J. Catherine Kunz

J. Catherine Kunz has no picture

J. Catherine Kunz is a partner in the Washington office of Crowell & Moring. Ms. Kunz is a member of the firm's Government Contracts group. Her practice involves both counseling and litigating on behalf of clients in a range of government contract law areas, including GSA Schedule contracting, contract claims and disputes, fraud and abuse, cost accounting issues, purchasing and subcontracting, and federal health care contracting. Ms. Kunz also represents clients in qui tam actions under the False Claims Act and in bid protest, and counsels clients on government audits, procurement ethics, compliance programs, contract administration, and specialized government acquisition programs, including Federal Employees Health Benefits Program contracts and National Park concession contracts. Ms Kunz also has experience counseling clients on federal grants administration and audit matters.


Articles By This Author

$199.5 Million Settlement for GSA in FCA Action Against Schedule Holder

J. Catherine Kunz

GSA has now topped the $128 million settlement it reached in 2009 with NetApp – then the largest settlement reached in an FCA action against a GSA Schedule contractor – by settling with Oracle Corporation and Oracle America Inc. this past week in the amount of $199.5 million plus interest. The settlement resolves an FCA action brought by former Oracle employee, Paul Frascella, under the qui tam provisions of the statute, in which the Department of Justice intervened.

The Government’s and relator’s complaints had alleged that Oracle provided false, incomplete, and inaccurate information to the government during its negotiation of the Schedule contract; failed to disclose deep discounts given to the most favored commercial customers; and submitted false certifications. The Government’s complaint also alleged that Oracle actively took steps to ensure that its commercial sales to its basis of award customers did not trigger the Price Reduction Clause by means such as increasing the order size to exceed the contract’s maximum order threshold, arranging for the sale through a reseller rather than directly from Oracle, or changing the terms of the software license sold to the commercial customer so that it differed from the terms of the licenses on the GSA Schedule contract. 

While it would have been interesting to watch the outcome of the case had it been litigated, given the unusual allegations of fraudulent schemes to circumvent the Price Reduction Clause, the settlement amount indicates there were sufficient facts supporting at least some of the allegations, such that the company chose to settle rather than fight the case.

How to avoid being GSA’s (or a whistleblower’s) next target for a fraud action:

  • Ensure your commercial pricing disclosures are current, accurate, and complete
  • Negotiate a Basis of Award customer that your company can competently and consistently monitor with respect to discounts and changes in commercial pricing
  • Implement a rigorous tracking system to ensure that price reductions given to the Basis of Award customer(s) are also given to Government customers
  • Ensure that any certifications signed and submitted to the Government are 100% accurate
  • Implement internal controls and policies that require company personnel – from the sales force to the managers of the Schedule contract – to comply with the contractual requirements
  • Require mandatory training of company personnel to educate individuals on the contractual requirements and the importance of compliance
  • Implement a reporting system that allows employees to report concerns about the company’s compliance with the contract requirements and that ensures such concerns are properly addressed and resolved.   

Collateral Consequences of a False Claims Act Settlement

J. Catherine Kunz

Two years ago, GSA reached a $128 million settlement with Network Appliance, now known as NetApp Inc., based on a whistleblower False Claims Act (“FCA”) suit that alleged the company had failed to comply with the Price Reduction Clause of the contract. The settlement amount was, and continues to be, the largest Schedule contract fraud settlement reached by GSA.

While the company might have thought it had put the pain and expense of dealing with the lawsuit behind it, it now faces another legal action stemming from the FCA case. On August 9, 2011, Amalgamated Bank filed a complaint in Delaware state court seeking to compel inspection of NetApp’s books and records related to the company’s performance of its GSA Schedule contract. 

Amalgamated Bank serves as trustee of certain mutual funds which own shares of NetApp. Its complaint makes clear that the bank is searching for evidence of possible breaches of fiduciary duties by NetApp’s Board of Directors, specifically by “approving of and/or acquiescing in, and/or failing to monitor and prevent a course of systemic and sustained misconduct that allowed the [c]ompany consciously to ignore NetApp’s obligations to comply with federal procurement law . . . .”

The bank draws upon the facts alleged in the whistleblower’s complaint as a basis to demand books and records related to the company’s representations made to GSA concerning its compliance with contract requirements; the company’s compliance efforts and internal controls related to the Price Reduction Clause and Industrial Funding Fee provisions; any internal investigation or audit concerning the company’s contract compliance; and other related documents.

Whether or not the bank’s pursuit of NetApp’s Board of Directors will succeed is unknown at this time. But the fact that a company could face legal action by shareholders as a result of an FCA settlement is yet another indicator of the importance of avoiding FCA allegations in the first instance. While it is likely impossible to entirely remove the risk of having an FCA case filed against a company, particularly by a whistleblower, taking fundamental compliance steps, such as implementing and educating employees on policies, procedures, and internal controls specific to the requirements of the GSA Schedule contract (or any government contract), as well as conducting periodic internal reviews or audits to identify potential noncompliances will go a long way. In addition, instituting reporting mechanisms for employees to report concerns about contract compliance, and charging management with the responsibility to address and, if necessary, resolve reported concerns, will help companies prevent FCA allegations, particularly by disgruntled employees who believe, either accurately or mistakenly, that the company is not performing its government contracts appropriately.

Whistleblower Finally Gets His "Bite at the Apple" in Alleging TAA Non-Compliance

J. Catherine Kunz

Professional whistleblower Brady Folliard’s most recent False Claims Act suit against technology vendors alleging violations of the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) has survived a motion to dismiss with respect to two defendants (GovPlace and Government Acquisitions, Inc.), but otherwise has been dismissed for the other six defendants (which include Hewlett Packard and GTSI Corporation).

In this case, Mr. Folliard alleged that the defendants violated the False Claims Act by listing Hewlett Packard and Cisco products on their respective GSA Schedule and NASA Solution for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (“SEWP”) contracts that were manufactured in TAA non-compliant countries, that the defendants were aware that the products were not compliant and consciously misrepresented that fact to the Government, and that they submitted claims for money from the Government based on that misrepresentation. 

The district court dismissed the complaint against six of the defendants based on the False Claims Act’s “first-to-file” bar, finding that essentially the same allegations were leveled against the six defendants in United States ex rel. Crennen v. Dell Marketing L.P., 711 F. Supp. 3d 157 (D. Mass. 2010), which was filed prior to this case (and was subsequently dismissed). The court also determined that Mr. Folliard’s complaint was precluded on res judicata grounds as to defendant Hewlett Packard by a previous False Claims Act case Mr. Folliard had filed against that company, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity (United States ex rel. Folliard v. Hewlett-Packard Company, 272 F.R.D. 21 (D.D.C. 2011).

Defendants GovPlace and Government Acquisitions, Inc. were the only defendants in this case who had not previously been sued by Mr. Folliard or another whistleblower alleging the same violations as in this case. While these defendants argued that the complaint should be dismissed against them based on Mr. Folliard’s failure to plead fraud with particularity, the court determined that the complaint contained sufficient information to meet the pleading requirements for a fraud case. Unlike other cases filed by Mr. Folliard, including the case against Hewlett Packard and United States ex re. Folliard v. CDW Technology Services, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2010), the court here determined that the complaint contained sufficient detail about the alleged misrepresentations of product compliance and identified specific procurement orders for non-compliant products.

This latest Folliard case is yet another reminder of the importance of ensuring from the outset that products listed for sale on GSA Schedule contracts as well as other government contracts are compliant with the Trade Agreements Act, putting measures in place to routinely re-affirm the country of origin during contract performance, and promptly removing non-compliant products. It is also a reminder that individuals beyond those who meet the typical whistleblower profile(i.e., disgruntled employees or ex-employees) are on the lookout for any indication of possible TAA non-compliance and could seize upon such information and file a False Claims Act case against you.

Further Greening of Government Procurement: Will it Work?

J. Catherine Kunz

Raja Mishra contributed to this blog post.

On May 31, 2011, the government issued an interim rule that implements two key executive orders directing environmental attributes of federal procurement actions. Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” was issued by President Bush on January 24, 2007 and set a number of different environmental goals for federal agencies related to improving energy efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy sources, reducing water consumption intensity, reducing the quantity of toxic and hazardous chemicals and materials acquired, and ensuring that new building construction and major renovations comply with “green” guidelines. It also specifically required agencies to incorporate sustainable environmental practices in the acquisition of goods and services, including acquiring “biobased, environmentally preferable, energy-efficient, water efficient, and recycled contact products.” 

Two years later, on October 5, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance,” which required federal agencies to meet specific goals related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving water efficiency, pollution prevention and waste elimination. It specifically required agencies to advance sustainable acquisition by ensuring that 95% of new contract actions are “energy-efficient, water-efficient, biobased, environmentally preferable and non-ozone depleting, and contain recycled content, non-toxic or less-toxic alternatives.” It also directed agencies to implement “high performance sustainable federal building design, construction, operation and management, maintenance, and deconstruction.”

Now, these requirements have been made part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), and will affect agencies and contractors alike. From the agencies’ perspective, key requirements in the new FAR rule include:

(1) Considering and including sustainable acquisition requirements in synopses, acquisition planning documents, and descriptions of agency needs.

(2) Ensuring that 95% of new contract actions, including those for construction, contain requirements for products that are designated as energy-efficient, water-efficient, biobased, environmentally preferable (e.g., EPEAT-registered, non-toxic or less toxic alternatives), non-ozone depleting, or those that contain recovered materials.

(3) Making maximum use of energy-savings performance contracts (“EPSCs”).

(4) Implementing high-performance sustainable building design, construction, renovation, repair, commissioning, operation and maintenance, management, and deconstruction practices.

(5) When acquiring information technology, identifying agency requirements pursuant to EPEAT standards and policies that promote power management, double-sided printing, and other energy-efficient or environmentally preferable features, and best management practices for energy-efficient management of services and federal data centers.

The rule includes definitions of terms such as “renewable energy,” “sustainable acquisition,” “water consumption intensity,” and “greenhouse gases.”

The provisions affecting contractors include:

(1) a contract clause that requires the submission of paper documents, including proposals and reports, to be printed or copied on double-sided paper containing at least 30% postconsumer fiber, “whenever practicable” and when the information is not otherwise able to be submit electronically to the agency. Prior to this rule, there was only an agency “preference” for use of recycled paper.

(2) a contract clause requiring contractors that operate government-owned or government-leased facilities in the U.S. to comply with an agency’s environmental management system and provide monitoring and measurement information as required by the government.

Note that the interim rule removes the requirement for contractors to report and certify to toxic chemical releases, on the rationale that these reports are already required by federal environmental laws. Also, contractors should be aware that the Federal Procurement Data System (“FPDS”) will be used to collect sustainable acquisition data.

The stated goal of the rule is to leverage federal acquisition actions to foster markets for sustainable technologies and materials, products, and services. Whether the rule will accomplish this goal remains to be seen, particularly in light of shrinking private investments in these areas.

Comments on the interim rule are being accepted through August 1, 2011.

Interim Business Systems Rule Issued

J. Catherine Kunz

Terry Albertson and Linda Bruggeman contributed to this blog post.

On May 18, 2011, the DoD released an interim Business Systems rule with request for comments.  76 Fed. Reg. 28856.  Comments are due July 18, 2011.  The current version of the rule reflects comments received on the prior two proposed Business Systems rules (published January 15, 2010 and December 3, 2010), requirements in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011, and additional revisions to the rule.

 Six business systems are covered by this rule:

·       Accounting System

·       Earned Value Management System ("EVMS")

·       Estimating System

·       Material Management and Accounting System ("MMAS")

·       Property Management System

·       Purchasing System

DoD characterizes these business systems as the "first line of defense against waste, fraud, and abuse."  Accordingly, DoD sees this rule as improving the effectiveness of DoD oversight of contractors and achieving more effective and efficient management of DoD programs.  Notable changes with this version of the rule include the following:

Covered Contracts – The rule makes clear that contracts covered by the withholding provisions of the Contractor Business System rule will be contracts subject to the Cost Accounting Standards, but the substantive requirements of the interim rule specifying requirements for compliant business systems are not limited to CAS –covered contracts.  Therefore, small businesses will not be subject to withholding under the rule, but they may be required to meet relevant requirements for compliant business systems.  There is also nothing in the rule that would suggest that subcontracts are covered by the withholding requirements, although they are covered by some of the systems requirements, as described below.  

"Significant Deficiency" – The interim rule defines a "significant deficiency" as "a shortcoming in the system that materially affects the ability of officials of the Department of Defense to rely upon information produced by the system that is needed for management purposes."  This term is used throughout, and replaces phrases such as "deficiency that adversely affects the system" or "deficiency that adversely affects the system, leading to a potential risk of harm to the Government."  A determination by the government that a "significant deficiency" exists with a contractor's business system will be grounds for issuing a notice of withholding of payment and will require the contractor to submit a corrective action plan.  The rule allows for contractor response to an initial finding of a "significant deficiency" and the contracting officer ("CO") will have final authority to determine whether a "significant deficiency" exists. The CO is required to describe the deficiency in sufficient detail to allow the contractor to understand the deficiency.

Withholding – The rule provides that if a CO issues a final determination that a contractor's business system contains significant deficiencies, that final determination that there is a significant deficiency "will" include a notice of payment withholding.  However, unlike versions of the proposed rule, the CO will be required to make a final determination that a significant deficiency exists before withholding will be permitted.  The CO is directed to withhold 5% of amounts due from progress payments and performance-based payments.  Also, the CO will direct the contractor to withhold 5% from its billings on interim cost vouchers on cost, labor-hour, and time-and-materials contracts.  The withholding will continue until the CO determines that the contractor has corrected all significant deficiencies.  However, if the contractor submits, within 45 days of notice of the significant deficiency determination, a corrective action plan, the CO could determine to reduce the withholdings to 2%.  Because the withholding provisions apparently apply only to CAS-covered prime contracts, it is not clear what remedy the Government could invoke for system deficiencies on contracts and subcontracts not subject to the withholding provisions.  

Limitations on and Flexibility with Withholding – The rule establishes the ceiling on the withhold percentage as 5% for one or more significant deficiencies in any single business system and 10% for significant deficiencies in multiple business systems.  Note that payment withholding is not permitted on fixed-price line items where performance is complete and the items accepted by the government.  The interim rule also provides that the CO can identify one or more covered contracts containing the Contractor Business Systems clause (252.242-7005) from which to withhold payments.  In other words, the CO is no longer required to withhold payment from every contract containing the Contractor Business Systems clause, and the CO has the sole discretion to identify the contracts from which to withhold payments.  

Recognition of Government Delays – The interim rule recognizes, to a certain extent, that delay on the government's part occurs and takes steps to decrease the impact on contractors resulting from any such delay.  For example, normally, withholding of payments will be discontinued when the CO determines that the contractor has corrected all significant deficiencies.  Because there can be delay between when a contractor notifies its CO of a corrected significant deficiency and when the CO makes a determination that the significant deficiency is, indeed, corrected, the rule requires a reduction of the withhold percentage, by at least 50%, if 90 days has passed since the CO received notification of the correction and the CO has not yet verified that the significant deficiency has been corrected.  Nevertheless, the 50 percent withholding could continue indefinitely under the rule as promulgated, unless that contractor initiates a dispute under the CDA to seek payment.  Also, whereas the proposed rule required initial validation of an EVMS within 16 months, the interim rule allows for the CO to extend the deadline by which the initial validation must be done. 

System Approvals – The government will be permitted to issue approval of a business system only when there are no remaining significant deficiencies.  Although the rulemakers say that system approval will not be issued for "substantially corrected" systems, if the deficiencies have been corrected so that no "significant deficiencies" remain, withholding should cease.

An overview of the requirements, as set forth in the interim rule, for each of the six systems is provided below (as noted above, these substantive requirements are not limited to CAS-covered prime contracts):

Accounting System – Contractors receiving cost-reimbursement, incentive type, time-and-materials, or labor-hour contracts, or contracts which provide for progress payments based on costs or a percentage or stage of completion, are required to maintain an accounting system.  An accounting system is required to provide for, for example, a sound internal control environment, accounting framework, and organizational structure; proper segregation of direct and indirect costs; identification and accumulation of direct costs by contract; accumulation of costs under general ledger control; periodic monitoring, and a timekeeping system that identifies employees' labor by intermediate or final cost objectives.  If a CO determines that an accounting system deficiency affected a contractor's proposal, the CO can allow the contractor additional time to correct the deficiency, consider another type of contract (e.g., fixed-price incentive instead of a firm-fixed-price contract), use additional cost analysis techniques to determine cost reasonableness, or reduce the  negotiation objective for profit or fee.  It is not clear how these provisions relate to the FAR prohibition on awarding a cost-reimbursement contract in the absence of an "adequate" accounting system (see FAR 16.301-3(a)(1)).  

Earned Value Management System – The EVMS requirements apply to contractors that receive cost or incentive contracts valued at $20,000,000 or more and other contractors as determined by the CO.  The interim rule requires a contractor to use (a) an EVMS that complies with the EVMS guidelines in the American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748, Earned Value Management Systems (ANSI/EIA-748) and (b) management procedures that provide for generation of timely, reliable, and verifiable information for the Contract Performance Report ("CPR") and the Integrated Master Schedule ("IMS") required by the CPR and IMS data items of the contract.  If the contract has a value of $50 million or more, the contractor will be required to use an EVMS that has been deemed acceptable by the Cognizant Federal Agency ("CFA").  Any changes proposed by the contractor to its EVMS will need to be approved in advance by the CFA.  If the contract is less than $50 million, the government will not make a formal determination of compliance with ANSI/EIA-748, and advance government approval of changes will not be required.

Estimating System – Contractors with contracts awarded on the basis of cost or pricing data are required to maintain an estimating system that is reliable and consistent, produces verifiable, supportable, documented, and timely cost estimates, is consistent with and integrated with the contractor's related management systems, and is subject to financial controls systems.  For those contractors who received in their preceding fiscal year DoD prime contracts or subcontracts exceeding $50 million, they must disclose their estimating system in writing to the Administrative Contracting Officer ("ACO").  Additionally, the same disclosure requirement applies to those contractors who received in their preceding fiscal year DoD prime contracts or subcontracts exceeding $10 million and who were also notified by their CO that disclosure would be required.

Material Management and Accounting System –  Except for contracts awarded to small businesses, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations, the MMAS requirements apply to non-commercial item contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold awarded on a cost-reimbursement basis or on a fixed price basis with progress payments made on the basis of incurred costs.  The interim rule requires contractors to (a) maintain an MMAS that reasonably forecasts material requirements, ensures that costs of purchased and fabricated material charged or allocated to a contract are based on valid time-phased requirements, and maintain a consistent, equitable, and unbiased logic for costing of material transactions and (b) assess its MMAS and ensure it has adequate internal controls in place to ensure system and data integrity.  The rule identifies a number of internal controls required for an MMAS, including having policies, procedures, and operating instructions describing its MMAS, ensuring that material costs are charged to a contract based on time-phased requirements identified in the rule, and implementing mechanisms to identify, report, and resolve system control weaknesses and manual override.  

Property Management System – The property management system requirements apply to cost reimbursement, time-and-material, and labor-hour type contracts as well as fixed price contracts where the Government will provide Government property.  The interim rule requires contractors' property management system, which manages and controls government property, to comply with FAR 52.245-1.  This FAR clause requires contractors to maintain a system that creates and maintains records of all government property accountable to the contract; periodically performs, records, and discloses physical inventory results; has a process to create and provide reports of discrepancies, loss, theft, damage, or destruction; and complies with property closeout requirements.

Purchasing System – The purchasing system requirements apply to cost reimbursement contracts; letter contracts, time-and-materials contracts, and labor-hour contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold; and fixed price contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold under which unpriced contract actions are anticipated.  Contractors will be required to maintain a purchasing system that meets a number of criteria set forth in the rule.  These criteria include having an adequate system description, including policies, procedures, and purchasing practices that comply with the FAR and DFARS; ensuring that all applicable purchase orders and subcontracts contain all flowdown clauses; maintaining an organization plan that establishes clear lines of authority and responsibility; ensuring all purchase orders are based on authorized requisitions; maintaining adequate documentation of the history of purchase transactions; and applying a consistent make-or-buy policy.  The rule addresses methods for the government to mitigate the risk of purchasing system deficiencies on specific proposals, which include segregating the questionable areas as a cost-reimbursable line item, including a contract reopener clause that provides for adjustment of the contract amount after award, and reducing the negotiation objective for profit or fee.  The criteria for purchasing systems in the clause DFARS 252.244-7001 Contractor Purchasing System Administration includes several new requirements that may be problematic.  Subparagraph (c)(16) of the clause requires that the purchasing system must enable the contractor to "notify" the Government of the award of all subcontracts that include flowdown clauses authorizing the Government to audit the subcontractor and "ensure the performance of audits of those subcontractors."  There is no explanation of how or when the required notice is to be provided to the Government or how the contractor is expected to "ensure the performance" of authorized Government audits.  Subparagraph (c)(24) of the clause requires that the contractor provide "timely notice" to the Government if the prime contractor changes the amount of subcontract effort after award so that it exceeds 70 percent of the value of the contract or order and to provide the same notice if any subcontractor makes such a change as to lower-tier subcontract effort.  While such situations are likely to be uncommon, it is not clear how contractors, particularly large companies with thousands of active contracts, will monitor those contracts to identify the few unusual cases that may require notification. 

Learn More about GSA Schedule Contracting!

J. Catherine Kunz

I will be participating in a webinar on June 1, 2011, to discuss GSA Schedule contracting. This webinar will provide an informative overview of the key contract requirements and compliance obligations, including pricing disclosures, the Price Reduction Clause, Trade Agreements Act, labor qualifications, and payment of the Industrial Funding Fee. It will also provide insightful discussion of recent enforcement actions against GSA Schedule contractors, the creative fact finding and legal theories underlying these actions, and ways to minimize compliance risks and avoid large settlements to resolve contractual noncompliances. Please register for this webinar by going to: http://www.straffordpub.com/products/gsa-schedule-contracts-opportunities-and-legal-risks-2011-06-01.

How to Avoid False Claims Act Allegations: Have a Systematic Process to Identify TAA Non-Compliant Products

J. Catherine Kunz

Home Depot was sued in 2008 by two whistleblowers claiming that the company had violated the False Claims Act by selling products that did not comply with the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) to the U.S. government through its GSA Schedule contract. The United States has not intervened in the case. Home Depot recently moved for reconsideration of the court’s denial of its motion to dismiss the allegations. In denying Home Depot’s second attempt to get the complaint dismissed, the court carefully walked through the elements of False Claims Act liability and determined that the complaint was properly pled. U.S. ex rel. Scott v. Actus Lend Lease, LLC et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-07940 (Apr. 22, 2011 C.D. Cal.).

For example, the court determined that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts demonstrating the submission of false claims, by finding that the qui tam relators (i.e., whistleblowers) had provided a spreadsheet listing 118 representative examples of transactions involving products sold to particular government customers that were manufactured in non-designated countries. The court rejected Home Depot’s argument that its claims for payment themselves did not explicitly misrepresent compliance with the TAA, and relied on well-established case law holding that requesting payment for goods or services of lesser quality than those ordered by the government or that failed to meet contractual requirements or specifications can also constitute false claims for payment. Note that this case differs from other recent False Claims Act actions against GSA Schedule contractors alleging TAA non-compliance, e.g., the Folliard case, which were dismissed because the relators failed to show that the government had actually purchased the non-compliant products. 

The court then determined that the complaint contained facts to support the allegation that Home Depot knowingly presented the false claims to the government because the relators had alleged that, although Home Depot knew that its GSA Schedule contract required compliance with the TAA and that it sourced products from China, a TAA non-designated country, the company knowingly failed to “institute any mechanism” to ensure that TAA non-compliant items were not sold off its Schedule contract to the government. 

It is vitally important for GSA Schedule contractors to ensure, both at the start of contract performance and on a regular basis throughout the life of the contract, that items offered for sale to the government are compliant with the Trade Agreements Act. Implementing a process through which a Schedule contractor investigates at regular intervals the source of products listed for sale on its Schedule contract is advisable. Often times companies change suppliers, or suppliers themselves change their sources of products, so even if a Schedule contractor ensures at the start of its contract that all listed products are TAA compliant, it should not assume its Schedule is TAA compliant going forward. Particularly given the five year (or more) duration of a GSA Schedule contract, there can be numerous changes in the supply chain leading to TAA non-compliance. Conducting regular and on-going due diligence on the country of origin of products offered for sale on a GSA Schedule contract will go a long way toward protecting the contractor from a viable False Claims Act allegation.

More Alleged TAA Violations by GSA Schedule Contractors

J. Catherine Kunz

The United States has intervened in yet another False Claims Act suit against GSA Schedule contractors alleging violations of the Trade Agreements Act. On November 24, 2010, the United States filed its Complaint in Intervention in U.S. ex rel. Navarro v. Divine Imaging, Inc. et al.  The complaint alleges that four different office supply companies with Schedule 75 contracts with GSA offered for sale and actually sold products that did not comply with the TAA. Unlike other recent False Claims Act cases against GSA Schedule contractors involving alleged TAA violations, this complaint appears to have evidence that the Government did, indeed, purchase non-compliant products. Earlier cases, such as the Folliard matter, were dismissed due to lack of evidence that the government actually purchased the non-compliant products listed for sale on the contractors’ Schedule contracts.

The Navarro case was initially filed as a qui tam action by Vanessa Navarro against over 50 office supply companies. The Government’s complaint in intervention, filed against only 4 of the original 50 defendants, does not provide any insight into Ms. Navarro’s relationship, if any, with the defendants. Perhaps she is a current or former employee of one of the companies, or works for a competitor and possesses industry-specific information about the origin of the defendants’ products, or perhaps she has no relationship with the defendants and simply conducted some research of publicly available information to develop her claims. The important point to keep in mind as a GSA Schedule contractor is that your price list, which identifies the products and services for sale, is usually publicly available on GSA’s website, so anyone – including a competitor or a member of the general public – can develop information from your price list and other public sources to bring an action alleging non-compliance with the Trade Agreements Act.

It is vitally important for GSA Schedule contractors to ensure, both at the start of contract performance and on a regular basis throughout the life of the contract, that items offered for sale to the government are compliant with the Trade Agreements Act. Conducting regular and on-going due diligence on the country of origin of products offered for sale on a GSA Schedule contract will go a long way toward protecting the contractor from a viable False Claims Act allegation.
 

Is your DCAA Auditor Communicating Properly With You?

J. Catherine Kunz

Due to the scrutiny and criticism DCAA received from the Government Accountability Office in 2008 and 2009, DCAA took a number of steps to address the problems identified by GAO, many of which were intended to address the finding that DCAA auditors lacked independence. The emphasis in resulting DCAA audit guidance on auditor independence has created consternation both within the contracting community and among DCAA auditors as familiar avenues of communication among contractors, auditors, and contracting officers appeared to be shut down and fundamental questions were raised: Could an auditor have an entrance or exit conference with a contractor? Could a contractor have discussions with the auditors about an on-going audit?   Could a contracting officer invite an auditor to attend a pre-proposal conference with the contractor?

This fall, DCAA released its Audit Guidance on Auditor Communications (“The Rules of Engagement”) (.pdf) in an apparent effort to address concerns about the extent and nature of communications that are permissible and do not affect auditor independence. This guidance addresses auditor communications in all stages of an audit. Key guidance includes the following:

  • Auditor communication with the contractor and contracting officer is consistent with GAGAS (Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards), essential to conducting a proper audit, and does not necessarily result in impairment of auditor independence.
  • Auditor participation in pre-proposal meetings does not, per se, impair independence, and while auditors cannot advise the contractor on how to develop its proposal, they can advise what the proposal should contain to be considered adequate.
  • An entrance conference should be held with the contractor, in which an explanation of the purpose and overall plan for conducting the audit should be provided. 
  • During the audit, the auditor should discuss matters with the contractor to gain a full understanding of the contractor’s basis for each area under audit, and should discuss preliminary audit findings to ensure conclusions are properly based on all pertinent facts.
  • An exit conference should be held with the contractor to discuss the audit results and obtain the contractor’s reactions and responses to the audit findings. Except for certain types of audits involving costs subject to negotiation, auditors should provide the contractor with a copy of the draft report, or at least the “results of audit” section of the draft report.

Fundamentally, this guidance recognizes the importance of ensuring that auditors understand the contractor’s submission, the pertinent facts, and the contractor’s viewpoints. Further, auditors must understand the scope of the audit requested by the contracting officer and ensure the contracting officer understands the audit protocol to be followed and the resulting audit findings. To achieve all of this, there must be substantive and regular communication among DCAA auditors, contractors, and contracting officers. 

Whether this guidance will be followed by DCAA to its fullest extent remains to be seen, particularly given the agency’s current heavy audit load and overburdened resources. However, contractors should be aware of this guidance and press DCAA to engage in communication to the fullest extent possible.

Could You be Caught in DOL's Expansive Definition of a Government Subcontractor?

J. Catherine Kunz

It is common knowledge that performance of government contracts requires the contractor to comply with a range of clauses not found in commercial contracting, which are included to advance the federal government’s social and economic policies. For example, the Equal Opportunity clause (FAR 52.222-26) prohibits government prime contractors from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and requires most contractors to have an affirmative action plan. Additionally, it requires the prime contractor to “flow down” these same prohibitions and requirements to subcontractors. 

The Department of Labor is responsible for enforcing the Equal Opportunity clause, as well as clauses prohibiting contractors and subcontractors from discrimination based on disability (Affirmative Action for Workers with Disabilities, FAR 52.222-36) and on disability and veteran status (Equal Opportunity for Special Disabled Veterans, Veterans of the Vietnam Era, and Other Eligible Veterans, FAR 52.222-35). Historically, the DOL has taken a broad view of who qualifies as a government subcontractor subject to the requirements of these non-discrimination clauses. 

According to the DOL, there are two circumstances in which a person doing business with a government contractor is considered a subcontractor for purposes of the non-discrimination laws:

The first circumstance is when the person provides the Federal contractor with services or property ‘necessary to achievement of’ the prime Federal contract. The second circumstance is when a person ‘performs part of the Federal contract’ on the Federal prime contractor’s behalf.

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs v. Bridgeport Hospital  (.pdf), ARB Case No. 00-034 (Jan. 31, 2003) (emphasis added). While the DOL Administrative Review Board ("ARB") determined in Bridgeport that the hospital was not a subcontractor because its provision of medical care pursuant to a contract between it and the government contractor was not “necessary to performance” of the prime government contract, the DOL has reached the opposite decision for hospitals in two cases since then.

First, in Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs v. UPMC Braddock et al. (.pdf), ARB Case No. 08-048 (May 29, 2009), the DOL ARB determined that the medical services provided by three UPMC hospitals pursuant to an agreement with UPMC Health Plan, which had an HMO contract with the Office of Personnel Management to provide health care services to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, qualified the hospitals as subcontractors and subjected them to compliance with the non-discrimination clauses because they performed part of UPMC Health Plan’s government contract. UPMC’s appeal of the DOL ARB’s decision is pending.

Second, on October 18, 2010, a DOL Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined that a Florida hospital that provided medical care to TRICARE beneficiaries qualified as a government subcontractor such that the DOL had jurisdiction to audit the hospital’s compliance with its affirmative action and non-discrimination obligations. See Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs v. Florida Hospital of Orlando (.pdf), ALJ Case No. 2009-OFC-00002. In this case, the hospital had an agreement with Humana Military Health Services, Inc. (“HMHS”), an entity that performed a government prime contract to provide managed health care services to TRICARE beneficiaries. The hospital argued that it was not performing any of the contractual obligations under the prime contract, so it did not meet DOL’s definition of “subcontractor,” but the DOL ALJ found that the prime contract required the provision of medical services to TRICARE beneficiaries and, by providing medical services to its patients, which were TRICARE beneficiaries, the hospital did perform part of HMHS’ prime contract duties. Whether the hospital will appeal this decision remains to be seen.

The UPMC Braddock and Florida Hospital of Orlando decisions are particularly important to providers of medical services when they have agreements with federal health care program contractors, but are equally instructive to all other government subcontractors with respect to DOL’s broad notion of a “subcontractor” for purposes of enforcing the affirmative action and non-discrimination laws. Whether DOL’s broad definition will be adopted by other agencies responsible for enforcing other flow down clauses contained in government contracts remains to be seen.