Source: https://govtcontractsmonitor.jacksonkelly.com/2013/10/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:40:10+00:00

Document:
In a recent case, a former Assistant Director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division pled guilty to making prohibited post-employment contacts with government officials after he was hired as a consultant for a company under investigation by the FBI. In United States v. Kenneth Kaiser, No. 13-CR-10264, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Mr. Kaiser pled guilty to one count of 18 U.S.C. §207(c), which prohibits certain post-employment contact with government officials by senior personnel of the executive branch and independent agencies for one year. The offense can be resolved either with a criminal or civil sanction, and if a criminal sanction is pursued, the offense is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison and a $100,000 fine.
Relevant experience and past performance are key ingredients in the evaluation of proposals. In this world of constant mergers, acquisitions (asset purchases and stock purchases) and related novations of government contracts, the question is often exactly what experience can and should be counted by an agency when it evaluates proposals? The answer is not always clear. Take for example, two relatively recent protests decided by the General Accountability Office (GAO) within a year of one another with wildly differing results: Sevatec, Inc., B-406784 (Comp. Gen. Aug. 23, 2012) and Harbor Services, Inc., B-408325 (Comp. Gen. Aug. 23, 2013).
As previously reported here, President Obama issued an Executive Order on Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity which, among other things, directed the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) to a develop a Cybersecurity Framework that would reduce cyber risks to the nation’s critical infrastructure. NIST recently released its Preliminary Cybersecurity Framework in response to this Order and is seeking public comments.
In a recent case that received national media attention, a Commander and Captain-select in the U.S. Navy was arrested on an allegation of conspiracy to commit bribery in connection with lucrative port contracts overseas. The case is United States v. Leonard Glenn Francis and Michael Vannek Khem Misiewicz, No. 13-MJ-03457, United States District Court for the Southern District of California (see criminal complaint here).
The Court of Federal Claims recently reminded us that courts do not answer abstract legal questions. They only adjudicate concrete disputes involving at least two opposing parties – parties that are adverse. “Something real must be at stake, and the parties’ interests with respect to that real thing must be antagonistic.” Brookfield Relocation, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-592 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 4, 2013). Brookfield also reminds us that the same party appearing in multiple protests may end up in a knot.
A new interim rule amends the FAR cost principles to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (“NDAA FY13”) addressing the allowability of legal costs incurred in connection with legal proceedings based on whistleblower complaints. More particularly, the rule revises the cost principle at FAR 31.205-47 (Costs related to legal and other proceedings) to reflect statutory changes made by NDAA.
The government recently settled a qui tam lawsuit against Tremco, Inc., a roofing restoration and supply company that is a subsidiary of RPM International, Inc., a multi-national holding company headquartered in Medina, Ohio. In United States, ex. rel. Gregory Rudolph v. Tremco Inc. and RPM International Inc., No. 10-CV-1192 (D.D.C. filed July 15, 2010) (complaint linked here), the relator alleged that for a period of over nine years, Tremco failed to provide the government with price discounts that it provided to non-federal customers, marketed expensive materials to government purchasers without disclosing the availability of lower cost options, and used a defective adhesive formula in its roofing systems that were installed on government buildings. The complaint alleged false claims in connection with two multiple award schedule contracts with the GSA for roofing supplies and services.
Companies that extract minerals and other natural resources from federal land typically pay royalties to the U.S. Department of the Interior (“Interior”). Under standard federal oil and gas leases, the government may enter into Royalty-In-Kind (“RIK”) contracts providing that the government receives a designated proportion of the minerals extracted instead of a cash payment by the company operating on federal land. In Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC v. Salazar, No. 2012-1055 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found such RIK contracts to be enforceable.

References: v. 
 §207
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.