For the majority of vehicle owners, car insurance is mandatory, but the price of a policy can fluctuate for many different reasons. To find cheap coverage, motorists need to shop around, make comparisons, and take advantage of the many discounts and savings that can help lower policy premiums. Purchasing a plan that does not include unnecessary coverages, and researching alternative options available through the state can often allow motorists to insure their automobiles for a reasonable price.

An essential step for motorists looking for cheap auto insurance rates is to compare quotes. Like many other products, the price of vehicle coverage can fluctuate depending on the provider. To find an affordable policy, motorists must compare the prices of as many plans as possible. One of the more efficient ways of doing this involves completing an online search. The Internet can provide motorists with dozens of estimates at once from numerous sources.

While shopping around, motorists should consider the impact that coverage can have on a policy. Often the types of protection that are added to a plan can have a significant impact on price. Omitting unnecessary protection from a policy can allow motorists to significantly lower their premium. For example, roadside assistance or MedPay may not be necessary if a vehicle owner already obtains these benefits from other sources. Once a desired level of coverage has been chosen, drivers should compare similar policies to get accurate price comparisons.

Comparisons to get Cheap Car Insurance

Apart from unique rates, individual insurance companies also typically offer a variety of discounts. Insurers frequently advertise special offers that can be utilized to lower coverage costs. By comparing multiple insurers to find one that can offer the most applicable assortment of savings, motorists may end up with considerably cheaper auto protection.

Discounts are generally awarded for a wide range of reasons, but several offers are more common than others. Motorists can usually get reduced rates for maintaining a clean driving record, insuring multiple vehicles at once, or for driving a vehicle that is equipped with additional safety features. Because each insurer generally offers a different assortment of savings, it is important to make as many comparisons as possible.

If a motorist is unable to find cheap coverage on their own, they may want to investigate affordable options that may be available through the state. In locations such as New Jersey and California, many motorists are given the opportunity to buy a minimalistic plan at a lower rate. Additionally, the Washington State Department of Licensing requires special discounts for motorists who complete Driver training programs that have been officially approved. These resources can help vehicle owners find affordable auto protection with a small amount of research and minimal effort.

Automobile accidents can be costly for all motorists involved, but buying adequate insurance can help motorists pay for a wide range of damages. In North Carolina, vehicle owners are required to maintain a minimum amount of auto protection to legally driver, but purchasing additional coverage can be a wise investment. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that in 2010 there were over 6,536,000 licensed drivers in the Tar Heel State, each of which must purchase liability protection before getting behind the wheel.

Residents must maintain bodily injury and property damage liability with minimum limits of 30/60/25, in addition to uninsured/underinsured motorist protection. Finding a willing insurer generally requires little effort, but to find cheap car insurance in NC a motorist usually has to shop around and compare numerous quotes. Prices usually vary because premiums are usually based on a driver’s accident risk, and individual companies often interpret risk differently.

In North Carolina there are dozens of companies that are licensed to sell automobile insurance. Getting quotes can be a time consuming process for motorists who contact insurers directly, but luckily residents have the option of searching online. Comparing estimates on the Internet allows vehicle owners to see dozens of sample rates from a single website. While shopping, however, it may be beneficial to gather quotes for policies that include more extensive coverage.

Consider Additional NC Car Insurance

According to 2008 Traffic Crash Facts provided by the NC Department of Transportation, there were over 214,000 reported traffic accidents in the Tar Heel State. If a resident is involved in an automobile accident, liability insurance may not be able to cover many of the damages. The auto protection required by the state only covers damage that the policyholder is at-fault for. To be prepared for a wider range of damages, NC residents are encouraged to consider pursuing additional protection.

Damages caused by flooding, hail, falling objects and other sources commonly associated with hurricanes and tropical storms are usually covered by comprehensive coverage. This added protection also pays for damages caused by fire, vandalism, and theft. Adding collision coverage to a policy will help motorists pay for damage to their own vehicle caused by a collision with another automobile. There is a wealth of options and additives for vehicle owners to choose from that can considerably improve any policy

Most NC residents have the resources to efficiently shop around and find an adequately priced policy. It’s important to remember, however, that driving without adequate coverage in the Tar Heel State is illegal. If an uninsured motorist is involved in an accident, they may still be personally responsible for all at-fault damages. This could mean heavy financial losses for an unprepared motorist. Additionally, residents convicted of operating a motor vehicle without sufficient coverage could have their license suspended and face numerous fines.

Vehicle owners are often curious about the cost of automobile insurance, but policy prices usually fluctuate for many different reasons. The claims history, vehicle details, and personal information of individual motorists can all have a noticeable impact on coverage costs. This also means that prices are likely to be different for individual drivers. To answer the question of how much does car insurance cost for a specific motorist, vehicle owners should shop around and make quote comparisons.

Coverage costs are primarily based on a vehicle owner’s risk of filing a claim. To determine a motorist’s level of risk, insurers generally analyze extensive amounts of information that can all have a statistical impact on a driver’s likelihood of filing a claim. These details could include a person’s age, gender, marital status, address, level of education, and credit rating among many other particulars.

Additionally, the make, model, and year of an automobile, as well as a motorist’s desired level of coverage, can noticeably impact policy prices. Once a vehicle owner’s level of risk has been determined, insurers typically group motorists into specific categories, or markets. These categories include the preferred, standard, and nonstandard markets, with drivers in the riskier groups generally paying more for vehicle coverage.

Compare How Much auto insurance May Cost

Insurance costs are largely based on How companies interpret risk and the personal information of vehicle owners is frequently used in this process. Although many insurers generally target drivers in the preferred or standard market, there are some policy providers who can financially benefit from insuring riskier motorists. To benefit from these potential prices differences, motorists are encouraged to shop around and explore all of their options before making a purchase.

Comparing as many quotes as possible can be an effective way of determining how much coverage is going to cost, and which insurers can offer the lowest rates. Traditionally, to find this information, motorists would have to contact several companies individually for pricing information. However, vehicle owners can also utilize online tools to evaluate multiple sample rates at once.

Because the cost of vehicle coverage can easily fluctuate, frequently comparing estimates online can help motorists save money by providing opportunities for drivers to adjust their existing policies or switch insurers. Additionally, these resources can help to identify methods for reducing coverage costs. For example, motorists can try adjusting their desired level of coverage, or shop around for a company that can provide an applicable assortment of discounts.

On Thursday, January 12, 2012, the Small Business Administration issued an interim final rule, which alters the protest procedures pertaining to its Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program. The changes serve two primary functions. First, when the SBA implemented the WOSB program by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register on October 7, 2010, it established set-aside thresholds of $5 million for contracts pertaining to manufacturing and $3 million for all other contracts. As part of the new interim rule, those thresholds have increased to $6.5 million and $4 million, respectively, to account for inflation.

Second, the changes ushered in as part of the interim rule, make the protest procedures for the WOSB Program consistent with the SBA’s other set-aside programs. For example, under the procedures that existed before issuance of the interim rule, if a contracting officer received a protest on a WOSB set-aside and, nonetheless wished to make an award, that contracting officer would have to issue a written determination concluding that doing so was required to prevent significant harm to the public interest. This requirement is inconsistent with the procedure outlined for other programs. Under the interim rule, a contracting officer may issue an award, despite a protest, if he or she makes the simple determination that doing so is necessary to protect the public interest.

As there have been few reported protests involving the WOSB Program, the new rules should not cause wide-spread confusion. If you are considering a protest, however, you are encouraged to read the changes and consult with a legal professional if you have any questions.

There has been a noticeable increase in the number of contractors proposed for debarment and in the tenacity with which alleged ethical violations are being investigated. Government contractors who receive contract awards in excess of $5 million are required to have a written Code of Business Ethics and Conduct pursuant to the requirements of FAR 3.1002 and FAR 3.1004. (Also See FAR 52.203-13 and 52.203-14). This requirement is very important in light of FAR 9.104-1, which states that to be determined responsible, a contractor must have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. It is incumbent upon federal contractors to take these requirements seriously and to not only have a written code, but to conduct themselves in such a way that ethical conduct is built into the culture of the company.

In our experience, when companies face the possibility of suspension or debarment it is typically because a rogue employee does something foolish, or because someone simply does not follow the rules. Most frequently, the act that comes to the attention of a suspension and debarring official is not something that was done with the knowledge, or approval, of company management. In determining whether the company, and its management, should be held responsible for the misconduct of an employee, however, the suspension and debarring official will be very interested in whether the company has a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct in place, whether there is a compliance program, whether there is on-going ethics training, and whether the ethical culture of the company is effectively communicated to every employee.

Simply having a Code of Business Ethics and Conduct in place is not enough. Too many companies have drafted a code, conducted one round of training, and have had virtually no follow-up for a number of years. That sort of a superficial ethics program will not convince the government that your company has done everything possible to avoid unethical conduct and will increase the risk that the company will be implicated in the misconduct of an offending employee. Our recommendation is that contractors periodically, at least once a year, review and update the company’s Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, that an on-going ethics compliance program be put into place, and that both management and other employees have frequent training. The consequences of not taking the government’s ethics requirements seriously can be devastating.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm’s Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters, including ethics compliance, and presents ethics training and compliance seminars.

Financial responsibility requirements in New York make it mandatory for motorists to purchase auto insurance before being legally allowed to drive. Vehicle owners are encouraged to extensively shop around before choosing a coverage provider because individual insurers usually offer unique rates. The NY Department of Financial Services estimates that there are nearly 270 companies that are licensed to sell vehicle coverage in the Empire State, giving motorists a wealth of options.

Finding an adequate New York auto insurance company involves shopping around and comparing the many choices that are available. Motorists should explore the rates offered by numerous companies, as well as an insurer’s services. A coverage provider’s ability to handle claims quickly and efficiently can be an invaluable skill after an accident. To efficiently shop, motorists have the option of using the Internet to gather an extensive amount of data in a short amount of time.

Quote comparisons can be made online with minimal effort. Motorists in the Empire State can often accumulate dozens of estimates from one website after answering a short series of questions. These comparisons are important because individual companies use different methods for rating motorists. For this reason, the cheapest insurer for one motorist may not be the cheapest for another. After finding an adequately priced policy, it is still important to investigate several additional qualities before making a purchase.

Although only 14 companies write roughly 73 percent of the auto insurance policies sold in Nebraska, residents still have multiple options when choosing a coverage provider. Shopping for vehicle protection is necessary for any driver in the Cornhusker State who wants to legally drive, because motorists must be able to show proof of financial responsibility when operating a motor vehicle. Buying an adequately priced policy frequently involves exploring multiple options, making price comparisons and eventually choosing a legitimate insurer.

When shopping for Nebraska automobile insurance quotes, coverage providers generally require the same type information. Motorists are often requested to relay their age, gender, marital status, location, driving history, vehicle details and driving habits. This information is used to rate motorists and determine their risk of filing a claim. Although individual companies examine similar details, insurers often use unique rating methods, resulting in quotes that are likely to be different depending on the policy provider.

The price differences between insurers can be used by motorists in the Cornhusker State to buy inexpensive vehicle coverage. For drivers to increase their chances of finding cheaper insurance, they are encouraged to compare as many quotes as possible online. The Internet can often produce dozens of sample rates from one website with minimal effort. Before making a final purchase, however, it is essential to investigate a number of additional qualities as well.

Buy Legitimate Nebraska auto insurance

To avoid misquotes or canceled insurance policies, motorists must shop for quotes using accurate information. If a motorist intentionally alters their personal details to receive lower rates, they may be convicted of fraud, depending on the severity of the situation. Additionally, motorists should ensure that every potential coverage provider is licensed to sell vehicle coverage in the Cornhusker State. If a motorist purchases a policy from an unlicensed insurer, there is no guarantee that any future claims will be paid. To double check the legitimacy of a company, motorists are encouraged to contact the NE Department of Insurance if necessary.

Before buying Auto Liability Insurance in Nebraska, drivers are encouraged to become familiar with the warning signs of fraudulent activity. Vehicle owners should be wary of any company or agent that requests direct premium payments in the form or cash or money orders. Drivers should always receive detailed receipts for all monetary transactions that take place between a motorist and the insurer. Additionally, motorists should be cautious of suspicious looking policy identification cards, or insurance cards that do not contain complete information. Having legitimate and accurate proof of financial responsibility is absolutely essential when operating a motor vehicle in the Cornhusker State. Taking the time to shop for a policy that is adequately priced and comes from a trusted insurer is often well worth the effort.

A motorist in Vermont without auto insurance could lose their driver’s license if caught behind-the-wheel. All registered vehicles in the Green Mountain State must be insured with a minimum amount of liability coverage to pay for damages that the vehicle operator may be responsible for. Uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) protection is also mandatory for residents who want to drive, but there are variety of options for motorists who are looking for policies with more extensive coverage. Paying for a comprehensive plan can be a challenge for many motorists, but thoroughly shopping around for the lowest available rates can make policy payments more manageable for many vehicle owners.

The amount of Vermont automobile insurance that is required of all motorists in VT includes liability coverage and UM/UIM protection. Auto liability is divided into bodily injury and property damage with minimum limits of 25/50/10. This minimum threshold, however, may not be high enough to cover more severe accidents. For example, if a resident is at-fault for a collision that results in more than $10,000 worth of property damage, they may still be required to pay for the remaining damage. Purchasing higher limits can be a cost effective way for drivers to improve their level of protection. Including optional coverages can increase the price of a policy, but comparing estimates may help make those costs more manageable.

Added Coverage for Vermont auto insurance

Based on 2006 Crash Highlights in the Green Mountain State, there were over 14,000 reported crashes, and in those accidents liability protection was not always able to cover the resulting damages. A motorist may encounter a wide variety expenses after an accident that may only be covered by an insurer if the policyholder has purchased additional protection. For example, damage to a motorist’s own vehicle may only be covered by comprehensive and collision coverage. This added protection is frequently required by lenders, and covers damages as the result of a collision (collision) and an assortment of additional damages (comprehensive). This generally includes fire, falling objects, flooding, vandalism, theft and hail. With additional protection, however, also comes a higher price.

Improving upon the automobile coverage that is required in the Green Mountain State can be costly unless drivers shop around for the lowest rates. Comparing prices from multiple insurers often takes time, but using the Internet can usually quicken a motorist‘s search. The prices offered by individual companies are likely to be unique and varied for a number of reasons. When making quote comparisons it is important to evaluate plans that include the same level of coverage in order to get an accurate assessment. The goal of every motorist should be to find the most extensive protection available for the lowest rates, and the Internet can be a helpful tool for almost every VT motorist.

In New Mexico, motorists are expected to maintain a minimum amount of liability insurance while behind-the-wheel. Although driving while uninsured is not an option for many residents, motorists still have the ability to choose their insurer, as well as their payment method. How a motorist pays for their vehicle coverage can often impact the overall price of a policy, in addition to the upfront costs.

There are many different New Mexico auto insurance companies to choose from, and many offer policy payment methods that may be unique. Most commonly, drivers have the option of paying for a plan on a monthly or quarterly basis, or entirely upfront when the policy is purchased. Each method has its own advantages, and motorists are encouraged to consider all of the possibilities before settling on a single method.

When a New Mexico motorist pays for auto insurance on a monthly basis, they are distributing the overall price of a policy across the entire term. This can often make vehicle coverage more affordable for many people, but may also lead to a higher overall policy price. When a motorist makes an installment, it is usually accompanied by a billing or processing fee. This fee can sometimes be as high as $10.00 a month. Although initially a small sum, these additional fees can add up over time.

Additional Payment Options for NM auto insurance

To reduce the number of billing fees that a motorist must pay, drivers are encouraged to consider choosing a quarterly or six month billing cycle. Although these installments are likely to be larger, they will also be less frequent. Less transaction fees can result in a lower overall cost, and fewer bills can usually translate into a decreased number of opportunities for late payments.

If an installment is late or missed, there is a good chance that the motorist’s policy will be canceled, resulting in a lapse in coverage. According to the New Mexico Driver Manual if a motorist is caught driving without adequate coverage, they may have to appear in court. This could result in consequences ranging from fines to possible license suspension. To help prevent this from happening, many insurance companies offer an automatic bill-pay system, which routinely deducts installments from a predetermined bank account. Additionally, using these systems may result in an additional discount.

Another viable option for many motorists in the Land of Enchantment is to pay for a policy in full. Although this results in a higher upfront cost, the overall price of a policy is likely to be cheaper. Many coverage providers also offer discounts to motorists who choose this payment method.

Individual motorists in the Pelican State frequently have unique personal characteristics and driving histories. Coverage providers also interpret these details differently, resulting in an array of quotes that likely to be unique depending on the insurer. Shopping around and making comparisons can allow Louisiana motorists to better find an adequately priced policies. The reason why the price of insurance estimates can differ significantly is because rates are generally based on driver risk, and interpreting a motorist’s risk of filing a claim can be a complex process.

Motorists are generally grouped into one of three different markets based on their risk of filing a claim: the preferred, standard or non-standard market. While the majority of coverage providers prefer to insure those in the lower-risk groups, there are still many companies that offer vehicle protection to higher-risk drivers. Comparing Louisiana car insurance quotes from as many sources as possible can help motorists locate coverage that is tailored to their individual needs and budgets.

To efficiently evaluate estimates, LA motorists are encouraged to use the Internet. Online tools allow drivers to view dozens of quotes from one website. With a broader range of prices, drivers often have a better chance of finding adequately priced coverage. Apart from policy price, however, there are additional qualities and features that can be easily compared online.

Online Comparisons of LA Car Insurance

Apart from insurance quotes, individual coverage providers in Louisiana can also provide unique savings and service quality. Qualifying for multiple discounts can often lead to significant savings, so before purchasing a policy, motorists are encouraged to compare special offers as well. Drivers can frequently get reduced rates for maintaining a clean driving record for over three years, but some discounts may be more unique. Some insurers lower prices for insuring multiple vehicles on the same policy, or for belonging to a specific club or organization.

To find out more information about available discounts, motorists are encouraged to directly contact several coverage providers who are licensed to sell vehicle protection in the Pelican State. If the legitimacy of an insurer is brought into question, motorists are urged to contact the Louisiana Department of Insurance for more information. Contacting a company directly to find out about discounts can lead to lower priced vehicle coverage, and can also provide motorist with a view into how well specific companies interact with customers.

After an accident, it is essential to have an insurer that is easy to contact, efficient and quick to handle claims. Comparing the quality of service provided by various insurers is a recommended step for motorists who are shopping for insurance. Apart from speaking with companies directly, residents are also encouraged to speak with family and friends about potential recommendations.

Before a motor vehicle can be registered in Kansas, it must be insured. Additionally, all motorists must be able to maintain financial responsibility throughout the vehicle’s period of registration. Failing to meet these requirements could result in fines or the loss of driving privileges. To avoid being convicted of driving while uninsured, residents should become familiar with state insurance requirements, and pursue coverage that can provide adequate protection.

The types of coverage that are mandatory in the Sunflower State are extensive, but motorists can still benefit from purchasing additional protection. Compulsory Kansas automobile insurance includes bodily injury liability, property damage liability, personal injury protection (PIP) and uninsured/underinsured motorist protection. Liability protection is used to pay for damages for which the policyholder may be responsible, and has minimum limits of 25/50/10. Personal injury protection, however, covers a range of medical expenses, rehabilitation costs, funeral expenses, lost wages and in-home assistance costs for the policyholder and their passengers.

Uninsured motorist protection covers a variety of damages and medical costs brought on by an accident involving an uninsured, underinsured or hit-and-run motorist. The additional benefit to this coverage is that it also covers the policyholder and their family members if they are struck by an automobile while on a bicycle, or while acting as pedestrians.

Benefits of Additional Kansas auto insurance

The Coverages Required in Kansas to legally drive represents the minimum that is allowable. The minimum policy thresholds may not be enough to pay for damages resulting from more severe accidents, potentially leaving motorists with high out-of-pocket expenses. The KS Department of Transportation recorded over 14,000 traffic accidents in 2008 that resulted in injury, and an additional 50,000 accidents that resulted in property damage only. Bodily injuries can easily exceed the 25/50 minimum limits, especially in incidents involving more than one injured persons.

Buying a policy with a higher liability and PIP threshold can help drivers avoid costly repairs or medical bills after an accident. Often higher liability limits can be increased for only a few extra premium dollars, and is frequently recommended by insurers. Additional comprehensive and collision coverage may also be beneficial for many motorists. This additional protection covers damage done to the policyholder’s own vehicle, and is frequently required when purchasing a vehicle through a lender.

By law motorists must maintain an automobile insurance policy while a vehicle is registered in Kansas, but purchasing coverage that also provides an adequate level of protection can also help motorists avoid financial ruin after an accident. Vehicle coverage is designed to help drivers pay for damages and medical costs, and without this protection a motorist may be left with costly medical and repair bills.

There is an old saying that “you win some, and you lose some.” Well, if you are a construction contractor who competes in the world of Multiple Award Task Order Contracting (“MATOC”), you usually lose. Under sealed bidding, which dominated the procurement of federal construction for many years, a contractor who was not the low bidder could always compete for the next project. In the MATOC arena, a contractor who is not selected to be one of the chosen few to compete for task orders over what is often a three to five year period may not be able to compete for the “next project” for a long time. What this means is that there are a few winners, but there are many more losers.

Even if a contractor is fortunate enough to be selected as one of the MATOC master contract holders, there is no guarantee of being selected for future task orders. Every construction MATOC features a “seed” project that serves as the basis of the price competition for the evaluation of the offers on the master contracts. If a contractor does not win the seed project, there may not be another task order for a long time, and the award of the ensuing task orders may go to someone other than the low bidder. The reason for this is that most construction MATOCs are negotiated, best value, procurements (“RFPs”), and past performance, experience, technical merit, quality of personnel, small business subcontracting, and other evaluation factors may come into play. Although it can be argued that the award of a master MATOC should pre-qualify all of the MATOC holders, we have heard complaints from a number of contractors who lose out in the competition for task orders because they do not score well on past performance, or one of the other evaluation factors. This has never made sense to me because if a contractor has won the fierce competition for one of the master MATOCs, price should be the discriminator for the task order awards. If the contractor is not technically qualified to receive a task award on a lowest price proposal, why was the contractor selected as one of the MATOC holders in the first place?

Those who are really left out in the cold, however, are the construction contractors who fail to win one of the master MATOC awards. Simply because a contractor may not have scored particularly well technically, or simply because the contractor’s price on a seed project may have been too high, does not mean that it will always be that way. A contractor can do a much better job of putting together a competitive proposal the next week, but if all of the upcoming projects are tied up in MATOCs, the door is closed. Simply because a contractor submits the lowest price on a seed project does not mean that the contractor will be similarly competitive on future projects. It is for this reason that I have been a frequent critic of indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (“IDIQ/MATOC”) contracting for construction. I do not believe that FAR 16.5, dealing with various indefinite delivery contracts, was ever meant to be applied to construction, and I believe that the system unfairly penalizes a lot of very qualified contractors who simply are not adept at proposal writing. Construction was successfully procured using sealed bidding for many years, and that system was more open and fair. The new system simply results in too many losers and not enough winners. (See the earlier article “Has the Corps of Engineers Gone MATOC Crazy?”).

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm’s Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters. He also serves as the Executive Director of FedCon Consulting, an ancillary business of the firm that involves former contracting officers, procurement and technical personnel, as well as lawyers, in providing assistance to federal construction contractors in the preparation of proposals.

On December 22, 2010, the VA announced that it had selected the first twenty (20) mentor-protégé teams to participate in its newly minted Mentor-Protégé Program. The program is designed to assist firms that have already been verified as veteran-owned or service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses by the VA. Eligible firms are permitted to team with mentors, who are expected to provide developmental assistance to their protégé(s). In return for providing assistance to protégé firms, the VA has stated that mentors can expect “proposal evaluation consideration” with regard to proposals submitted on “best value” solicitations. Moreover, large business prime contractors serving as mentors can receive subcontracting plan credits in connection with a specific VA contract. Protégé firms are limited to one mentor at a time and can only participate in the program twice. There are no specific limitations such as this placed on mentor firms.

The VA expects to name five (5) more mentor-protégé teams this month. After this month, the next set of teams will be selected in August, 2011. For additional information on the program, interested contractors should review the VA’s Mentor-Protégé Program Guidebook.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

The recent increase in the use of Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (“IDIQ”) contracting for construction has become even more evident by looking at the “FY 2011 – Forecasted Acquisition Strategy” issued by the Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers. A review of the list reveals that the majority of the construction work in the coming year will be awarded in the form of task orders under existing Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (“MATOC”), or under task orders on new MATOCs to be issued. The Jacksonville District is not alone in this trend and there is an unmistakable decline in the number of contracts available for full and open competition.

I have been a frequent critic of the use of IDIQ contracts for construction because I do not believe that the drafters of the FAR ever envisioned that the system described in FAR 16.504 for the purchase of supplies and services on an IDIQ basis would ever be used for construction. Nevertheless, that is exactly what has happened as contracting agencies continue to insist that IDIQ/MATOC contracting is more “expedient.” Even more disturbingly, most of these solicitations are being issued as RFPs (negotiated procurements) in total disregard for the FAR 36.103 preference for sealed bidding in the procurement of construction.

This consolidation of procurements could not come at a worse time for the construction industry. As state, local, and commercial contracting opportunities have declined during the recession, many contractors have looked to the federal market for work. What they have found is a large federal construction budget that is often used to fund various forms of small business set-asides, including MATOC set-asides, and various large-dollar multi-state IDIQ/MATOC procurements. There is, therefore, an ever-growing pool of qualified construction contractors who have fewer contracting opportunities. The result of all this is that both small and large business contractors are being denied the opportunity to effectively, and fairly, compete for billion of dollars worth of federal construction. The federal government, the construction industry, and the taxpayers all end up being the losers under this system.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm’s Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal construction matters.

The SBA issued a press release yesterday regarding its new “Small Business Teaming Pilot Program”, which was established as part of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. The program will involve “training, guidance, counseling, mentoring and procurement assistance to small businesses” that are interested in teaming arrangements on federal projects. The SBA expects to issue grants to various national organizations during the 2011 fiscal year, who will then work with the SBA and other governmental agencies in an effort to educate and assist interested companies. Organizations interested in obtaining grant monies through the program must submit applications to the SBA by no later than February 25, 2011.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

Prior to 2008, dating back to 1994, it was not permissible to protest a task order. The 1994 enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (“FASA”) provided that protests over task or delivery orders were barred unless the protest alleged that the order increased the scope, period, or maximum value of the underlying contract through which the order was issued. That changed with the passage of the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (“NDAA”), which contained an amendment that expanded the jurisdiction of the GAO to include protests of task or delivery orders valued in excess of $10 million. 41 U.S.C., Section 253j(e)(2). The NDAA also contained a sunset provision, which stated that the “subsection shall be in effect for three years.” Section 253j(e)(3). The three year period expired on May 27, 2011. The question then arose as to whether the GAO could lawfully consider task and delivery order protests after May 27, 2011. That question was recently answered in the affirmative by the GAO.

In a protest filed by Technatomy Corporation, of Fairfax, Virginia, the protester argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated vendors’ technical and cost quotations. The government argued that the protest should be dismissed because the GAO’s jurisdiction had expired. In a decision issued on June 14, 2011, the GAO disagreed with the government and ruled that it now has jurisdiction to rule on all task and delivery order protests, regardless of their dollar value. The reasoning of the GAO was that the sunset provision which gave the GAO the authority to consider task and delivery protests in excess of $10 million (for three years) replaced the former statutory provision (1994 – “FASA”) that provided for only very limited task order review. The GAO concluded that when the three year period expired, its authority to consider task and delivery order protests did not simply revert to the pre-2008 jurisdictional level, but actually reverted back to the pre-1994 level.

In other words since the pre-2008 limitations were eliminated by the sunset provision in 2008, the only thing left is the pre-1994 jurisdiction under the Competition in Contracting Act which places no limitation on the GAO’s authority to consider task and delivery order protests. The GAO will therefore accept jurisdiction of all protests involving task and delivery orders regardless of the dollar value. This also raises the interesting question of whether, based on the GAO’s decision in Technatomy Corporation, the Court of Federal Claims will now accept jurisdiction of task and delivery order protests, as well.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm’s Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters, including teaming arrangements, negotiated procurements, bid protests, claims, and appeals.

Government contractors frequently use incorrect terminology to describe a solicitation. For example, clients often call me and ask why they were not awarded a contract even though they had submitted the lowest bid. The first thing that I ask is whether the solicitation was a Request for Proposals (“RFP”), or an Invitation for Bid (“IFB”). If it was an RFP, the award was probably based on best value and the lowest-priced proposal would not necessarily receive the award. If the solicitation was an IFB, there would be more of a question about why an award was not made to the lowest-priced bidder. Of course, even in sealed bidding the lowest bidder must also be responsive and responsible in order to receive an award, so there can be a valid reason as to why the lowest bidder did not receive the award.

The best way to show that you understand the basics of the federal procurement process is to remember that responses to an IFB (sealed bid solicitation) are referred to as “bids,” and responses to an RFP (negotiated procurement) are referred to as “proposals” or “offers.” In other words, the proper terms under an IFB are “bid,” “bidder,” and “sealed bid,” and the proper terms under an RFP are “proposal,” “offer,” and “offeror.” Your lawyer will become very confused if you mix these terms by saying, for example, “I just submitted a bid on an RFP.” Sometimes, the only way that I can figure out what my client is talking about is to ask for the solicitation number (the “R” or the “B” in the middle will be a dead giveaway), or I may simply ask my client to send me a copy of the solicitation.

Of course, government procurement personnel frequently add to the confusion. RPPs are often referred to as “negotiated procurements” even though there usually are no negotiations (or “discussions”), and contracting officers often refer to both bids and proposals as “bids,” To make matters worse, the GAO and the courts refer to protests of either an IFB or an RFP as “bid protests.” No wonder there is so much confusion.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm’s Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters, including teaming arrangements, negotiated procurements, bid protests, claims, and appeals.

Guest Post By: Kristen Bradley:  The U.S. boasts a huge contract bond market as federal, state and local government agencies all utilize contract bond law to regulate professionals who work in the construction industry. Inevitably, some contracting firms find themselves unable to qualify for these bonds because they do not have the financial stability needed to back them up. This denies them access to working on publicly funded construction projects.

Contractors who cannot find a surety provider that’s willing to issue them necessary bonds might complain that contract bond requirements are too strict and difficult to fulfill. Their purpose, however, is to deter unqualified and financially unstable contractors from working on projects for which they might not be qualified. Contractor bonding helps stabilize the industry in a number of legally enforceable ways.

Contract Bond Protection

Contract bonds work to protect the best interests of the project owners and government agencies that fund construction projects, as well as the best interests of the public.

The Surety Information Office explains how crucial surety bonds are to the financial success of the construction industry:

“The use of corporate surety bonds makes it possible for the government to use private contractors for public construction projects under a competitive sealed bid, open competition system where the work is awarded to the lowest responsive bidder. Political influence is not a factor, the government is protected against financial loss if the contractor defaults, and certain laborers, material suppliers and subcontractors have a remedy if they are not paid, all without consequence to the taxpayer.”

Bid bonds specifically work to keep the bidding process honest. When a contracting firm submits a bid bond along with a project bid, it makes a legal promise that it won’t increase the bid after being selected to work on the project. For example, the city of Philadelphia frequently requires contracting firms to provide a bid bond that’s 10% of the total bid amount. If the winning contractor raises the bid after being awarded the project, the city could collect on the bond to gain financial reparation.

Contract Bonds and the Surety Bond Process

Contract bonds function as do other surety bond types. Contractors and contracting firms purchase surety bonds to financially guarantee some aspect of their work. When a surety provider issues a bid bond to a contractor, the bond essentially acts as a legally binding contract among three entities:

1. the principal: the contractor or contracting firm that purchases the bond as a promise that the bid will not be increased
2. the obligee: the project owner that requires the bond to protect itself from potential financial loss
3. the surety: the agency that executes the bond, thus providing a financial guarantee that the contractor won’t increase the bid

Although bid bonds are often used for publicly funded projects managed by the government, private project owners can also choose to take advantage of their protective benefits.

How Surety Bonds Affect the Bidding Process

When government agencies or other project owners require bid bonds, the contracting firm must purchase a bid bond and submit it along with its original bid. Bid bonds may not be purchased after a bid has been submitted, and surety providers will not execute a bid bond after a contracting firm has already submitted its formal bid to a project owner.

Contracting firms that want to bid on high scale public construction projects must have a high bonding capacity. Contracting firms can take a few approaches to increase their bonding capacities, such as

• making more investments
• taking their net cash position down to zero
• excluding net pension liabilities and construction credits in residential development co-ops

Although the effort required to secure bid bonds for high scale projects might seem unnecessary to some contractors, the stability they give the construction industry is irreplaceable.

This article was provided by SuretyBonds.com, a nationwide surety bond producer.
SuretyBonds.com offers surety bond education to contractors who need to purchase contract bonds. The agency believes that contractors should understand the bonding market so they are prepared for the surety bond application process.

By: Edward T. DeLisle:  Pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), every claim on a federal construction project that is in excess of $100,000 must be certified. The reasoning behind this policy is simple: the government wants to discourage the submission of questionable and/or inflated claims. As such, for each claim in excess of the threshold amount, a contractor must append the following language to its claim:

I certify that the claim is made in good faith; that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief; that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the Contractor believes the Government is liable; and that I am duly authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the Contractor.

If a contractor submits a claim that it has reason to believe runs afoul of this affirmation, it is subject to a variety of penalties. Those set forth in the False Claims Act (FCA) are the most daunting and represent those that the government will most likely pursue if it becomes aware of a potential violation.

In order to be liable under the civil version of the FCA, the government (or an individual in a qui tam action) must prove that the contractor submitted false information and had actual knowledge that the information was false; acted in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of that information; or acted in reckless disregard of the truth of falsity of the information. If, after an evidentiary hearing, a fact finder determines that a violation took place, a contractor can be assessed fines, damages, or both. Fines can range from $5,000 to $10,000 per violation. This can amount to quite a penalty indeed. For example, in Ab-Tech Const., Inc. v. U.S., 31 Fed.Cl. 429 (1994), a contractor was successful in obtaining the award of a contract issued as an 8(a) set-aside. It subsequently pursued a claim for an equitable adjustment of its contract. The government filed a counterclaim under the FCA, alleging that the contractor was not eligible to receive the award, thereby forfeiting its claim. The government also demanded penalties in the amount of $10,000 for each instance that the contractor submitted an invoice for payment, arguing that in each case the contractor was effectively asserting that it was an eligible participant under the 8(a) program. The court ultimately agreed that the government was entitled to a penalty of $221,000, $10,000 for each payment application submitted by the contractor.

The government can also seek treble damages under the FCA. While many of the reported cases that involve the assessment of treble damages pertain to egregious violations, that does not preclude the government from pursuing such a remedy in more benign situations. See Morse Diesel Intern v. U.S., 79 Fed.Cl. 116 (2007)(assessing treble damages where contractor billed the government more than $1.6 million for reimbursement of bond premiums that were not paid and in excess of $650,000 for false indemnity payments to a parent company).

The above must be taken very seriously based upon the current trends in federal government contracting. The GAO has issued a number of reports over the last several years identifying instances of fraud in the government procurement process. Those reports have generated intense interest on Capitol Hill, resulting in legislation such as the Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011. The Act would allow for stricter enforcement of the regulations governing small business procurement and increase prosecutions, suspensions and debarments for violations. Similarly, there is a push to amend the FCA to increase the statute of limitations for offenses from six (6) to ten (10) years, expand the ability of the government to obtain awards in excess of any actual losses incurred and apply these principals in a retroactive fashion. All of this suggests increased vigilance in the prosecution of potential instances of fraud. Inevitably, as the government attempts to vigorously root out the evils in the system, there will be honest, hard-working contractors who find Justice knocking on their door. Contractors must be aware of the FCA and the world we now live in and have sufficient controls in place to avoid any unwanted visitors.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

This article was originally published on Law360.

By: Michael H. Payne: The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 (Public Law 110-417) was enacted on October 14, 2008. Section 872 of the Act required the development and maintenance of an information system that contains specific information on the integrity and performance of covered Federal agency contractors and grantees. The Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (“FAPIIS”) was developed to address these requirements. FAPIIS is a distinct application that is accessed through the Past Performance Information System (PPIRS) and is available to federal acquisition professionals for their use in award and responsibility determinations. FAPIIS provides users access to integrity and performance information from the FAPIIS reporting module in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), proceedings information from the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database, and suspension/disbarment information from the Excluded Parties List system (EPLS). (Past performance information on construction contracts is stored in the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System “CCASS”).

Contractors need to be aware that FAPIIS includes information relating to a contractor’s past performance reviews, suspensions, debarments, nonresponsibility determinations, and civil, criminal and administrative proceedings that include a contractor’s performance of federal, state and local contracts. Since contracting officers will be reviewing this information when they conduct responsibility determinations, contractors need to be certain that the information is accurate. In addition, since some of the information, excluding past performance information, is available for public review, there is a possibility that competitors will look for information to use against a contractor in a bid protest. That provides all the more reason that contractors should be diligent in assuring that inaccurate information does not remain on the system.

The new requirements, that became effective on April 15, 2011, are implemented by FAR 9.104-7 and the clause found at FAR 52.209-9., and further information can be found at the Contractor Performance Appraisal Reporting System (“CPARS”) website, and by reading the FAPIIS User Manual.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm’s Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on compliance and federal procurement matters.

By: Michael H. Payne:  The GAO requires, as provided in 4 CFR 21.2, that:  (a)(1) Protests based upon alleged improprieties in a solicitation which are apparent prior to bid opening or the time set for receipt of initial proposals shall be filed prior to bid opening or the time set for receipt of initial proposals. In procurements where proposals are requested, alleged improprieties which do not exist in the initial solicitation but which are subsequently incorporated into the solicitation must be protested not later than the next closing time for receipt of proposals following the incorporation.

(2) Protests other than those covered by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be filed not later than 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known (whichever is earlier), with the exception of protests challenging a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required. In such cases, with respect to any protest basis which is known or should have been known either before or as a result of the debriefing, the initial protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester, but shall be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held.

Of course, filing a GAO protest may not achieve any meaningful relief unless the project is stayed pending resolution of protest. In this regard, FAR 33.104(c) provides that “When the agency receives notice of a protest from the GAO within 10 days after contract award or within 5 days after a debriefing date offered to the protester for any debriefing that is required by 15.505 or 15.506, whichever is later, the contracting officer shall immediately suspend performance or terminate the awarded contract,” except when the interests of the United States will not permit waiting for a GAO decision. The key here is that, in a negotiated procurement, the agency must have received notice from the GAO within five days after the debriefing. That means that the protest needs to be filed as quickly as possible after the debriefing in order for there to be any realistic possibility that the GAO will notify the agency in time. In our experience, when agencies receive notice even one day late, they will refuse to impose a stay.

The rigid timeliness requirements of the GAO often lead protesters to file bid protests in the United States Court of Federal Claims where there is no 10-day, or 5-day, time limit, and where a debriefing is not a prerequisite to filing a protest on a negotiated procurement. The downside, however, is that the Court does not grant an automatic stay and a protester must file a motion for a temporary restraining order in order to halt further performance pending resolution of the protest. In our experience, the government frequently agrees to voluntarily stay performance once the protest is filed (often at the urging of the judge) and a TRO hearing is not always required.

It should also be noted that if a protest involves a matter that should have been raised prior to bid opening, or prior to the date for receipt of proposals, such as a challenge to the terms of the solicitation, a protest filed after award will be dismissed as untimely. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that “a party who has the opportunity to object to the terms of a government solicitation containing a patent error and fails to do so prior to the close of the bidding process waives its ability to raise the same objection subsequently in a bid protest action in the Court of Federal Claims.” (See Blue and Gold, 492 F.3d 1308). Accordingly, contractors should consult with legal counsel to be certain that all of the procedural requirements of a protest have been met.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm’s Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on bid protests and federal construction matters.

By: Michael H. Payne: The growth of contracting by negotiation or “best value” procurement, has had a chilling effect on the submission of claims by construction contractors. There seems to be a growing fear that claims are frowned upon by contracting officers and that they will be counted against a contractor during future proposal evaluations. This fear, in my opinion, is misplaced provided that the claims are not frivolous and are technically and legally supported.

The Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq., requires contractors to certify that claims in excess of $100,000 are “made in good faith,” that all “supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of [the contractor’s] knowledge and belief,” and that the amount requested “accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the government is liable.” 41 U.S.C. § 605(c)(1). A contractor who is willing to make that certification should not be denied the opportunity to recover the additional costs, or time, that the contract and the law specifically allow. There are a number of clauses in federal construction contracts, including “Changes” (FAR 52.243-4), “Differing Site Conditions” (FAR 52.236-2) “Suspension of Work” (FAR 52.242-14) “Termination for Convenience” (FAR 52.249-2), etc., that afford contractors with the right to seek an equitable adjustment to the contract. These clauses apply to sealed bidding and negotiated procurements alike, and the fear of retribution on proposal evaluations should not be used to deny contractors the very rights that the contract and the law provide.

It is also important to note that contracting officer’s are required to deal with claims fairly, and there is a duty of good faith and fair dealing in government contracting. As the U.S. Court of Federal Claim noted in Lavezzo v. United States, a contracting officer is obligated to “put his own mind to the problems and render his own decisions.” Such decisions must be “personal [and] independent,” and “even the appearance of coercion [must] be avoided.” 74 Fed.Cl. 502, 509 (2006). In addition, a Contracting Officer’s outright denial of meritorious contractor claims to gain some advantage over the contractor will not be condoned by the Court. In other words, a contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor. Moreland Corp. v. U.S., 76 Fed.Cl. 268 (2007). Contractors are legally entitled to submit claims, to have those claims fairly and impartially reviewed, and contractors are entitled to do so without fear of the impact on future source selections.

Michael H. Payne is the Chairman of the firm’s Federal Practice Group and, together with other experienced members of the group, frequently advises contractors on federal contracting matters, including teaming arrangements, negotiated procurements, bid protests, claims, and appeals.

By: Edward T. DeLisle:  Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, introduced a bipartisan bill on Thursday that is designed to combat fraud and abuse in the world of small business contracting. As we have reported, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued a number of reports over the last several years detailing the existence of fraud in the HUBZone, Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and 8(a) programs. These reports have generated much discussion about the need to revamp the system and, in certain circumstances, talk has led to action. The implementation of the current SDVOSB verification system is but one example of the government’s response to the current state of affairs. S. 633, entitled the “Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011” (Fraud Prevention Act), is designed to take the government’s ability to respond to fraud and abuse in small business contracting to a new level.

As reported by Law360, the Fraud Prevention Act contains three key provisions:

1. It calls for the development of an oversight structure within the Small Business Administration (SBA) that would allow for better enforcement of the rules governing small business contracting;

2. It would allow for an increase in criminal prosecutions, suspensions and debarments for those who violate the rules; and

3. It would require the SBA to issue annual reports to Congress regarding those who are suspended, debarred or referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

S. 633 is yet another step to close the loopholes that have developed in the federal government’s small business contracting system. We will track this legislation and report any further developments.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

As part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (the 2008 Act), Congress provided the General Accounting Office (GAO) with the authority to hear protests involving certain task and delivery order contracts emanating from both defense and civilian agencies. At the time, this authority was limited to a period of three years, meaning that it was set to expire later this year. A few months ago, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (the 2011 Act). As part of that Act, Congress partially extended the GAO’s authority. It permitted the GAO to continue hearing task and delivery order protests for contracts in excess of $10 million, but only for those contracts issued by Department of Defense agencies. For a reason not readily apparent, Congress failed to extend the GAO’s authority over civilian agencies. A bill has emerged in the Senate to address this omission.

As reported by Law360, Senate Bill 498, entitled the “Independent Task and Delivery Order Review Extension Act of 2011,” was recently introduced by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn. If passed, it would extend the GAO’s jurisdiction over task and delivery order protests relating to civilian agencies for an additional five and a half years, equaling the extension provided on DOD protests under the 2011 Act. This is an important development for government contractors. Many questions arose following passage of the 2011 Act. Why would Congress only extend the GAO’s authority over task and delivery orders on DOD work? It is possible that this was simply an oversight, though no one is quite sure. The legislative history is devoid of any discussion on the issue. Whatever the reason, if passed, S. 498 would maintain the status quo for five more years. We will continue to track this bill and report on its progress.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.

For those who regularly read our blog, you know that we have followed the government’s recent concern about fraud and abuse in the federal procurement process.  The GAO has issued reports that recite such abuse relative to the 8(a), HUBZone and SDVOSB programs.  As those reports indicate, companies have been awarded set-aside contracts through those programs, but were not qualified to receive them.  In certain circumstances, the apparent fraud was so blatant that the hubris, which certainly existed to think such abuses would go unnoticed, puts Charlie Sheen to shame.  Yet, as the GAO reports state, even when the abuses were uncovered, many of these contractors continued to receive government awards.  It appears that some contractors performing work overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan may also be receiving awards that they do not deserve.

As reported by Govexec.com, government agencies responsible for overseas contracts are not properly recording past performance history in the CPAR and PPIR electronic databases.  The biggest offenders appear to be the State Department, the Department of Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).  Based upon information supplied to the Commission on Wartime Contracting, congressionally mandated to investigate overseas contracting activities, these agencies have failed to properly report past performance history in up to 90% of the contingency contracts they have issued.  While the failure to report this information is problematic for many reasons, it certainly exposes the government to contractors who are less than ideal for important government contracts.  This is especially an issue as it relates to contractors in line for suspension or debarment.  As former Connecticut Congressman Christopher Shays, who is the chairman of the Commission, stated: “[I]f suspensions and debarments are impeded by bureaucratic decisions or inertia, then companies that have committed fraud may continue receiving taxpayer funds.  In either case, untrustworthy contractors can continue profiting from government work, responsible businesses may be denied opportunities, and costs to taxpayers can climb.”

Over the years, the government has increasingly relied upon “best value” procurement to let contracts.  Past performance is almost always an important factor in determining “best value.” In fact, in most cases, it is the most important factor.  If federal agencies intend to continue issuing contracts in this fashion, a practice that is highly questionable for the purchase of certain services, such as construction, then they must make it a point to create a system that allows those deserving of awards to receive them. In the case of small business set aside contracts, the government has started to slowly move in this direction.  The VA, for example, is now vetting those contractors on its on-line SDVOSB registry to verify eligibility.  If this function is performed correctly, it will greatly enhance the probability that contracts will be let to those who deserve them. With respect to past performance history, there is a system in place.  Federal agencies simply need to use it.  Hopefully, the findings exposed by the Commission on Wartime Contracting make this a reality.

Edward T. DeLisle is a Partner in the firm and a member of the Federal Contracting Practice Group.