Our Clarion Call: Thoughts on Our 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge

Dominique L. Casimir and Justin A. Chiarodo

A few weeks ago we wrote about our Government Contracts practice group’s decision to opt in to the 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge (the “Challenge”) launched by the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Section of Public Contract Law. The 21-Day Challenge was a syllabus of 21 daily assignments—curated for the ABA by Dominique Casimir—focusing on the Black American experience, including Black history, identity and culture, the experience of anti-Black racism in America, and the intersection between systemic racism and the legal profession.

What We Did: We invited our clients to participate with us in a series of weekly discussion groups to share perspectives on the racial equity movement currently underway in this country, to reflect on how we got here, and to challenge ourselves to consider what we are doing—in our respective workplaces, and as individual lawyers—to work towards racial equality. This experience was unlike anything we have done with our clients before, and admittedly we were not sure how clients would respond when we invited them to engage with us in an ongoing series of small-group, candid discussions about a topic as sensitive as race. We were incredibly humbled that so many of our clients enthusiastically welcomed this opportunity. Continue reading “Our Clarion Call: Thoughts on Our 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge”

Our Clarion Call: Join Us in the ABA’s 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge

Dominique L. Casimir and Justin A. Chiarodo

This will not be a typical Government Contracts Navigator post. But it concerns an issue as important to the government contracts bar as any new law, regulation, or judicial decision. We all have stories about how we came to practice in this vibrant field, which plays such a critical role in protecting our nation and advancing the public policies of the United States—including due process, fair competition, and equal opportunity. But we cannot ignore the reality that the great diversity of the government contracts law practice is not well-reflected in our bar of practitioners.

The events of recent weeks have led us to think hard about we what can do to help achieve greater racial diversity in our practice area. As lawyers, we typically solve the most complex problems we face by developing creative teams whose members are open to learning, collaborating, and communicating. That is why, as a practice group, we’ve jumped at the chance to participate in the ABA Section of Public Contract Law’s 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge (the “21-Day Challenge”). We believe that the 21-Day Challenge gives us an opportunity to learn, collaborate, and communicate with one another on one of the most pressing and important challenges in our professional lives: creating and maintaining a diverse and inclusive government contracts bar. Our practice group is “all in,” and we invite you to join us as we answer the ABA Section of Public Contract Law’s invitation to participate in the 21-Day Challenge. Continue reading “Our Clarion Call: Join Us in the ABA’s 21-Day Racial Equity Habit Building Challenge”

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”

DoD Urges Contracting Officer Transparency in COVID-19 Impacts

Albert B. Krachman and Dominique L. Casimir

The Department of Defense’s (“DoD”) Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued Guidance on March 10, 2020, addressing internal and external communications in response to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. See Planning for Potential Novel Coronavirus Contract Impacts.

The Guidance states that the Contracting Officers (as distinguished from Program personnel) hold the contractual authority to address contract performance impacts related to COVID-19. Moreover, the Guidance encourages close communication between Contracting Officers and contractors, and stresses Contracting Officer transparency, a term not normally seen in contract administration guidance. In pertinent part the Guidance states as follows:

Communication between the Government and contractors is key to total workforce safety and mission continuity. Therefore, contracting officers should be as transparent as possible as they make decisions potentially impacting contract performance or contractor personnel. Contracting officers should also encourage their contractor site leads/leadership to engage with their employees as soon as possible to share information and discuss any COVID-19 concerns they have, and ask their contractors to identify potential impacts to the welfare and safety of their workforce or contract performance, which impacts our total force. Continue reading “DoD Urges Contracting Officer Transparency in COVID-19 Impacts”

Examining and Dispelling Common Misconceptions about Suspension and Debarment

Dominique L. Casimir

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”