We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
By memorandum dated June 7, 2018, Shay Assad, DoD's
Director, Defense Pricing/Defense Procurement and Acquisition
Policy, has reversed decades of procurement practice that has been
embraced by industry and the government alike in attempting to
manage the often unmanageable process of providing the government
with cost or pricing data that is current, accurate and complete as
of the date of agreement on price. Recognizing that inherent
"lag time" often makes it impossible for contractors to
provide "up to the minute" data in real time at the point
when the parties "shake hands," contractors have
customarily performed immediate post-handshake "sweeps"
of their databases to provide the government with any data that may
have escaped the pre-handshake dragnet. The government, in turn,
has customarily accepted the data, evaluated its impact on the
price, and negotiated, if and as appropriate, adjustments to the
price. The net result was that the government had all the data, its
impact on price was addressed, and the contractor avoided liability
under the Truth in Negotiations Act and, possibly, under the False
Claims Act. Everyone was happy.
Not anymore.
Under the June 7th memorandum, contracting officers
are generally to request the TINA certificate within 5 days of the
agreement on price and thereafter to ignore any sweeps
data until after the award of the contract, at which point the
government will evaluate the sweeps data to determine whether it
rendered the pre-hand shake data defective and entitles the
government to a price adjustment. And let's not underestimate
the ability of some enterprising plaintiff to allege that execution
of a certificate with the knowledge of outstanding sweeps activity
and price impacts is sufficiently reckless to justify an FCA
complaint.
This is absurd. OSD is directing contracting officers to ignore
data being proffered by the contractor for the purposes of
compliance with TINA for the purpose of manufacturing a claim
against the contractor under that statute. The memorandum conjures
up images of contracting officers behaving like the universally
recognized three monkeys strategically placing their hands over
their eyes, ears and mouths so that they can later claim "I
had no idea!" Or perhaps the image that most parents will
recognize – a toddler who puts his hands over his ears and
screams "I can't hear you" when he does not like the
message being transmitted by the parent.
Seriously, are these the self-images that any rational
government wishes to project?
Assuming that the government is unwilling to recant this latest
bit of irrationality, what is the recourse for a contractor? Well,
there are several options. None is particularly compatible with a
cooperative supplier/customer relationship, but – then again
– OSD has thrown the first stone in this episode –
Postpone the handshake until the
sweep has been completed. Establish a provisional price and make
the government wait for the handshake date. There may still be some
data that lag, but they will be far more limited.
Agree on an effective date for the
certificate that is earlier than the handshake date. This is
permissible under FAR 15.403-4(b)(2) and it could eliminate from
the scope of the certificate some of the "lag time" data
that the sweeps are designed to capture.
"Just say no." Advise the
government prior to award that the handshake is off unless and
until the government accepts, evaluates, and negotiates the impact
of the sweeps data. The customer won't like it; the folks who
book the business won't like it; and Shay Assad won't like
it. But it will work, and that matters.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This series, taught by two experts in the field, will walk participants through the most important issues facing government contractors as they navigate the fast-changing issues of cybersecurity.
Starting with a survey of the current threats confronting all companies in the cyber world, and ending with a session about how to deal with a breach of your systems, this series will also delve into the new government contracting rules relating to cybersecurity, as well as the new twists on existing technology and privacy laws in light of today’s cyber events.
The annual seminar addressing changes and developments in state and federal wage and hour laws is a unique one-day program and hundreds of California employers, personnel managers, controllers, attorneys, payroll managers, and supervisors attend each year.
This year registrants will receive a free copy of the New 2019 Edition of the WAGE AND HOUR MANUAL FOR CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS by Attorney Simmons (over 1020 pages). The book is the only one of its kind and is widely recognized as the leading text in its field.
Join us for a webinar to discuss the frenzy of legal activity with U.S. gambling laws and gambling-related legal issues with video games and esports. Federal and state gambling laws have changed more in the past few years than they have in a long time.
Significant state law changes have occurred concerning online gambling, sports betting, fantasy sports, and skilled-based games, to name a few. The major federal law prohibiting states from authorizing sports betting (PASPA) was struck down as unconstitutional and the Department of Justice reversed its opinion in the scope of the federal law that prohibits certain interstate betting (the Wire Act). The evolution of certain aspects of games by the game industry—particularly those involving loot boxes, casino-style games, and chance-based mechanics with virtual items—has raised the perception of certain gambling-related issues and has led to lawsuits. Despite being prohibited by game publishers, players’ engagement in unauthorized activities (e.g., selling virtual items on secondary markets and “skin gambling”) have exacerbated these issues. The financial success of these monetization techniques has led to greater legal scrutiny. The rise of eSports has also implicated sport betting issues.
AML and sanctions compliance enforcement costs remain in the billions as financial institutions in the US continue to be challenged by new regulatory requirements and continuing enforcement action
When it was enacted in August 2018, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018(FIRRMA) overhauled the US law governing CFIUS national security reviews for the first time in 11
years
The United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently issued a decision unsealing a False Claims Act case over the objections of the government, the relator and the defendant.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) was granted authority to review foreign investment in existing U.S. businesses under the Defense Production Act of 1950.
PODCAST: What's The Deal With Federal Contractors And The OFCCP? The Basics
