On February 25, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implementing Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors. The proposed rule (Proposed 29 C.F.R. Part 13) creates an employee right – for both hourly and salaried employees – to accrue and use paid sick leave while working on federal contracts. The proposed rule also imposes a complex regulatory scheme, with new federal contracting clauses created by the Department of Labor, on contractors to enforce the newly created employee rights. The salient points of the proposed rule are as follows: Continue reading Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors: New Proposed Regulations
Government contractors know to follow the instructions in solicitations, particularly instructions about when and how to timely submit proposals. But, what happens if the contractor follows the solicitation’s instructions to the letter and sends its proposal via e-mail to a government e-mail address but the proposal is rejected by the second in a chain of government servers before reaching the appropriate government e-mail inbox? According to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) (and coming the opposite conclusion of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) on the same bid protest), the Government Control exception under FAR § 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A)(2) applies and the improperly rejected proposal must be considered timely. Continue reading Properly E-mailed Proposal That Never Made It To The Contracting Officer’s Inbox Found Timely Submitted Under Government Control Exception
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided the case of K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5062 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2015). While this construction case reaffirms some relatively unremarkable concepts of liquidated damages and changes, it does provide some helpful guidance for all federal contractors regarding the required contents of claims against the government under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) .
K-Con Building Systems, Inc. (“K-Con”) contracted with the U.S. Coast Guard to build a $582,641 cutter support team building in Port Huron, Michigan. The project was supposed to be completed by November 20, 2004. The Coast Guard accepted the building as substantially complete on May 23, 2005, and withheld payment of $109,554 in liquidated damages (“LD’s”) computed at the contractually determined level of $589 per day. On July 28, 2005, K-Con submitted a CDA claim to the contracting officer requesting remission of the LD’s, asserting that the LD’s constituted an impermissible penalty. The claim also obliquely mentioned that the Coast Guard had failed to issue extensions to the completion date as a result of changes to the contract, but K-Con never set out any more facts behind this extension issue. The Contracting Officer denied the claim, and K-Con filed suit in the US Court of Federal Claims. Continue reading Contractors Must Provide Sufficient Notice Of The Basis And Amount Of A CDA Claim