So I’m rummaging through emails and come across a notice of a FAR update and see something called a “Small Entity Compliance Guide.” “Great,” I thought, “finally someone is trying to get information to small businesses about what they need to do to comply with the various government contracting regulations that get dumped on them from time to time.” Then I kept looking and, much to my dismay, what should appear but the Federal Acquisition Circular that has been published yea these many years with a new title. What a disappointment. Of course, it is entirely understandable. Congress comes along with the ‘‘Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007’’ (buried in the ‘‘U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007’’), without of course increasing any manpower or funding to do any of this. So what can one expect of an already overstretched agency but to morph something already being done into something that meets the letter of the congressional mandate without actually doing any additional work (other than pasting a new title on the Federal Register notice). Still, I was disappointed. A Small Entity Compliance Guide is a great idea. I hope one day soon we will see one that actually helps a small business. Until then we’ll just keep searching the internet.
A bit over a year ago, I wrote about an interesting government agency strategy to avoid having to deal with the messiness of “full and open competition.” (See https://vanhornelaw.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/finessing-cica-the-open-ended-support-contract-ploy/) Now it is time to discuss another ploy to avoid the annoyance of competition, the purported standardization determination.
On January 3, 2011, the Court of Federal Claims issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of the Interior’s attempt to standardize on Microsoft’s email system without conducting a competition. After attempting unsuccessfully to interest the Department in its ability to provide an email system for the Department, Google protested various actions of the Department to implement its sole source decision to use the Microsoft product. You can see a copy of the opinion at http://tinyurl.com/4956j5g.
From the opinion, it is pretty clear that Interior had made the decision to standardize on Microsoft some time ago, perhaps as early as 2007. For months, in 2009 and 2010, Google corresponded with and met with Interior officials to pitch its competing product. Up until late 2010, Interior essentially led Google on, claiming that a competition would be held for the Department’s email system. When solicitation documents became public in late 2010, it was finally clear that there was to be no competition and that Interior had made a final, internal decision to go with Microsoft. The actual solicitation was issued only to selected Microsoft resellers to implement the standardization decision.
This is not a new tactic among government IT offices. In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security tried to do the same thing with the acquisition of financial systems software. (See Savantage v. US, http://tinyurl.com/24vj2rg.) Both DHS and Interior set up the actual solicitation so that the real party in interest, the software developer, could not bid on the procurement by making the procured services only for implementation of a sole source designation of the software to be used. This appears to be an effort to simply avoid having to have a competition for the software since IT personal have developed their own preferences for a particular company’s software and choose not to subject that preference to the competitive market place. Obviously, the strategy becomes problematic when the sole source determination fails to meet statutory and regulatory requirements. Secondarily, the strategy also makes it more difficult for the software developer to challenge the procurement.
It would appear that GAO simply will not address this type of procurement law violation because the protester is not, and cannot be, a bidder. The Court of Federal Claims, on the other hand, has repeatedly shown a willingness to address CICA finessing ploys of various types. I assume this is because the two bid protest forums work under quite different jurisdictional mandates. The statutory mandate to GAO in ruling on bid protests is to “determine whether the solicitation, proposed award, or award complies with statute and regulation.” 31 U.S. Code 3554(b)(1). The Court, however, is under a mandate “to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” 28 U.S. Code 1491(b)(1). What the Court has that GAO does not is jurisdiction over “any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” The Court interprets this third leg of its jurisdictional statute quite broadly, relying on the very broad definition of “procurement” from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S. Code 403(2)(which is mirrored in the FAR at 2.101). See Ramcor Services Group, Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1286, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
So what is going on here? Why the tendency for this type of ploy to show up in the government IT arena? I would suggest that defining requirements, as would be necessary for a competitive procurement, is really not an easy task. By just getting comfortable and familiar with and then specifying one software product, the requiring office can avoid the unpleasant task of actually articulating what the agency needs. It would appear that procurement officials, perhaps because of a lack of technical expertise, can get snowed by inadequate sole source justifications. This is then compounded with use of all of the IDIQ type contracts available to the contracting officer (e.g., GSA schedule contracts, GWACS, various agency BPAs) which also help disguise the real sole source selection. Since the Savantage decision, and now certainly after the Google decision, it hopefully will be obvious that this particular CICA finessing ploy isn’t all that likely to succeed.
The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 was signed by President Obama on January 2, 2011. The Act established the World Trade Center Health Program and, among other things, provides for medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
To pay for the costs of this program, the Act imposes what amounts to a two percent gross revenue tax on “foreign persons” for amounts received as US government contractors for work performed in certain countries. The US Government contracts covered are those for services performed in, or goods produced or manufactured in, any country which is not a party to an international procurement agreement with the United States.
There are several bilateral trade agreements covering government procurement, but the primary multilateral agreement covering government procurement is the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement. Although the specific countries covered by this definition will most likely be specified in regulations that will certainly be issued to implement this Act, the countries most likely covered are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, central Asia and the Middle East (excluding Israel but including the Persian Gulf countries), and Turkey.
The Act defines “foreign person” as any person other than a United States person. The tax will apply to contracts awarded on or after January 2, 2011.