Schedules | 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

April 20, 2015 By AMK

GSA’s proposed pricing data rule questioned

A rule proposed by the General Services Administration to gather pricing data from contractors is part of the agency’s effort to boost contract efficiencies and agencies’ buying power. But contractors are concerned that it could be costly and compromise their pricing information.

In March, GSA proposed a change to its acquisition regulations that would require vendors to report transactional data from orders and prices paid by ordering activities, including orders under Federal Supply Schedule contracts, non-FSS contract vehicles, governmentwide acquisition contracts, and indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts.

At a daylong public meeting on the proposed rule at GSA’s Washington headquarters on April 17, agency officials said the proposed change would help address several challenges GSA faces with multiplying contracts, price differences among contracting vehicles, general transparency and rules that in some cases were put in place before the Internet took hold.

Kevin Youel-Page, assistant commissioner of GSA’s Integrated Award Environment, said the information gathered under the proposed rule would help give federal customers a system that better fits their needs.

“The federal government is the biggest buyer on planet Earth,” he told the audience of contractors and federal employees gathered to discuss the proposal. “We need to act like it.”

Anne Rung, administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, reminded the audience that the federal procurement process “is plagued by complexity and duplication.” The proposed rule would bolster OFPP’s “new vision” for federal buying, including the expansion of data-driven procurement practices and category management programs across the entire federal government, she added.

Keep reading this article at: http://fcw.com/articles/2015/04/17/transactional-data.aspx

April 17, 2015 By AMK

GSA moves forward with overhaul of Multiple Award Schedules

The General Services Administration (GSA) is moving forward with its plan to overhaul the Multiple Award Schedules, putting into action recommendations from the agency’s 2010 Multiple Award Schedules Advisory Panel, says an April 13 blog post by GSA Senior Procurement Executive Jeffrey Koses.

“The $33 billion program now demands transformation in order to maintain its status as a best acquisition solution in a fast-changing marketplace,” Koses says.

The transformation will include reducing price variability, minimizing burdensome regulations and processes and introducing additional flexibilities, the GSA’s blog post says.

The overhaul address two key recommendations from the panel’s report – providing agencies with information on prices actually paid for goods and services as well as eliminating the price reduction clause reporting requirements for contractors.

The price reduction clause forces contractors to report if they reduce prices for commercial clients and then, in turn, allow that same discount to government contracts.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/gsa-moves-forward-overhaul-multiple-award-schedules/2015-04-13

Read GSA’s blog at: http://gsablogs.gsa.gov/gsablog/2015/04/13/gsa-seeks-to-transform-the-multiple-awards-schedule-program-to-deliver-better-value/

February 26, 2015 By AMK

GSA Schedules and DoD’s confusing FAR 8.4 deviation

On March 13, 2014, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) issued a class deviation to FAR 8.404(d). This deviation directed that ordering activity contracting officers are responsible for making a determination of fair and reasonable pricing when using GSA’s Federal Supply Schedules (FSS). The deviation essentially incorporates complex FAR 15.404-1 price analysis techniques into the streamlined FSS ordering procedures with the vague caveat that the complexity and circumstances of each acquisition should determine the level of detail of the analysis required.

In discussing the rationale for this deviation, DPAP has consistently focused on the variation in pricing across the FSS program. In particular, the example of a $29 stapler listed on an FSS contract has been cited by DPAP as creating a “significant” risk that Department of Defense (DoD) contracting officers will simply order the $29 stapler rather than search for a cheaper stapler on another FSS contract. For those of us of a certain age, the use of this example reminds one of the $600 toilet seat reportedly purchased by the DoD back in the 1980s. Like the toilet seat purchase, however, there is greater context that undercuts the stapler example cited by DPAP.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/acquisition/blog/2015/02/13/gsa-advantage-dpap-far-waldron/23365305/

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.

Search this Website