President Trump and Congress Developed a COVID-19 Financial “Vaccine” for the Federal Contracting Community. Now Agencies Need to Deploy It.

On March 27, 2020, Congress sent to the President the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which will provide over $2.2 trillion in government funding as the United States weathers the COVID-19 pandemic.  President Trump promptly signed the Act, the product of a bipartisan compromise between the White House and Congress.  Among many other forms of relief, the CARES Act provides funding to preserve public health and economic stability in various sectors, including federal contracting – a market sector that employs several million American workers. 

The CARES Act stands as an important example for the international procurement community – a COVID-19 measure that both reduces health risk and drives economic recovery through existing public contracts.

Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.), speaker pro tempore, gavels $2 trillion CARES Act’s passage in House by voice vote

The challenge now is for federal agencies to deploy the CARES Act’s funding, consistent with the goals of President Trump and Congress to use the CARES Act to —

  • Preserve workers’ healthSection 3610 of the CARES Act protects workers’ health by allowing contractors to send their non-essential employees home during the pandemic, using leave paid for by the federal government. 
  • Minimize the spread of the coronavirus:  Keeping contractor employees at home will retard the spread of the COVID-19 virus, by reducing social exposure to the virus in millions of offices, factories and homes.
COVID-19 Cases as of 24 March 2020 – Source: World Health Organization data – Wikimedia
  • Save the contracting base:  The CARES Act directs funding to fragile sectors of the U.S. economy, including the thousands of companies that support the federal government.  Without CARES Act funding, many contractors – including vulnerable small businesses – may collapse, destroying vital parts of the government’s contracting base.
  • Jump-start the stalled economy:  When President Trump signed the CARES Act, he pointed out that the legislation ultimately may cost over $6 trillion – stimulus funding which is critically needed, as the President noted, for the American economy to rebound in the coming months. 

In the next few weeks, procurement leaders from across government will need to implement the CARES Act.  This article assesses some of the key questions those leaders will need to address.  To make sense of the CARES Act, we will examine the Act and its purposes in an integrated way, looking both at Section 3610 (which authorized contractor reimbursement) and at other, parallel provisions of the Act.  As the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (an expert on statutory interpretation) explained:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016) Source – US Supreme Court

“Statutory construction . . . is a holistic endeavor. A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme—because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.”

What does the CARES Act call on agencies to do for contractors?  Under Section 3610 of the Act, agencies may in their discretion use any “funds made available to the agency” by Congress to modify any contract or other agreement to reimburse contractors for workers’ lost time up to September 30, if the contractor provides leave to its employees or subcontractors “to protect the life and safety of Government and contractor personnel.”

What work locations are covered for reimbursement?  A contractor may recover only if its work location has been approved by the government – in other words, a contractor cannot “game” the government by unilaterally naming a work site (such as New York City or New Orleans) where it may be impossible to perform.

What if the contractor employees can telework?  The government has strongly encouraged contractor telework, through policies issued by the Office of Management and Budget and the Defense Department.  If employees can do telework from home, then reimbursement may not be available.

How will contractors’ reimbursement be calculated?  Section 3610 is clear:  the CARES Act allows agencies to reimburse contractors at “minimum applicable contract billing rates” for up to an average of 40 hours per week for paid leave (including sick leave).

What kinds of contracts will be covered?  The CARES Act does not exclude any contract types, or provide detail on how different contract types should be handled.  This may have been due to the rushed legislative process.  S. 3548, the prior Senate bill, was introduced late the prior week, and then was blocked by a partisan battle in the Senate.  The final language of the CARES Act reflects rapid legislative drafting, which naturally left gaps in the statutory language.  Applying the maxims of statutory interpretation explained above by Justice Scalia, we can look to other sections of the CARES Act (discussed below), which also address contractor reimbursement but do not distinguish between types of contracts. 

What’s to keep contractors from cheating ?  The CARES Act makes relief under the Act subject to audit by the Government Accountability Office (Congress’ watchdog agency), and nothing in the Act suggests that contractors seeking reimbursement will be exempt from the criminal and civil fraud laws, debarment and exclusion rules that the government normally uses to block bad actors.

Although Section 3610 is silent on the mechanics of reimbursement . . . other provisions of the Act shed light on Congress’ intent.

How should contractors seek reimbursement?  Although Section 3610 is silent on the mechanics of reimbursement — a detail normally left to the agencies — other provisions of the Act may shed light on Congress’ intent.  Section 18006, for example, says that educational institutions that receive funding “shall, to the greatest extent practicable” continue to pay their contractors during the period of any disruptions or closures related to the coronavirus.  Section 4113 explains how contractors in the aviation industry are to seek reimbursement by applying for an amount, “using sworn financial statements or other appropriate data, as to the amount of wages, salaries, benefits, and other compensation” that the contractors paid their employees.  Section 19005 says that the Architect of the Capitol is to “continue to make payments provided for under . . . contract for the weekly salaries and benefits of . . . [contractor] employees” who are “furloughed or otherwise unable to work” during closures.  Finally, Section 3610 itself explains that any contractor’s reimbursement will need to be reduced by the value of other credits the contractor receives, such as the tax credits afforded for employee leave under the Coronavirus Families First Response Act

Taking these provisions together – “holistically,” to use Justice Scalia’s famous term – it becomes clearer how in practice agencies can afford contractors relief under the Act.  What Congress and the President clearly expect is that contracting agencies will move quickly to advance the nation’s recovery – and Americans’ health – by allowing contractors to seek reimbursement for covered COVID-19 losses.

Editor’s note:  On April 2, a free GW Law webinar will discuss these and other emerging international developments in COVID-19 emergency procurement, with panelists from government, business, economics and the law, who will join us from Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas.

Trump Administration’s Fight Against Counterfeit Trade May Impact GSA’s Electronic Marketplaces Initiative — Which Is No Longer Stalled by Protest

As a result of its January 2020 trade deal with China, under which the United States agreed to find new ways to stop counterfeit goods in online marketplaces, the Trump administration has stepped up its fight to stop counterfeit goods from China – and that fight may have a direct impact on a pending GSA procurement (no longer under protest) to open commercial online marketplaces to federal purchasers.

In a recent piece, Jason Miller of Federal News Network asked whether President Trump’s January 31, 2020 Executive Order, Ensuring Safe & Lawful E-Commerce for US Consumers, Businesses, Government Supply Chains, and Intellectual Property Rights, may affect the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) “electronic marketplaces” acquisition

Counterfeit goods (photo: USCBP)

GSA’s “electronic marketplaces” procurement was previously stalled by a protest by Overstock.com at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). The grounds for that protest may never be known, since the protest was withdrawn on February 24, 2020. The “electronic marketplaces” procurement would allow federal officials (users – not necessarily contracting officials) to make billions of dollars in micro-purchases (generally below $10,000) directly from the awardee commercial e-commerce platforms.

President Donald J. Trump (Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead)

The January 31, 2020 Executive Order, which press reports made clear was aimed at counterfeit goods on Amazon and other online marketplaces, said this in relevant part:

Section 1. Policy.    E-commerce, including transactions involving smaller express-carrier or international mail packages, is being exploited by traffickers to introduce contraband into the United States, and by foreign exporters and United States importers to avoid applicable customs duties, taxes, and fees.

*  *  *  *

It is the policy of the United States Government that any person who knowingly, or with gross negligence, imports, or facilitates the importation of, merchandise into the United States in material violation of Federal law evidences conduct of so serious and compelling a nature that it should be referred to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security for a determination whether such conduct affects that person’s present responsibility to participate in transactions with the Federal Government.

It is the policy of the United States Government, as reflected in Executive Order 12549 of February 18, 1986 (Debarment and Suspension), and elsewhere, to protect the public interest and ensure the integrity of Federal programs by transacting only with presently responsible persons.  In furtherance of this policy, the nonprocurement debarment and suspension system enables executive departments and agencies to exclude from Federal programs persons who are not presently responsible.  CBP implements this system by suspending and debarring persons who flout the customs laws, among other persons who lack present responsibility.  To achieve the policy goals stated herein, the United States Government shall consider all appropriate actions that it can take to ensure that persons that CBP suspends or debars are excluded from participating in the importation of merchandise into the United States.

It is the policy of the United States Government that express consignment operators, carriers, hub facilities, international posts, customs brokers, and other entities, including e-commerce platform operators, should not facilitate importation involving persons who are suspended or debarred by CBP.

Peter Navarro

Senior White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said this on CNN on the same day:

The DHS will immediately begin working to combat trafficking in counterfeit and pirated goods by: aggressively applying civil fines and penalties to bad actors, suspending and debarring repeat offenders and treating foreign sellers of goods as responsible parties subject to sanctions.

As this new report documents, the private sector can do much more to combat counterfeit and pirated products trafficking. It sets forth a set of private sector “best practices” that include: significantly enhanced third-party marketplace vetting; limits on high-risk products such as prescription drugs, infant formula and airbag components; rapid notice and takedown procedures; and pre-sale identification of third-party sellers. The administration also wants e-commerce platforms to provide clearly identifiable country of origin disclosures, which brick-and-mortar retail providers are required to provide but online sellers often are not.

These best practices are not meant as mere suggestions. The federal government will use all means necessary to encourage rapid adoption and to monitor progress.

Taken together, these announcements suggest:

  • GSA’s assessment of the electronic marketplaces bidders may include the “best practices” outlined by Peter Navarro.  Navarro called on Amazon and other e-commerce platforms to fight counterfeits in the wake of the recent U.S. trade agreement with China, and he again cited those “best practices” in an interview with the Washington Post, in which he sharply criticized Amazon and others for not having adequate protections against counterfeiters.  GSA’s “Statement of Objectives” for the electronic marketplaces procurement already calls on the e-marketplaces to control supply chain risk; the revised solicitation was not explicit as to whether these new anti-counterfeit concerns would also be part of the technical evaluation and/or the contracting officer’s responsibility assessment for award.
  • The Trump administration’s focus on preventing counterfeits suggest that federal users buying directly with government purchase cards may be required, or at least strongly encouraged, to use the e-commerce platforms eventually approved under GSA’s “electronic marketplaces” initiative.  Federal users, in other words, may be discouraged from making direct purchases outside the GSA-approved platforms.
  • Mass debarments of vendors on the e-commerce platforms — which are very possible, because the government has no other ready means (e.g., past performance or technical evaluations, responsibility determinations, etc.) to protect itself when federal users make rapid purchases from the e-commerce platforms — may begin with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) debarments:
    • CBP may target for debarment any third-party vendor on an e-commerce platform that “knowingly, or with gross negligence, imports, or facilitates the importation of, merchandise into the United States in material violation of Federal law.”  While the Executive Order focuses on counterfeits and contraband, in principle a wider array of importing firms may be at risk if they facilitate violations of federal law.
    • The e-commerce platforms themselves may be targeted for debarment, on the same grounds.  Since each user micro-purchase is a new purchase, debarment (a bar against purchasing) may in effect disable an e-commerce platform from selling to further federal purchasers.

U.S. Regulators Plan to Align Debarment Rules for Contracts and Grants

Debarment – the exclusion of a firm or individual from working with a government – allows governments to protect themselves from the reputational and performance risks posed by unqualified firms and individuals.  As a March 2019 conference at King’s College, London made clear, governments the world over are reforming their debarment systems, though often in strikingly different ways.  The U.S. government is now moving to reform its debarment system, by more closely aligning the rules that govern debarments for grants and contracts.  The rules would be revised “to improve consistency between the procurement and non-procurement procedures on suspension and debarment, based on recommendations of the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee,” under a pending Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) reform case No. 2019-015.  Many have long argued for this reform, and a 2017 Public Contract Law Journal article by Robert Meunier and Trevor Nelson described the issue in detail.  A report on the pending FAR case is currently due in January 2020, and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget anticipates that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will be published in February 2020.  We will be tracking this issue closely in a special short seminar that George Washington University Law School offers online, on suspension and debarment.

Procurement Classes at University of Paris – Nanterre

On December 9-11, Chris Yukins taught classes with Professor Laurence Folliott-Lalliot at the University of Paris – Nanterre, at the university’s classrooms in La Defense.

Materials

Amazon Web Services (AWS) Complaint in JEDI Protest

Board of Contract Appeals Bar Association (BCABA) Conference at GWU Law — on Ethics in Practice

Dismas (Dis) Locaria (Venable), Danica (Dani) Irvine (U.S. DoD), Stuart Bender (USDA) and Terry Elling (Holland & Knight)

The Board of Contract Appeals Bar Association (BCABA) and the George Washington University Law School were pleased to host the BCABA’s annual Policy Colloquium. This year’s program focused on Ethics and Professionalism in Government Contracts Practice.  The speakers and panelists included senior government and private practitioners who shared their knowledge and experiences on a variety of government ethics regulatory issues and best practices in the counseling and litigation settings.  Holland & Knight’s Terry Elling was the program moderator.

Tom Davis (Holland & Knight)
  • Former congressman Tom Davis was the keynote speaker, and he spoke warmly of the bar’s role in ensuring integrity in our system.
  • Stuart Bender, Director of the Office of Ethics at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) presented on legal and government ethics issues, and discussed the USDA Ethics App, which has been lauded for using ethics “games” to encourage learning.
  • Danica (Dani) Irvine, of the Defense Department’s Standards of Conduct Office, joined other panelists in discussing compliance challenges, including the use of screening questionnaires such as DD 2945 to screen for possible conflicts of interest in post-government employment.

The program was held at the Faculty Conference Center, George Washington University Law School on Tuesday, December 3, 2019.

Principles of Public Contracts in Europe – Conference at University Paris Est Créteil

On December 12, 2019 the University Paris Est Créteil hosts a conference on principles of public contracts in Europe, coordinated by Professor Stéphane de La Rosa, University Professor and Director of the Research Team MIL (Markets, Institutions and Liberties).

Panel III

Martin Raz – Havel & Partners – Czech Republic

Panel IV

Steven Van Garsse, Professeur à l’Université de Anvers (BE), Professor of Public Law – University of Anvers/Hasselt, on Principles of efficiency and effectiveness

Romélien Colavitti, Senior  Lecturer  in Public  Law – University of Valenciennes,  on The principles  governing  alternate modes of dispute resolution

Carole Cravero, PhD student University of Turin and University of Paris-West Nanterre, on The Principles of Corporate Social Responsibility and Public Contracts

Vincent Bouhier, Senior  Lecturer  and Dean – Evry-Paris Saclay University,  The Principle of Reciprocity 

Lt Col Daniel Schoeni, Judge Advocate, U.S. Air Force; PhD Candidate, University of Nottingham, Is the practice of negotiation in public contracts a common principle?

Christopher Yukins, Lynn David Research Professor of Government Procurement Law, George Washington University Law School; moderator

Tbilisi, Georgia: Impact of Corruption in Public Contracts – an International Dialogue and Exchange of Experiences

Tbilisi, Georgia

On October 28, 2019, a training session was held in Tbilisi, Georgia on anti-corruption efforts. The session was convened by the European Union’s “twinning” project, “Strengthening Public Procurement Practices in Georgia,” and moderated by Ms. Dana Mitae, Legal Advisor and Consultant for the Department for Consulting, e-Procurement and International Affairs, Federal Procurement Agency of Austria, Austria. The session built on Georgia’s Association Agreement with the European Union, which calls in Chapter 8 for Georgia to incorporate important elements of the European Union’s procurement directives into Georgia’s own laws and institutions. The session was opened by Mr. Levan Razmadze – Chairman of State Procurement Agency of Georgia, and outside experts included Prof. Christopher Yukins, George Washington University (USA), Mr. Mihai Dragutescu, President of the Senate for Administrative Cases (Romania), and Ms. Maja Kuhar, President of the State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures, Zagreb (Croatia).

Mihai Dragutescu, President of the Senate for Administrative Cases (Romania)

Reference Materials

EU-Georgia Association Agreement

Professor Piga Urges Italian Support for Small- and Medium-Sized Businesses in Response to Trump Buy American Initiative

Prof. Gustavo Piga

In an editorial published in Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Professor Gustavo Piga of the University of Rome – Tor Vergata, an activist in Italian politics and and a leader in the international procurement community, responded to an article by Christopher Yukins assessing the Trump administration’s latest Buy American initiative.  Professor Piga argued that, though the actual impact of the Trump order might be minimal (as Professor Yukins pointed out), Italian policymakers should emulate U.S. support for small businesses, which the U.S. undertakes through protectionist preferences.  Professor Piga closed:  “GliStatiUniti lo insegnano chiaramente: non pensando per le piccole, smettiamo di pensare in grande.”  (“The United States clearly teaches this:  by not thinking of the small, we stop thinking big.”).

Maldives Procurement Training

Male, Maldives

International procurement training led by the Ministry of Finance, Republic of Maldives (Minister Ibrahim Ameer, pictured below), and coordinated by the U.S. Department of Commerce – Commercial Law Development Program was held in Male, capital of the Maldives, on August 4-5, 2019. Chris Yukins’ slides for the program are included here.

Professor Yukins leads exercise
Minister Ibrahim Ameer, with Glenn Penfold, Esq. (South Africa)