim rule, Ms. Lord acknowledged that “we need more time” for contractors to comply.

Following the undersecretary’s testimony, the DoD announced that it is considering adding contract language giving its suppliers an additional year to reach full compliance with Part B. Though not final, the DoD’s proposed delay could relieve DoD contractors from full compliance with the impending August deadline. We anticipate this approach would be similar to the phase-in period for compliance with the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Safeguarding and Cyber Incident Reporting clause. It is not yet clear whether the Office of Management and Budget, which currently has the draft interim rule for Part B, will incorporate a delayed implementation into that forthcoming rule.

The DoD also signaled that it is poised to advocate for a more risk-based approach to Part B implementation and rulemaking. During her testimony, Ms. Lord expressed concern with the “unintended consequences” of a minor infraction several layers deep within the supply chain potentially shutting down major portions of the defense industrial base by disqualifying key prime contractors from doing business with the federal government. The DoD suggested that the use of a risk-based approach may be useful to achieve effective implementation. The DoD’s consideration of a risk-based approach indicates that it is equally concerned about its contractors’ ability to comply with a strict application of Part B.

How DoD’s Announcements Inform Compliance Efforts with Part B

Without an interim rule and with less than two months before the statutory August deadline, how should contractors begin implementing Part B? Given the DoD’s recent comments suggesting a risk-based approach, contractors should consider adjusting their Part B implementation efforts using a risk assessment framework, prioritizing high-risk areas. That is, contractors should identify the extent to which telecommunications or video surveillance equipment is used to support government contracts, the nature of that work, and the frequency with which the technology is used.

The nature of the product’s telecommunication function also informs its risk potential. For example, computers, routers, phones, and network equipment can generally be considered a higher priority area than technology that, although technically subject to the ban, presents a moderate to low cybersecurity risk, depending on the nature and frequency of use (e.g., HVAC systems, fax machines, copiers, scanners).

Contractors should also communicate with key suppliers to ensure that they are aware of the rule and are similarly working to prepare for Part B.

Although the DoD’s statements are welcome news—and reflect that the government is mindful of the challenges presented by the ban—the DoD remains committed to Section 889 and contractors should proceed accordingly.

DOD’s Extraction of Data Rights in Competitive Procurements

Scott Arnold

When the Department of Defense (“DOD”) procures defense items that require substantial investment to design, test, and manufacture, it often seeks to acquire, along with these products, the contractor’s technical data package (“TDP”) used to build the product. Complete TDPs can facilitate effective competition—perhaps by neutralizing an otherwise daunting incumbent’s advantage—when the products are up for rebid a few years later. But in seeking TDPs—and rights in technical data and computer software (collectively “data”) generally—the DOD is prohibited from requiring a contractor, as a condition of obtaining a contract, to relinquish greater rights in data deliverables than the DOD is otherwise entitled to obtain based on who funded the development of the data. See DOD Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) 227.7103-1(c), 227.7203-1(c).

Notwithstanding this prohibition, the DOD frequently obtains greater data rights than it is entitled to based on actual funding of the development—i.e., limited rights (development privately funded), government purpose rights (mixed funding), and unlimited rights (development funded by the government). How does this happen?

Bid protests challenging DOD attempts to extract greater rights in data than it is entitled as a condition for contract award have been rare. In Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, B-416027 (May 22, 2018), the protester complained that the Air Force sought a minimum of government purpose rights in software regardless of funding source (i.e., even if the software had been funded exclusively at private expense). While the argument made sense on the merits, it was untimely filed, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office refused to consider the argument even though it could have done so based on the “significant issue” exception to its timeliness rules. The protest still had an impact, however. Subsequent to the protest, the Air Force clarified its intent and disclaimed any intent to insist upon government purpose rights as a minimum.

The Air Force’s walk-back of its Request for Proposal language—which did seem to communicate an insistence upon at least government purpose rights—apparently reflected the Air Force’s recognition that such insistence was unlawful. And perhaps, as a practical matter, the Air Force recognized that there are ways to incentivize offerors to provide greater data rights than they are otherwise required to—without making such provisions an express condition for award.

An incentivizing technique used frequently by DOD procurement offices in recent years is making optional the provision of a robust TDP. This may include the government’s right to provide the data to the contractor’s competitors in future procurements even where the source of development funding would not normally grant the government such authority. In such procurements, an offeror can choose whether to offer a TDP with greater data rights than that to which the government would otherwise be entitled. An offeror who chooses not to offer such a package would still be considered eligible for award—if this was not the case, the DOD would be violating the DFARS by making award eligibility conditional upon providing greater rights than that to which the DOD is entitled. But an offeror who does offer greater rights than those to which the DOD would otherwise be entitled would receive additional credit in the evaluation.

Evaluation credit typically takes the form of an adjustment to the offeror’s evaluated price. For example, the solicitation may provide that, to the extent an offeror proposes to provide a “perfect” TDP, giving the DOD maximum flexibility to provide the TDP to the offeror’s competitors, the offeror’s proposed price will be adjusted downward for purposes of evaluation by a significant amount, such as $100,000 or more. TDPs that are less than optimal but that still provide some value to the DOD would be a assigned a more modest credit. Offerors who choose not to offer TDPs receive no price evaluation credit.

If you are scratching your head, wondering whether an offeror who chooses not to offer an optional TDP effectively takes itself out of the running for a realistic chance of award, that is understandable. And if that possibility means that, as practical matter, optional TDPs really are not optional—or are optional only for companies that want to compete in significant DOD procurements with no real chance of winning—an argument can be made that such evaluation scheme is at odds with the DFARS, and defeats the purpose of the underlying regulation. This issue has not been addressed in any published protests.

Deciding whether to voluntarily grant greater TDP rights is a weighty decision that concerns interests beyond the immediate competition. Contractors evaluating whether and how to respond to DOD requests for more extensive data rights, particularly in the competitive procurement context, must consider:

  1. How will providing such rights impact the contractor’s overall business?
  2. To the extent such impacts may be adverse, do the potential upsides of winning the contract make up for this?
  3. If not, can the solicitation be challenged as unlawfully conditioning contract award eligibility on provision of data rights to which the DOD is not entitled?

If the answer to question three is yes, the contractor must be proactive and, to avoid the fate of Sikorsky, raise any protest challenging the solicitation prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals.

Nothing Is Certain except Death, Taxes, and Now COVID-19 Contracts and Relief Funding Audits

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

Despite COVID-19 article overload—and understandable fatigue—there is no doubt that there will be substantial audit activity related to COVID-19 contracts and receipt of relief funding. All of the ingredients for a Perfect Storm are present: unprecedented federal and state spending causing significant government budget deficits, coupled with hyper-partisan politics, and the creation of multiple government audit functions. Add in revenue-stressed government contractors perhaps focusing less on compliance, with a workforce working remotely, and you have everything necessary for a Perfect Storm. Let’s face it, the press and politicians are—or will be—on the lookout for relief funds and sweetheart contracts awarded to companies with cozy relationships with the executive branch, contracts that didn’t provide the intended benefit, and contracts and relief funds that have otherwise already received media attention.

There is nothing you can do to prevent an audit, but you can be prepared.  Below are some very general guidelines you can follow now to make your life easier in the future if you do become the target of an audit or potential audit.

  1. Memorialize Everything. Too many things are happening too fast.  Information that you think you will remember (so you don’t bother to write down or don’t write down with sufficient detail) will be forgotten. Audits can occur two, three, or even five years after the fact. Memories fade. Employees retire or move on.
  2. Ensure You Have Contracting Officer Approvals. Only contracting officers have warrants and only they can authorize changes to contracts that affect dollars, schedule changes, deliverables, and requirements. If you didn’t get contracting officer approval at the time, go back and request approval (in writing) now.
  3. Establish Commonsensical and Clear Labeling. At some point in time, you have moved to a new home and someone has told you to take an extra 30 seconds to add more detailed descriptions on your boxes. For example, while the label “closet” seemed adequate when packing-up, it is not useful when you are looking for bed sheets to sleep on at midnight for the first night in your new home. The same is true with government contracts. Simply labeling a folder or e-mail “HHS contract” is better than nothing, but it is not very helpful when trying to locate a specific conversation or contract modification.
  4. Centralize Contract Files for a Later, Easy Location. It is of no value to maintain documents and records if you cannot find them. Establish standard operating procedures (“SOPs”) so that someone walking in off the street two years from now can read them and easily understand where files are located.
  5. Archive E-mails to Avoid Automatic Deletion Programs. Company information technology systems are overwhelmed. As a result, many companies have implemented programs that automatically delete e-mails after a certain period of time. Design an SOP so that relevant government contracting e-mails are archived in a manner to avoid deletion.
  6. Perform Periodic Internal Spot Reviews. Simply having a compliance policy and procedures are no longer enough. You need to periodically confirm that the policy and procedures are being followed—and are effective. Conduct periodic spot checks and memorialize the results. Remember, the only thing worse than not having a compliance program, is having a program and not following it.
  7. Conduct Exit Interviews and Laptop Ghosting. Know how to find former employees. Don’t simply accept a former employee’s laptop, clean it, and reissue it to another employee. Take the extra time to ghost the laptop and save the contents in a place that you can locate at a later date (again, think two years from now). In addition, take the time to interview departing employees and, among other information, determine the location (hard and soft copy) of relevant government contracting files.

It makes no sense to work hard to win these contracts, help a state or the federal government respond to the COVID-19 national emergency, and record revenue today to only years later have to give back the money you earned because you don’t have documents in your contract files to substantiate information requested by an auditor. To be clear, auditors may be very nice people, but they don’t care that you did a great job and helped an agency achieve its mission. Auditors have a job to do. They have checklists to follow. If the required documents are not provided or available, they cannot and will not check the box. Rather, they will tell you to provide your explanation to the next level of review. Take the time now and follow the above guidelines to protect yourself. You will hate it now and claim that there just isn’t enough time in the day but, if and when you get that audit request, you will be thankful.

Despite Court’s Ruling, Questions Remain Regarding the Automatic Stay Deadline for Bid Protests Following Enhanced Debriefings

Luke W. Meier and Robyn N. Burrows

Enhanced Department of Defense (“DoD”) debriefings have been heavily utilized in recent years, but there remains uncertainty, and differing interpretations, regarding the point at which an offeror receiving an enhanced debriefing is “on the clock” for purposes of obtaining an automatic stay of performance. In NIKA Techs., Inc. v. United States, No. 20-299C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 16, 2020), the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) recently held that, on its facts, the filing period for obtaining an automatic stay did not begin to run until after the two-day window for submitting supplemental questions has passed—even though the offeror submitted no supplemental questions. Potential protesters must understand, however, that NIKA does not provide the safe harbor that some have read in its holding, and it remains essential to understand the agency’s position regarding debriefing closure before planning to protest more than five days after the initial debriefing event.

Timelines Rules for Debriefings

To be timely, protests at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) must be filed no later than 10 days after the basis for the protest was known or should have been known—unless the protester requests a required debriefing, in which case the protest must be filed within 10 days after the debriefing date. To obtain an automatic stay of performance under the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”), however, a protester cannot wait the full 10 days. The protest must be filed within five days after the “debriefing date.”

The debriefing process is slightly more complex for DoD procurements. Section 818 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2018 established enhanced post-award debriefing rights for protesters, requiring that agencies provide disappointed bidders an opportunity to submit additional questions within two business days after receiving the post-award debriefing.  The agency has five days to respond, and the debriefing period is not considered closed until the agency “delivers to a disappointed offeror the written responses” to any supplemental questions.  31 U.S.C. § 3553(d)(4)(B). Thus, to obtain an automatic stay of performance, the protest must be filed within five days after receiving the agency’s response to the supplemental questions.

Calculating Debriefing Date for Enhanced Debriefings

But what happens if an offeror submits no follow-up questions after the initial debriefing? To date, most agencies have taken the position that the debriefing is closed unless the offeror avails itself of the opportunity to submit follow-up questions, triggering the extra time for one more agency response. Thus, contracting officers often advise offerors, as in NIKA, that the agency “will consider the debriefing closed if additional questions are not received within (2) business days.” NIKA, No. 20-299C, at *1. Until recently, protesters have lacked guidance on how to properly interpret the applicable debriefing date when no additional questions are submitted, and in some cases have had to come up with supplemental questions if only for the sake of ensuring the ability to have additional time to prepare their protest and still obtain an automatic stay.

COFC Addresses Timeliness Rules for Enhanced Debriefings

In NIKA, the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) had provided the offeror a written debriefing on March 4, 2020, and included an option for submitting additional questions within two business days. On March 7, 2020, NIKA informed the Corps that it had no further debriefing questions. NIKA then filed a post-award protest with the GAO on March 10, 2020, seeking an automatic stay of performance. The Corps denied the protester’s request for a stay, claiming the date for a timely filing would have been March 9, 2020 (i.e., five days after the March 4 debriefing date). The protester argued that the “debriefing date” included the two-day window following receipt of the March 4 debriefing letter in which the protester had an opportunity to submit questions, meaning the clock for a CICA stay did not start until March 6.

The court found in favor of the protester’s argument, holding that the debriefing process included the two-day period to submit additional questions. The court explained that, although the language in 31 U.S.C. § 3553 did not expressly define debriefing as including these two extra days, it clearly included the possibility of a debriefing process lasting more than one day. The court further interpreted the agency’s statement that it would “consider the debriefing closed if additional questions are not received within (2) business days” as a commitment to keep the debriefing open through that two-day period—regardless of whether any questions were asked.  That may have been the opposite of what the agency actually intended to communicate. In the court’s view, however, the agency’s communications meant that the debriefing closed at the end of a potentially multi-day debriefing process rather than a singular date. Here, the process ended when the protester chose not to submit further questions at the end of the two-day period.

The holding in NIKA should not be viewed as a guarantee that potential protesters will always get the extra two days even if they submit no questions, however. Though the court interpreted the underlying statutes and regulations as providing the additional two-day window, it also implicitly limited its holding by pointing to the language of the agency’s letter, which suggested an open debriefing through the two-day period for questions. NIKA left open the possibility that the two-day extension might not apply if the agency’s communications stated more clearly that the debriefing was considered closed, as of that time, unless further questions were submitted. It also left unanswered whether the court’s holding would apply to an offeror that immediately notifies the agency that it will not submit additional questions, rather than waiting the full two-day period before providing such notification (as NIKA did).

Conclusion

While NIKA provides some insight, it is still important that potential protesters proceed with caution. In any case where an offeror plans to protest and believes the CICA clock is running from a date later than the debriefing itself, the offeror should confirm that understanding with the agency in writing. Without such assurances, and without submitted follow-up questions, an offeror must assume that the clock has started from the end of the debriefing, not the end of the two-day window.

12 Steps for Reducing CARES Act Enforcement Risks

William E. Lawler III, Gregory F. Linsin, Justin A. Chiarodo, Dominique L. Casimir, and Sara N. Gerber

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act provides more than a trillion dollars in relief to both small and large businesses in the form of loans, grants and tax credits, designed to quickly stabilize the economy during the ongoing crisis.

But this is not free money: The CARES Act also includes a robust oversight and enforcement regime to enable the government to combat fraud, waste and abuse. Experience shows that when this much government money is being spent, there will be investigations and enforcement actions.

The CARES Act is complex with evolving regulatory guidelines, and this increases the potential for missteps by companies trying to take advantage of the program’s benefits while navigating program requirements. How can companies manage this uncertainty and reduce the risk of becoming an enforcement target?

We offer 12 suggested steps.

To read the full article that was published in Law360 on May 11, 2020, please click here.

Implementation Guidance for Section 3610 of the CARES Act

Brian S. Gocial and Dominique L. Casimir

As we summarized on March 31, 2020, CARES Act Section 3610 throws an immediate lifeline to qualifying firms whose workforce has been displaced by coronavirus COVID-19 shutdowns. On April 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DOD”) issued Class Deviation 2020-O0013 authorizing contracting officers to immediately use a new cost principle, DFARS 231.205-79, to implement section 3610; and on April 9, 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense issued Implementation Guidance for Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and Frequently Asked Questions. This blog post summarizes the new Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) clause and guidance.

What is the purpose of CARES Act Section 3610 and DFARS 231.205-79?

Deviation 2020-O0013 establishes a new cost principle that will allow recovery of employee leave costs related to the COVID-19 pandemic where appropriate. The Class Deviation recognizes that “contractors are struggling to maintain a mission-ready workforce due to work site closures, personnel quarantines, and state and local restrictions on movement related to the COVID-19 pandemic that cannot be resolved through remote work.” To that end, contracting officers are instructed to use DFARS 231.205-79 “to appropriately balance flexibilities and limitations” and are directed to “consider the immediacy of the specific circumstances of the contractor involved and respond accordingly. The survival of many of the businesses the CARES Act is designed to assist may depend on this efficiency.” Continue reading “Implementation Guidance for Section 3610 of the CARES Act”

Veterans Affairs Granted Unprecedented Procurement Authority under P.L. 85-804

John M. Clerici and Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

On April 10, 2020, the President issued a Memorandum to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”) authorizing the exercise of authority under Public Law 85-804, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1431-35. (See Memorandum on Authorizing the Exercise of Authority under Public Law 85-804.) This is a significant action that contractors must understand and be prepared to use for their benefit.

P.L. 85-804’s expansive powers are rarely invoked, used only in unique circumstances that require “extraordinary contractual actions.” See FAR Part 50. President Obama relied on P.L. 85-804 in 2014 when he granted the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) the authority to indemnify companies from lawsuits related to contracts performed in Africa in support of USAID’s response to the Ebola outbreak. Because there are now other legal authorities the U.S. Government may use to offer liability protection in certain circumstances (e.g., the SAFETY Act of 2002; the PREP Act of 2005), conferring liability protection under P.L. 85-804 is uncommon. The use of the law to broadly expand the U.S. Government’s contracting powers is truly extraordinary. Continue reading “Veterans Affairs Granted Unprecedented Procurement Authority under P.L. 85-804”

A Federal Contractor’s Five-Part Guide to the CARES Act

On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) was signed into law. This massive $2.2 trillion economic package provides a host of opportunities and resources for all varieties of federal contractors—from those who need financial assistance through the coronavirus pandemic to those who can leverage their resources to assist the federal government in its response.

The five timely posts below discuss discrete portions of the CARES Act, how they might affect federal contractors, and what federal contractors can do to take advantages of the many programs and opportunities offered under the Act. Please contact us for assistance with any of these, or other components, of the Act.

1. The CARES Act Provides Much Needed Financial Relief for Small Businesses

Michael Joseph Montalbano
This article discusses the expanded $349 billion loan program set aside for small businesses under the CARES Act.

2. CARES Act § 3610: An Immediate Lifeline for Qualifying Federal Contactors Displaced by COVID-19

Michael J. Slattery
This article discusses § 3610 of the CARES Act, which provides funds that federal agencies can use to alleviate disruptions to federal contractors caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

 3. CARES Act Grant Programs: Searching for Opportunity in the Coronavirus Relief Effort

Tjasse L. Fritz
This article discusses the wealth of grant programs available to federal contractors and other businesses under the CARES Act.

4. CARES Act: Significant Funds for Defense Department and Defense Contractors

Adam Proujansky
This article discusses the billions of dollars in loans, loan guarantees, and other financial assistance available through the Department of Defense to defense industry contractors.

5. New Contracting Authorities and Preferences Established under the CARES Act

Albert B. Krachman
This article discusses new contracting authorities delegated under the CARES Act as well as sole source opportunities available under the Act.

As COVID-19 issues permeate virtually all aspects of commerce nationally and internationally, we stand ready to help. Blank Rome’s Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) Task Force includes interdisciplinary resources across every business sector from insurance recovery to HR.