Government Contracts, Investigations & International Trade Blog : Government Contracts Lawyer & Attorney : Sheppard Mullin Law Firm : Bids, Licenses, Awards, Conflict of Interest.

By Christopher E. Hale

Contractors pursuing claims against the government under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) can often fall victim to the jurisdictional pitfalls of the Act from the very start of the claims process, i.e., with the claim itself. After a contracting officer denies a claim under the CDA, a contractor can appeal the decision to either a Board of Contracts Appeals or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. However, there is no shortage of cases in which such appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the original requests for payment did not constitute “claims” under the CDA.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By John M. Hynes

In the past, we have reported on a number of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") developments and have furnished subscribers with a primer on the FCPA. The latest developments in this area relate to an investigation of the motion picture industry and its activities in China.

On April 26, 2012, Reuters reported that the US Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") recently sent letters of inquiry to several prominent movie studios seeking information about their dealings in China that may constitute violations of the FCPA. Later reports indicate that the letters were sent to Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Studios, Warner Bros., and Dreamworks Animation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Joseph Barton

On May 2, 2012, Federal agents with the Department of Justice's (“DOJ”) special task force made the biggest Medicare bust in U.S. history, and a splash in the media, when it cracked down on a number of unrelated Medicare fraud schemes across the country that resulted in an alleged $450 million in false claims being submitted to Medicare over the past six years. A total of 107 people were arrested, including doctors, nurses, social workers, office managers, and patient recruiters. Charges ranged from submitting false billing for home healthcare, mental health services, HIV infusions, and physical therapy, to money laundering and receiving kickbacks.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Anthony N. Moshirnia

Much has been written in this space and others regarding the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), and its likely and observed impact on the business and legal landscape (e.g., executive compensation, whistleblower incentives, and “conflict minerals”. Not least among the Act’s effects is its mandate for a large number of rulemakings across government regulatory bodies. In total, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated 398 different rulemakings from 20 different regulatory agencies. In some cases, the Act requires more than one agency to issue rules on the same topic. Congress also specified a rulemaking schedule that applies to most of the rules required under the Act. 275 of the required rulemakings carry Congressionally mandated deadlines or annual requirements.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Louis D. Victorino

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently issued a so-called en banc (all judges of the court) decision with great importance to Federal Government contractors. In Zoltek Corp. v. United States, Fed. Cir., No. 2009-5135, March 14, 2012 ("Zoltek II"), the Court redefined the scope of the statute underlying the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) "Authorization and Consent" clause, 28 U.S.C. §1498. In so doing, the Court confirmed Federal Government contractor immunity from patent infringement suits in instances where the patent infringement may have occurred in whole or in part outside of the United States. The more fundamental holding of the case was to reverse its own prior decision in the same case (“Zoltek I”), in which the CAFC had held that §1498 does not waive Federal Government patent immunity from certain patent infringements occurring in part outside the United States.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Bruce Shirk and David Gallacher

In March 2010, the U.S. Government rolled out a new tool promised to provide a centralized source for all publicly available contractor past performance and integrity information – the Federal Performance and Integrity Information System (“FAPIIS”). We have written multiple times about it (in June 2010, March 2011, and January 2012), including the importance of monitoring the information entered to ensure that past performance evaluations are accurate, complete, and fair, and also to prevent release of proprietary information to the public. But the system continues to evolve and, as contractors try to manage the information in FAPIIS, many companies find the process baffling due to (among other things) the multiplicity of modules within the system and the acronyms used to identify them. In fairness, government personnel tasked with implementing FAPIIS have developed on-line training to assist contractors in navigating this complex system. That said, not everyone involved in government contracting can or will take the training, but everyone does need a basic understanding of FAPIIS. So keep reading, because you won't find this information in the FAR.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Keith Szeliga and Franklin Turner

On December 2, 2011, Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 3.11 - Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest for Contractor Employees Performing Acquisition Functions -- took effect. The new Rule imposes a host of compliance obligations on contractors, including the requirement to screen for and prevent personal conflicts of interest when supporting acquisition functions. The Rule also requires contractors to prohibit covered employees from utilizing non-public information for personal gain and to obtain from covered employees executed non-disclosure agreements prohibiting the dissemination of such information.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By David Gallacher

In December 2011 the World Trade Organization reached an agreement in principle to implement “historic revisions” to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA), a trade agreement covering the public procurement markets in more than 40 WTO member states (including the United States). On March 30, 2012, the WTO GPA formally adopted these revisions. While the updates have been formally agreed upon, it may take months until two-thirds of the signatory countries ratify the agreement and make the changes official. Nevertheless, the international community appears to be moving forward with plans to implement, pending ratification.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By David S. Gallacher and Kerry O'Neill

Last April, we wrote about proposed changes to Department of Defense ("DoD") reporting requirements for independent research and development ("IR&D"), raising concerns about how the proposed change would tie recoverability of IR&D costs to new reporting and disclosure requirements. Recently, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement ("DFARS") 231.205-18(c) was finalized, with changes. See 77 Fed. Reg. 4632 (Jan. 30, 2012). This final rule is a mixed bag that got some things right, but also leaves some of the most serious issues unresolved.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link