The Multiple Award Schedule program recently completed a contract-wide rollout of contract Solicitation updates, termed by GSA as a “Refresh”, and an important new clause that I recently blogged about has been incorporated into every MAS contract. The new FAR clause is becoming increasingly familiar amongst GSA contractors, though many don’t know that it is now part of their federal contract. FAR clause 52.203-13 “Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct” is a perfect example of a few bad apples spoiling it for the whole bunch. Well, perhaps there were more than just a few, but this new requirement is largely the result of egregious corporate misconduct over the past decade. It came about when the DOJ formally asked the FAR Council to increase compliance requirements for federal contractors. The goal was for contractors to have a clear and contractual obligation to disclose contractor misconduct. The incentive to make known this type of illegal activity already existed through the Qui Tam provisions of the FAR by awarding whistleblowers a percentage of recovered funds. This same provision is reinforced in 52.203-13. The requirements are broken into two parts: the first requires a “code of business ethics and conduct” for all contractors that have this clause incorporated into their contract. I have included FAR Clause for reference, but if you have any questions about implementing this into your business operations, please let us know. Trust me, this is not something you can sweep under the rug!

Well it’s the end of January and almost half way through the 2nd quarter of FY11 and we are still working on a budget that is being sustained by a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations rule used by Congress to fund the federal government in the event that a budget is not passed on time. This is not an uncommon practice. In recent years, it has become the norm to pass continuing resolutions and continue debate over various department budgets. Republicans recently made a bold pledge to eliminate $100 billion from this year’s budget. $100 billion might not look like a lot when compared to the total size of the federal budget, $3.5 trillion, but don’t get too comfortable with the idea yet. There are a couple of key problems with their campaign pledge:

In this month’s blog, I wanted to start out the new year talking about the US Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (“TAA”). Yes, the TAA (19 U.S.C. § 2501 et seq) continues to be one of the main pain points of GSA and USG contractors and at the same time, one of the most confusing subjects to tackle. This is no more evident than in the latest DOJ lawsuit filed on November 24, 2010 against four GSA contractors. All four of these contractors have a Schedule 75 contract for Office Products / Supplies and the DOJ alleges they “offered for sale and actually sold products that did not comply with the TAA.” Here is a relevant introductory section from the filing: “5. Each of the defendants entered into a MAS contract with GSA for the sale of office supply products. At the time of contract award and on occasions thereafter, each defendant agreed that it would sell to the United States Government only end products that originated in designated countries, and that it would not sell end products that originated in non-designated countries such as China, India, and Malaysia. But in fact, over the course of their GSA MAS Schedule 75 Contracts, each of the defendants knowingly offered for sale to Federal agency customers through the federal supply schedule office supply products that originated in non-designated countries, and sold and submitted invoices for payment to Federal agencies for thousands of individual office products that originated in China and other non-designated countries. Each of these invoices for TAA non-compliant items were false claims to which defendants were not entitled to be paid. As a result of these actions by defendants, the United States paid false claims for millions of dollars of non-compliant products that it would not have paid had it known that the products originated in non-designated countries.”

Have you thought about how your company will function in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster? In a post-9/11 and Hurricane Katrina world, this is a must. FEMA recommends that every business have an Emergency Plan as well as a Continuity of Operations plan (COOP) in order to maintain essential business functions. FEMA's readiness website,ready.gov, focuses on creating such plans for personal and business purposes.

GSA Helps Local Law Enforcement with the War on Drugs

When helping my clients to obtain a GSA Schedule contract, I notice that many decide to volunteer to participate in the Disaster Recovery Purchasing Program (“DRPP”) as part of their offer. However, very few clients understand exactly what this program is and what it means for them once they’ve been awarded a contract. To clear up some confusion surrounding the DRPP and cover the questions I typically get, here’s a little bit of background information: On February 1, 2007, an amendment was made to 40 U.S. C. 502 to authorize the Administrator of General Services to provide for the use of Federal Supply Schedules by state and local governments for the purchase of products and services to be used to facilitate recovery from major disasters, terrorism, or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attacks. These orders may be placed after the disaster or emergency event occurs, or in advance of a major disaster declared by the president. It is the responsibility of the state and local government entities to ensure that all products and services purchased are used specifically for recovery facilitation purposes. Since the amendment was issued, current GSA Schedule contracts have been modified as agreed upon by Schedule contractors and GSA, to allow Schedule contractors to participate in the DRPP. All vendors submitting new offers for Schedule contracts since February 1, 2007 are also required to indicate whether or not they will offer Disaster Recovery Purchasing.