Regulatory: Doing Business with the U.S. Government Requires a Reallocation of Risk
The administration is working to put government contract plan into effect.
May 18, 2010 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Federal procurement spending topped $523 billion in Fiscal Year 2009, with additional spending provided by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and the various bailout programs. Escalating an existing trend, the Obama Administration is set on a course to reallocate the risks of being a federal contractor or recipient of federal funds. Recent and planned changes will fundamentally restructure how contractors are treated. These changes are in three areas: tighter regulations, increased oversight and greater “transparency.”
On March 4, 2009, the administration issued its blueprint for government contracting. Over the past year, steps have been taken to put that plan into effect. In addition, Congress has weighed in with some of its own ideas–indeed, in many respects, Congress is involved in a free-for-all when it comes to enacting new restrictions aimed at contractors and recipients of federal funds.
First, the tighter regulations involve greater emphasis on competition and use of fixed-price contracts. Despite requirements of current law, recent studies have shown that at least one-third of the government's acquisitions are not made competitively, in particular competition has been lacking in task and delivery order type contracts. The Administration is committed to increasing competition across the government–even in circumstances where a company has already invested substantially in research and development for a government-unique product or service.
There also is a renewed emphasis on firm-fixed price contracts. The government is notoriously poor at providing a meaningful statement of its requirements that would allow a fair assessment of the potential costs. Nonetheless, pressure is now on to push the burden of uncertainties in scope of performance to contractors.
Second, numerous recent changes have dramatically increased the oversight of contractors.. There are new reporting requirements, new authorities for auditors and inspectors general, new authorities for investigators to come into a company's facilities and interview its employees in a quest for fraud, changes to the civil False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. Section 3729-3733) that allow both whistleblowers and the U.S. Department of Justice to bring treble damages suits against private entities and individuals, new whistleblower statutes and increased resources for investigators and prosecutors.
Third, “transparency” has become the watchword of the day, with the enactment of the Federal Funding and Transparency Act (“FFATA”) and the Recovery Act–both of which mandate new databases containing mind-numbing details about the recipients of funds. Recent regulations require contractors to have extensive ethics and compliance programs and to make mandatory disclosure when “credible evidence” exists of certain violations. Congress recently enacted a requirement for a new “bad actors” database to track contractor compliance with a host of federal requirements, even including damages awarded against a contractor in a civil law suit. Currently, this database is available only to Government employees, but Congress already is pressing to have it made public. .
These new provisions likely are here to stay.
More about each of theses pieces in upcoming columns.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Jason Leckerman of Ballard Spahr on Growing the Department by a Third Via Merger with Lane Powell
- 2Arguing Class Actions: Manifestation Redux
- 3In Free Agent Lateral Era, Big Law Has 'Entire Teams Dedicated to Identifying' Top Talent
- 4Public Notices/Calendars
- 5Monday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250