On Wednesday, September 9th at 12 PM Eastern, join our government contracts attorneys for a webinar entitled: “Mitigating Trade Agreements Act Risks for GSA Schedule Holders.” During this 60-minute webinar, we will provide an overview of the GSA Schedule contract requirements related to the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”), review recent enforcement actions by the government
On March 13, 2014, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum titled “Class Deviation – Determination of Fair and Reasonable Prices When Using Federal Supply Schedule Contracts.” This memorandum directs DoD contracting officers to make their own determination of fair and reasonable pricing when using Federal Supply Schedules (also known as GSA or VA Schedule contracts), rather than rely on the fair and reasonable price determination made by GSA when GSA awards Schedule contracts. Specifically, the memorandum establishes a class deviation to FAR 8.404(d) that will be applicable to DoD entities buying off Schedule contracts. This deviation provides that “GSA has determined the prices of supplies and fixed-price services, and rates for services offered at hourly rates, to be fair and reasonable for the purpose of establishing the schedule contract.” But then it states:
Continue Reading GSA Schedule Contracting: Has Selling to DoD Just Gotten Harder?
Just last week, the Department of Justice announced another large False Claims Act settlement with a GSA Schedule contractor – for $60.9 million. A review of the underlying qui tam complaint, filed by a former vice president of the contractor, reveals multiple alleged failures by Tremco Inc. and RPM International to comply with the basic – yet often very challenging – requirements of the contract: disclosure of commercial pricing and compliance with the Price Reduction Clause. Among a number of allegations, the complaint alleges that the roofing supplies and services contractor failed to disclose to GSA that it offered better pricing to its commercial customers than identified on its published price list. As a result, the complaint states that the government was disadvantaged by negotiating higher pricing than it would have, had it known about the contractor’s actual commercial pricing practices. The complaint also alleges that, during the course of performing the GSA Schedule contract, the contractor failed to provide price reductions to government customers when it provided discounted pricing to its commercial customers.
Continue Reading GSA Schedule Contracting: Does Your Company Have Sufficient Internal Controls to Minimize Noncompliance Risks?
On Monday, DoD issued a final rule in a continuing effort to reduce the potentially inappropriate use of commercial item contracts. DFARS: Commercial Determination Approval, 77 Fed. Reg. 14,480, (Mar. 12, 2012) (to be codified at 48 C.F.R. pt. 212). The rule, most notably, modifies DFARS subpart 212.102 to require approval at the level above
While the administrative tools of suspension and debarment allow the government to prohibit entities from receiving contracts or grants directly, the procurement regulations also contain restrictions on prime contractors’ ability to subcontract with suspended or debarred entities. Historically, these restrictions, found at section 52.209-6 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, have:
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
On May 16, 2011, GSA published a Notice to clarify whether information contractors input into the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (“FAPIIS”) is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Presumably this Notice was prompted by a recent flood of FOIA requests. In essence, the Notice provides that Information posted
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
In addition to making specific recommendations for Services contracts, the Multiple Award Schedule (“MAS”) Advisory Panel’s Final Report (.pdf) recommended a number of actions to be taken by GSA related to the acquisition of Solutions (a specific combination of services and products defined by each customer’s needs).
The Panel recommended:
The Multiple Award Schedule (“MAS”) Advisory Panel presented a series of recommendations (.pdf) to the new GSA Administrator on March 10, 2010 related to the structure, use and pricing of the GSA MAS Program. The Panel’s charge was to focus on the “most favored customer” and price reduction provisions in Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS) contracts