FSS | The Contracting Education Academy

March 23, 2017 By AMK

Inside CA Technologies’ $45 million false claims settlement

A long-lasting legal dispute between IT contractor CA Technologies and the federal government reached a conclusion last week, as the Justice Department announced the company agreed to pay $45 million to settle allegations that it overcharged and provided false pricing information to the government.

The backstory of this conflict signifies a more aggressive stance taken by the government in dealing with contractors that mislead the government or bilk taxpayers. Public statements by both DOJ and the General Services Administration’s inspector general further suggest they are more willing than ever to prosecute contractors that play ball unfairly—even if it takes years to do so, as it did with CA.

DOJ contends New York-based CA submitted false pricing data in 2007 and again in 2009 regarding products it sold through the GSA’s Schedule 70, a multiple-awards schedule and large acquisition vehicle federal agencies use to purchase various IT products and services.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2017/03/inside-ca-technologies-45-million-false-claims-settlement/136231

See earlier article on this subject at: http://contractingacademy.gatech.edu/2017/03/13/it-firm-agrees-to-pay-45-million-to-settle-alleged-false-claims-on-gsa-contract/

March 13, 2017 By AMK

IT firm agrees to pay $45 million to settle alleged false claims on GSA contract

CA, Inc. (CA) has agreed to pay $45 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that it made false statements and claims in the negotiation and administration of a General Services Administration (GSA) contract.

CA is an information technology management software and services company headquartered in New York, New York. The settlement resolves allegations related to a GSA contract awarded to CA for software licenses and maintenance services.

Under Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts like this one, GSA pre-negotiates prices and contract terms for subsequent orders by federal agencies.
At the time of CA’s contract, contractors were required to fully and accurately disclose to GSA how they conducted business in the commercial marketplace so that GSA could use that information to negotiate a fair price for government agencies using the GSA contract to purchase CA products and services.
The contract also contained a price reduction clause that set forth when the contractor had to reduce the prices it charged to the government if its prices to commercial customers improved.

The settlement between CA and the federal government resolves allegations that CA did not fully and accurately disclose its discounting practices to GSA contracting officers. Specifically, the agreement resolves claims that CA provided false information about the discounts it gave commercial customers for its software licenses and maintenance services at the time the contract was negotiated in 2002 and was extended in 2007 and 2009. Additionally, the settlement resolves claims that CA violated the price reduction clause in the contract by not providing government customers with additional discounts when commercial discounts improved.

The allegations against CA were first made in a whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act by Dani Shemesh, a former employee of CA Software Israel LTD. Under the False Claims Act, private individuals can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. The False Claims Act also allows the government to intervene and take over the action, as it did, in part, in this case. Shemesh’s share of the settlement is $10.195 million.

This case was handled by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and the GSA Office of Inspector General.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced this settlement on Friday (Mar. 10, 2017). The lawsuit is captioned United States ex rel. Shemesh v. CA, Inc., No. 09-1600 (D.D.C.). The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ca-inc-pay-45-million-alleged-false-claims-government-wide-information-technology-contract

March 2, 2017 By AMK

Evaluation of subcontractor past performance not required for FSS procurements

For Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procurements, agencies are not required to evaluate past performance references of subcontractors, unless the solicitation provides otherwise.

As one offeror recently discovered in Atlantic Systems Group, Inc., B-413901 (Jan. 9, 2017), unlike negotiated procurements, where agencies “should” evaluate the past performance of subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the contract, offerors bidding under FSS solicitations should not assume that a subcontractor’s past performance will be considered.

Atlantic Systems involved a solicitation for technical, engineering, management, operation, logistical, and administrative support for the Department of Education’s cybersecurity risk management program. The solicitation was set aside for SDVOSB concerns that held Schedule 70 contracts.

Pursuant to the solicitation, offerors were to be evaluated for both corporate experience and past performance. In order to enable the agency to conduct the past performance/experience evaluation, each “offeror” was to provide evidence of the experience “of the organization” with similar projects or contracts.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/evaluation-of-subcontractor-past-performance-not-required-for-fss-procurements/

October 31, 2016 By AMK

Agencies can now buy through GSA’s cyber SINs

An effort to help government agencies zero in on relevant cyber vendors is underway.

The General Services Administration (GSA) is now using a special item number to tag vendors specializing in services such as penetration testing, incident response and vulnerability assessment. As of Oct. 20th, 15 vendors have been approved under the Highly Adaptive Cybersecurity Services section of the IT Schedule 70, a list of companies pre-vetted to sell tech services to the government.

Now, agencies can create blanket purchase agreements with those 15 vendors or place individual own task orders, according to a GSA blog post.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2016/10/gsa-cyber-special-identification-numbers/132540

October 25, 2016 By AMK

Does ‘Kingdomware’ apply to non-VA FSS orders?

The Supreme Court’s rationale in a recent decision might compel every agency to set aside any Federal Supply Schedule order (or any other order, for that matter) valued between $3,000 and $150,000.

Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Kingdomware Technologies v. United States. As we’ve noted, this case was a monumental win for veteran-owned small businesses — it requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to set-aside solicitations for SDVOSBs or VOSBs where two or more such offerors will submit a proposal at a fair and reasonable price, even if that solicitation is issued under the Federal Supply Schedule.

A recent GAO decision suggests, however, that Kingdomware’s impact could be felt beyond the world of VA procurements.

In Aldevra, B-411752.2—Reconsideration (Oct. 5, 2016), the protester relied on Kingdomware to challenge a prior GAO decision that an agency is not required to set-aside an FSS order for small businesses. At issue in the initial protest was an Army National Guard Bureau solicitation under the FSS, seeking an ice machine/water dispenser (valued at $4300). According to Aldevra, the Small Business Act required the solicitation to be set aside for small businesses.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/does-kingdomware-apply-to-non-va-fss-orders/

A long-lasting legal dispute between IT contractor CA Technologies and the federal government reached a conclusion last week, as the Justice Department announced the company agreed to pay $45 million to settle allegations that it overcharged and provided false pricing information to the government.

CA, Inc. (CA) has agreed to pay $45 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that it made false statements and claims in the negotiation and administration of a General Services Administration (GSA) contract.

For Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) procurements, agencies are not required to evaluate past performance references of subcontractors, unless the solicitation provides otherwise.

An effort to help government agencies zero in on relevant cyber vendors is underway.

The Supreme Court’s rationale in a recent decision might compel every agency to set aside any Federal Supply Schedule order (or any other order, for that matter) valued between $3,000 and $150,000.

Search this Website