Merle M. DeLancey Jr.
In February, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) sent Corporate Scheduling Announcement Letters (“CSALs”) to 1,000 contractor establishments. Shortly thereafter, in March, OFCCP mailed follow-up compliance review scheduling letters (“Scheduling letters”). On September 7, 2018, OFCCP sent a second round of CSALs to an additional 750 contractor establishments.
Further, on September 19, 2018, OFCCP issued Directive 2018-08: Transparency in OFCCP Compliance Activities. The purpose of the Directive is to “ensure transparency in all stages of OFCCP compliance activities to help contractors comply with their obligations and know what to expect during a compliance evaluation, and to protect workers from discrimination through the consistent enforcement of OFCCP legal authorities.” The Directive identifies the “Roles and Responsibilities” of OFCCP and contractors during a compliance review and the “Policies and Procedures” that will be followed. Continue reading “OFCCP Is Staying Busy—So Should Government Contractors”
Merle M. DeLancey Jr.
Two recent judicial decisions involving the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) build on a trend reflecting a more favorable enforcement climate for contractors grappling with domestic preference regimes. Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a qui tam action that alleged fraud in connection with country of origin requirements imposed by the TAA. United States ex rel. Folliard v. Comstor Corp., 308 F.Supp.3d 56 (D.D.C. 2018) (finding the relator failed to adequately plead that the alleged TAA noncompliance was “material” to the Government’s payment decision). The decision marked a welcome early defeat of a False Claims Act case based on the enhanced materiality and scienter requirements of the Escobar decision (as we wrote about here).
Two recent federal court decisions appear to extend the trend of taking some of the bite out of TAA enforcement, and potential exposure for alleged noncompliance. Despite this welcome news, domestic preference programs remain a key legal obligation for government contractors (and an area likely to remain under scrutiny with the Administration’s professed focus on Buy American and Hire American initiatives). Continue reading “Trade Agreements Act Enforcement Loses a Couple More Teeth”
Michael Joseph Montalbano
Cost, schedule, and performance, the three pillars of defense procurement, may soon be accompanied by a fourth pillar: cybersecurity. As the nature of warfare evolves away from pure kinetic capabilities to the asymmetric, cyber realm, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) has had to grapple with the reality that its defense contractors are prime targets for infiltration. Indeed, in the February 2018 Worldwide Threat Assessment, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats specifically identifies defense contractors and IT communications firms as the primary focal points of China—one of the United States’ primary cyber adversaries. As a result of this new reality, DoD has begun the process of revamping the defense procurement system to place greater emphasis on cybersecurity. In response to these moves by DoD, contractors should take a fresh look at their current operations to identify their own cyber vulnerabilities as well as the vulnerabilities of their subcontractors, suppliers, and other partners. Without adequate preparation, contractors risk finding themselves at a significant disadvantage during future contract bids. Continue reading “Cybersecurity Could Make or Break Defense Contractors’ Chances of Future Awards”
Scott Arnold and Carolyn Cody-Jones
The Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), H.R. 5515, 115th Cong., 2d Sess. (2018), passed both chambers of Congress at breakneck speed this year, the fastest pace in approximately 20 years, and was presented to President Trump on August 3, 2018. The bill enjoyed substantial bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. It authorizes a $717 billion national defense budget and also reforms certain practices. Continue reading “Technical Data Rights Protections Eroded by FY19 NDAA”
Merle M. DeLancey Jr.
Earlier this year, I commented on state drug pricing transparency laws in effect and/or enacted during 2017. I also opined that it was likely more states would pass similar transparency laws requiring drug manufacturers to disclose pricing and/or price increases during 2018. While proposed drug pricing transparency and disclosure legislation has been introduced and is pending in numerous states, during the first half of 2018 only two states (Oregon and Connecticut) passed new laws imposing price disclosure requirements on drug manufacturers. Maine expanded its existing disclosure law. Also of note was the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit finding Maryland’s Anti-Gouging law unconstitutional. Continue reading “Drug Manufacturer Pricing Disclosures: Mid-Year 2018 Update”
Merle M. DeLancey Jr.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) National Acquisition Center (“NAC”), which administers the VA Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) Program, has already had a busy year. Among other procurement streamlining activities, the NAC currently is in the process of refreshing all nine (9) of its FSS solicitations to incorporate the most recent regulations and provide updates and clarifications.
Last month, the NAC updated the open and continuous Solicitation for Pharmaceuticals—Schedule 65 I B Pharmaceuticals FSS contract. The NAC issued Mass Modification 0006 and Solicitation Refresh 8. The Modification and Refresh update and incorporate procurement regulations and update or clarify FSS Program policy changes since the last refresh in February 2014, as amended. Refresh 8 applies to all companies submitting FSS proposals (for new contracts and renewals) after June 21, 2018. The Mass Modification is a standard bilateral modification to existing FSS terms and conditions, which the NAC is requesting manufacturers sign and return by July 30, 2018. Continue reading “Department of Veterans Affairs Updates Pharmaceutical Federal Schedule Supply”
Scott Arnold and Sara N. Gerber
On July 1, 2018, the threshold for obtaining certified cost and pricing data increases substantially from $750,000 to two million dollars. The change was authorized by the Department of Defense pursuant to a class deviation, pending official rulemaking and publication in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”). The class deviation implements Section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year 2018, which raised the certified pricing threshold contained in the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act (still commonly referred to as “TINA” based on the former name of the relevant statute, the Truth in Negotiations Act). The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council recently followed suit, advising other federal agencies that they “may authorize a class deviation to implement the threshold change.” In addition to the increase under the NDAA, the TINA threshold is also subject to adjustment every five years to keep pace with inflation. See 41 U.S.C. § 1908. The last adjustment for inflation, made in 2015, raised the threshold by $50,000. Continue reading “Certified Cost and Pricing Data Thresholds to Increase July 1, 2018”