Source: https://govtcontractsmonitor.jacksonkelly.com/contracting-opportunities/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:45:28+00:00

Document:
The solicitation is always your quintessential touchstone, in both constructing your proposal team and preparing your response, including particularly demonstrating your experience and selecting your past performance examples. You therefore need to carefully review the solicitation, and understand both what the agency says it wants, and what it requires and is willing to consider in evaluating your or your team’s capabilities. While it certainly helps to offer a good price, and even better to be the low-priced offeror, such alone may not be enough, particularly in a best value procurement where other factors, including past performance, are being evaluated. This basic maxim was highlighted in a recent Court of Federal Claims decision in which the Court stated the solicitation terms may have led to “an unusual and not particularly fair result,” but nevertheless were neither improper nor objectionably applied. Q Integrated Companies, LLC v. United States, COFC Case No. 16-101, issued April 28, 2016 (Lettow, J.).
The case involved a solicitation (RFP) issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for single-award, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantify (IDIQ), Asset Management contracts in 12 geographical areas to market and sell single-family homes acquired by HUD after the owners defaulted on mortgages held by the Federal Housing Administration. Nine of these areas were set aside for small businesses, and two for women-owned small businesses, with a $7M AAR size standard, while one area was unrestricted.
The RFP provided that technical proposals would be evaluated for technical acceptability, while price would be evaluated for reasonableness. Award was to be made on a best value basis, with past/present performance being weighted approximately equal to cost. Each offeror was limited to three past/present performance references, which could be for either the prime or any entity, including a subcontractor, proposed to perform at least 25% of the work. Past/present performance was to be evaluated based on three criteria – recency, quality and relevancy. Recency was defined as performance within the past three years prior to proposal submission. Quality was to be determined by evaluating questionnaires regarding the prior contracts and other sources, such as performance reporting databases. As to relevancy, HUD was to assign a rating of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant or Not Relevant for each submitted contract based on the number of properties for which the offeror or proposed subcontractor had performed similar asset management services. In determining relevance, HUD would consider “the extent to which the offeror performed the work,” and offerors were instructed to “identify the percentage of work [it] performed as a subcontractor on an incumbent contract.” Based on the recency, quality and relevancy elements, HUD was to assign each offeror an overall past/present performance confidence rating of Excellent/High Confidence, Good/Significant Confidence, Fair/Some Confidence, No Confidence and Neutral/ Unknown Confidence.
After initial proposal evaluations, the elimination of technically unacceptable offerors and one unreasonably priced offeror, HUD established a competitive range for each area, held written discussions and evaluated final proposal revisions (FPRs). HUD awarded the three areas at issue to an entity called Sage Acquisitions, LLC, which was an 8(a) Mentor/Protégé joint venture (JV) between Raine & Company, LLC (“Raine”), the 8(a) protégé, and PEMCO, Limited (PEMCO), its large business mentor. Sage, while higher-priced than Q Integrated, was deemed to offer the best value due to its superior past/present performance rating. In its FPR Sage elected to submit three PEMCO contracts as its past performance references. Despite having no examples for Raine, HUD gave Sage the highest possible rating based upon excellent ratings for PEMCO and HUD’s noting that PEMCO could perform up to 60% of the work under the M/P JV and would mentor Raine as to the balance.
After being debriefed, Q Integrated filed a bid protest at GAO challenging the subject three awards to Sage, and then filed at the Court of Federal Claims after GAO dismissed its protest because another offeror had filed a separate protest at the Court challenging a different area award.
Among other things, Q Integrated challenged HUD’s evaluation of both its and Sage’s past/present performance. Q Integrated bid a prime/sub arrangement, with its former, no longer small, prime – Matt Martin Real Estate Management, LLC (Martin) – as a sub, with a proposed 49% share of the work. Q Integrated initially submitted past performance examples of work it had performed as a sub to Martin, as well as work performed by Martin as a prime. In its FPR, Q Integrated took a different course than Sage, and submitted only three examples that it had performed as a sub to Martin, rather than any of Martin’s well-regarded prime contract performance. Unbeknownst to Q Integrated, HUD was downgrading its subcontract work (i) as to relevancy since Q integrated, as the subcontractor, had only performed only 20% of the work, and (ii) as to quality because Martin’s references were deemed not to be arms-length due to Martin's proposed subcontract role on the current effort. Q Integrated ultimately won its Court protest due to HUD’s failure to have disclosed these latter concerns during discussions.
However, the Court denied Q Integrated’s past performance challenges. First, as to Q Integrated, the Court held that the downgrading of Q Integrated’s performance based upon its performance of only 20% of the work was consistent with the RFP. Further, the Court determined that it was not unreasonable for the agency to consider potential rating bias. The Court specifically rejected the suggestion that the agency needed direct or significant circumstantial proof of actual bias. Second, as to Sage, the Court again found that the evaluation was consistent with the RFP, which permitted offerors to select which examples to submit, and permitted examples from either the prime or a subcontractor. Indeed, the Court noted that Q Integrated similarly could have submitted examples only for Mason, and likely would have rated much higher had it done so.
The Court also rejected Q Integrated’s argument that the RFP improperly favored JVs because the large business mentor could perform as up to 60% of the work. The Court stated that this circumstance was due to the applicable regulatory framework, and that “[t]he government is not obligated to explain to offerors the applicable regulations or the relevant advantages of using a particular business organization and arrangement under these regulations.” Thus, while agreeing that the result here may have been “unusual and not particularly fair,” in that Sage got a higher rating without showing any pertinent past performance by Raine, while Q Integrated showed substantial experience and similarly had a highly experienced teaming partner, the Court found that Q Integrated’s concerns were more the result of its bidding choices and failure to appreciate the particular advantages offered by different teaming structures.
This decision highlights first the importance of offerors understanding and carefully evaluating not only their own team structure and bidding strategy, but also what their competitors may be doing, under both the applicable regulatory framework and the particular RFP terms. Second, the decision demonstrates the importance of carefully considering and selecting your past performance or experience examples, so as to best posture your proposal in the evaluation process, consistent with the RFP terms. Of course, if you don’t like the RFP terms, and deem such unfair or unjustifiably slanted against your being able to compete on a level playing field, the time to challenge such terms is up-front, before initial proposal submission.
OHA therefore reaffirmed its earlier dismissal, without prejudice, of a petition by Wolverine World Wide, Inc., seeking review of SBA’s new 1,000 employee size standard for Footwear Manufacturing, NAICS Code 316210, published at 81 Fed. Reg. 4440 (Jan. 26, 2016). Wolverine filed its initial petition for reconsideration of the new size standard on February 26, 2016. OHA summarily dismissed the same, without prejudice, on March 2, 2016, on the ground that OHA had not yet promulgated the necessary procedural regulations. Wolverine sought reconsideration, arguing that Congress’ authorization was effective immediately and specified the procedures to be followed. SBA’s General Counsel’s Office (OGC) opposed Wolverine’s request, arguing that the existing size appeal procedures do not address a number of issues incident to the new size standards review, including, most importantly, (i) notice to other interested parties, and (ii) limitations on the relief that OHA can grant in such a proceeding, given that only the Administrator can establish or alter a size standard.
OHA concurred, and rejected Wolverine’s petition as premature, on two grounds: (1) OHA reaffirmed that new procedures are necessary, including as to who has standing to bring such petitions; and (2) Wolverine is not prejudiced by waiting, since (i) OHA’s dismissal was without prejudice, and specified that Wolverine could refile “within 30 days after OHA has published the necessary procedural regulations,” and (ii) the statute explicitly provides that exhaustion of the new administrative remedy is not a prerequisite to an Administrative Procedures Act (APA) challenge in District Court, and Wolverine therefore could go immediately to Court if it is unwilling to wait (Order Denying Request for Reconsideration).
The bottom line is that companies desiring to take advantage of the newly-provided administrative process to challenge SBA’s recently-adopted or future new NAICS Code size standards are going to have to wait for OHA to issue new regulations establishing the procedures that will govern such challenges. However, once the new procedures are in place, interested parties thereafter will have only 30 days within which to challenge SBA’s recently-implemented size standard changes.
In anticipation of this week’s national Small Business Week (May 1-7) activities, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) last Thursday announced the federal government’s Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) small business goaling results and Small Business Procurement Scorecard. According to SBA, the federal government achieved its 23% small business contracting goal for the third straight year, awarding a record high 25.75% of federal prime contracts, totaling $90.7 billion, to small business. However, while the overall percentage was up from 24.99% last year, it should be noted that the actual dollar value awarded was down slightly from $91.3B. This achievement was accomplished through improvement in four of the five categories, including a record 10.06% ($35.4B) to Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), a record 5.05% ($17.8B) to Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) – meeting the 5% WOSB goal for the first time ever – and a record $13.8B (3.93%) in awards to Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs). However, the government failed again to meet its 3% goal for HUBZone small businesses. The government also failed to meet its 34.03% subcontracting goal, and actually showed a decline from 33% to 31.2%. Importantly, this data and the continuing shortfalls in various categories, both government-wide and for specific agencies, create marketing opportunities for large and small businesses alike in putting together new proposal teams and marketing to the respective agencies.
By way of background, and as you likely already know, Congress has established an annual overall small-business contracting goal of “not less than 23 percent of the total value of all prime contract awards.” Congress also has established goals of 5% for awards to each of (i) SDBs, including 8(a)s, and (ii) WOSBs, and 3% for each of (iii) SDVOSBs, and (iv) HUBZone Small Business Companies (HUBZone SBCs). Similar goals exist for subcontracting by large businesses, requiring 36% of eligible subcontracting to go to small businesses, with the same percentages as for prime contracting applicable to each of the same four sub-categories. All of these goals are minimums, which agencies are encouraged to exceed. Indeed, each year each individual agency negotiates with SBA individual agency-specific goals for the coming year, based upon the specific agency’s past performance in each category. Thus, a specific agency’s goals may be significantly higher if the agency has shown an ability to achieve higher percentages in the past.
The FY15 prime contract goaling numbers evidence the continuing emphasis on small business contracting, which is reinforced by the fact that agencies are now required to consider success in these areas in personnel evaluations, and bonus and promotion decisions, for senior agency officials. They likely also reflect the impact of the increased numbers of companies now qualifying as small, as the result of SBA’s size standards increases over the past several years.
The foregoing means that agencies across-the-board are focusing on at least maintaining, and likely increasing, their small business prime contracting, not only in the aggregate, but also in each of the relevant subcategories. In order to understand the mindset of any particular agency, it is important to analyze that agency’s goaling scorecard, and specifically the agency’s negotiated goals and past progress. Agency scorecards are available on the SBA’s website. This data reflects both the agency’s past openness to and success in contracting with the various small business communities, as well as areas in which the agency is falling short and may be particularly open to appropriate small business marketing initiatives.
Similarly, the continuing overall shortfall for small business subcontracting, and particularly the continuing shortfalls in overall small business and HUBZone small business subcontracting, as well as specific agency shortfalls as to SDB, WOSB and SDVOSB contracting, present specific marketing opportunities for large businesses in assembling their proposal teams. For example, 12 of 24 agencies (50%) failed to meet the 3% SDVOSB subcontracting goal, while six failed to meet the 5% SDB goal and two failed to meet the 5% WOSB goal. Large businesses have the opportunity to set themselves apart from their competitors by aggressively seeking out and including in their proposals outstanding small businesses that will help both them and their customer agencies increase and exceed the agencies’ respective small business subcontracting goals. This is particularly important in those RFPs in which subcontracting plans and/or past subcontracting performance are identified evaluation factors.
For large and small businesses alike, it is worth spending time reviewing this data and focusing on the ways in which you can use the data to enhance your agency-specific marketing efforts, and how to address counter-marketing efforts by your likely competitors, particularly as we approach the important fourth fiscal year quarter when agencies will be looking to enhance their FY16 goaling performance.
Mentor/Protege Agreements – When Does Yours Expire; More Traps for the Unwary!
Mentor-Protege Agreements (MPAs) are a hot topic right now, as we near the Small Business Administration (SBA)’s anticipated issuance of new regulations on a possible “universal” Mentor-Protege program that would extend SBA’s current 8(a) Mentor-Protege (M/P) rules (13 C.F.R. §124.520), to other socio-economic programs. However, as we have discussed from time-to-time, the rules governing SBA’s 8(a) MPAs can be tricky, and require careful attention, particularly as to timing, so as to avoid a number of traps for the unwary. A recent decision by SBA’s Office of Hearings & Appeals (OHA) highlights one of these traps – specifically, the need for SBA to affirmatively approve the extension of a MPA so as to avoid the same expiring and the parties being unable to continue enjoying benefits thereunder, including the affiliation exception for 8(a) M/P joint ventures (JVs).
By way of background, one of the advantages of the 8(a) M/P program is that the 8(a) protégé can joint venture with its mentor, and compete as a small business for any government prime contract or subcontract. 13 C.F.R. § 520(d)(1). As you may know, joint venturers presently are generally deemed by SBA to be affiliated, such that their revenues or employees must be aggregated for size determination purposes. However, SBA’s regulations provide an exception from these affiliation rules for 8(a) M/P JVs. Companies availing themselves of these advantages enter into two separate agreements – (1) the MPA, and (2) a JV Agreement (JVA). Each of these agreements has to be separately approved by SBA. The MPA must be effective as of proposal submission for the JV to qualify for the affiliation exception, while the JVA must be approved prior to an 8(a) award to the JVA.
This language is pretty clear. The problem, however, is that, in the excitement of getting the MPA approval, the parties often don’t focus on the fine print. Moreover, it is easy to get distracted by the needed JVA and JV proposal preparation efforts. It may be months before SBA approves the JVA and the parties actually start getting new work. Meanwhile, of course, the clock is ticking, and the initial one-year MPA approval period running. The situation is further complicated by SBA’s internal processes, which favor reviewing the parties’ progress under the approved MPA as part of the 8(a)’s annual review. However, such review period may not align with the MPA renewal timing.
A number of these factors came together recently in the Size Appeal of North Star Magnus Pacific Joint Venture, SBA No. SIZ-5715, decided Feb. 17, 2016. North Star, an approved 8(a), entered into a MPA with its large business mentor, Magnus Pacific Corp. The MPA provided that the “Term of the Agreement” would be “at least one year,” and [c]ontinuation of the Agreement is contingent upon SBA review of the proposed Protege's report on the Mentor/Protege relationship as part of the  annual review of the firm’s business plan pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 124.403.” SBA approved the MPA on July 5, 2014. SBA’s approval letter incorporated the above-discussed standard SBA language. On Monday, July 6, 2015, North Star and Magnus Pacific amended the MPA to continue the M/P relationship for an additional year, and submitted such to SBA. On September 23, 2015, North Star submitted its 8(a) Annual Review and updated business plan, addressing the M/P relationship and including a “Mentor-Protege Worksheet.” The District Office approved the updated annual business plan on September 28, 2015. On October 30, 2015, the District Office informed North Star that SBA approved the “request to extend the [MPA] for one year through July 4, 2016” – one year from the original July 5, 2015 original approval expiration.
In the meantime, the JV had submitted a new proposal to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 17, 2015, self-certifying as small. In the course of subsequently examining the JV’s size, the Area Office determined that the MPA had expired, and was no longer in effect as of the July 17th proposal submission, The Area Office determined that the affiliation exception therefore was inapplicable, and the JV was other than small. The JV naturally appealed this determination, and raised a panoply of arguments to OHA, including that the MPA did not contain a set expiration date, and was contingent upon the annual review results that would not take place until well after July 5th. The JV further argued that the Area Office exceeded its authority, and that 8(a) program issues are reserved to the Acting Administrator for Business Development (AA/BD).
OHA denied the appeal. First, OHA cited the plain language of SBA’s MPA approval letter, and sustained, as reasonable, the Area Office’s interpretation that such meant that the MPA expired on July 5th, absent a prior approved extension. Second, OHA stated that this was consistent with Section 124.520(e)(4), which OHA construed as providing that “SBA’s approval of the agreement expires after one year, unless renewed.” Third, OHA stated that the venturers’ July 6th Amendment extending the MPA evidenced their understanding that the MPA would lapse absent an extension. Fourth, OHA stated that the September 2015 annual review and SBA’s 10/30/15 approval letter were irrelevant, as both occurred after the July 17th proposal submission. Fifth, OHA stated that determining whether the MPA was in effect as of the date for determining size was well within the Area Office’s competence, and did not involve determining compliance with the 8(a) program regulations. OHA therefore affirmed the determination that the JV was other than small.
The bottom line is that M/P parties need to (1) write (2) the cognizant District Office (3) more than 60 days in advance of a MPA’s annual anniversary date (4) to request any desired renewal or extension of the MPA. Such request should remind SBA of the actual renewal date, and include (1) an executed MPA amendment subject to SBA’s approval, (2) supporting documentation as to the parties’ respective activities under, and the benefits to the 8(a) participant of, the MPA, and (3) let SBA know as to any pending bids that might be adversely impacted by a late approval. Do not wait, as the venturers did here, until after the MPA has expired to seek an extension, unless you are willing to forego bidding for whatever time it takes to get approval. Look right now at any MPA approval letter(s) you may have, note SBA’s approval date, and calendar suspense dates to remind you to timely seek any desired extension of the MPA in ample time before the MPA expires.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has published a Final Rule, effective January 25, 2016, adopting, as issued, SBA’s 2014 Interim Final Rule, previously discussed here, increasing SBA’s monetary-based size standards to account for inflation since 2008. These adjustments, which resulted in size standard increases of approximately 8.73% (rounded to the nearest $500,000), were made pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(c), which requires SBA to examine the impact of inflation on monetary-based size standards at least once every five years, and were in addition to earlier implemented increases to SBA’s monetary-based size standards as part of SBA’s comprehensive size standards review pursuant to Section 1344 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240).
The Final Rule also confirms SBA’s application of the 8.73% inflation adjustment to (1) the Tangible Net Worth and Net Income based alternative size standards for the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program (13 C.F.R. § 121.301(c)); (2) Sales or Leases of Government Property Other than Manufacturing (13 C.F.R. § 121.502); and (3) Stockpile Purchases (13 C.F.R. § 121.512), as well as SBA’s prior determination to not increase the tangible net worth and net income based alternative size standards for SBA’s 504 and 7(a) Loan Programs (13 C.F.R. § 121.301(b)).
This Final Rule removes uncertainty and makes permanent the increased monetary-based size standards that have been in place since July 14, 2014. The currently applicable size standards may be found at 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.
The FAR Council has published a new Proposed Rule implementing Section 743 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), and anticipated successor provisions in future appropriations acts and continuing resolutions, prohibiting the use of appropriated or otherwise available funds for any contract, grant or cooperative agreement with an entity that requires its employees or subcontractors to sign internal confidentiality agreements or statements that would prohibit or otherwise restrict the lawful reporting of fraud, waste or abuse to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a federal department or agency authorized to receive such information.
The Proposed Rule would add new FAR Section 3.909, “Prohibition on contracting with entities that require certain internal confidentiality agreements,” and two new clauses that Contracting Officers would be required to include in all solicitations and resultant contracts, and all modifications to any existing contract, obligating FY15 or subsequent year funds, other than personal services contracts performed entirely by the contracting individual. The FAR Council has initially determined, given the subject matter, that these provisions would extend to commercial items and simplified acquisition purchases.
The proposed language provides that submission of an offer would constitute a representation that the offeror is in compliance with the new requirement. An offeror not able to make the representation would be ineligible for award. Contractors also would be required to affirmatively notify their employees, through normal business communication channels, such as e-mail, that any such limitations in pre-existing confidentiality agreements are no longer in effect. Importantly, the proposed new contract clause, if adopted, would require contractors to flow down the clause to all first and lower tier subcontracts.
Comments on the Proposed Rule are due no later than March 22, 2016, and should reference FAR Case 2015-012. While this is only a proposed rule at this point, given the statutory “funds use” bar driving this, as well as general ethical policy considerations, contractors would be well-advised to review their current policies and the wording of any existing internal company confidentiality agreements, and ensure that such and any new agreements are consistent with the proposed new provisions.
Year-end 2015 brought two important developments for Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), that provide new business opportunities, as well as some uncertainty, as we start 2016. First, the FAR Council issued its eagerly-awaited Interim Rule authorizing sole source awards to WOSBs in appropriate circumstances. This new authority, which is effective immediately, levels the playing field between WOSBs and the other socio-economic classifications, and provides government contracting officers an important new tool to increase the number of prime contract awards to WOSBs. Second, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), inviting comments, by February 16, 2016, on a wide range of issues related to implementing Congress’s ending WOSB self-certification and developing a new certification regime. Importantly, self-certification remains in place for now. However, changes are coming, likely in 2017, and this is your chance to comment and effect the direction of such change and promote a workable outcome.
Background: As previously discussed here, Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 (FY15 NDAA) amended the Small Business Act to (1) authorize, for the first time, sole source awards to WOSBs, bringing WOSBs in line with other socio-economic programs, and (2) delete the statutory authority for WOSB status self-certification. Congress also advanced the date for a required SBA report as to WOSB participation in federal contracting.
SBA issued its Final Rule implementing the authorized sole source award authority, effective October 14, 2015 (discussed here). However, FAR implementation was still required before WOSB sole source awards could occur.
(iii) award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.
Importantly, while mandating that Contracting Officers “consider” a WOSB sole source award before considering a small business set-aside, new FAR 19.1506 does not actually mandate WOSB sole source awards, and the sole-source decision is left to the Contracting Officer’s discretion. However, the FAR Council stated that one of the objectives of the Interim Rule is “to provide an additional needed tool for agencies to meet the statutorily mandated goal of 5 percent of the total value of all prime contract and subcontract awards for WOSBs.” There thus is a strong basis upon which WOSBs can encourage Contracting Officers to avail themselves of this newly-provided tool to enhance their respective agency’s performance with respect to WOSB prime contract award goals, and Contracting Officers should consider and give weight to this policy in making award decisions.
The FY15 NDAA specifies four different certification alternatives: (1) a Federal Agency; (2) a State government; (3) SBA; or (4) a national certifying entity approved by SBA. SBA is now inviting comments as to the practicality of, and downsides to, each of these four alternatives in light of existing programs and experience, and as to whether each alternative should be pursued.
SBA also is inviting comments as to the length of any grace period that should be permitted for presently self-certified entities to come into compliance with the new system when implemented, and as to what should be done with, or what continuing use made of, the existing WOSB documents repository.
Comments on the ANPRM are due no later than February 16, 2016.
Conclusion: WOSBs working in eligible industries should take advantage of, and educate their Contracting Officers about, the new sole source award authority, and encourage them to award eligible contracts on this new basis. WOSBs also should consider providing comments to SBA in response to the ANPRM, particularly as to any experience (good or bad) with the various specified certification methods, including as to the time and cost of third-party certification.
Happy New Year! The start of a new year is a time for New Year’s Resolutions. Here are several we strongly urge you to follow-through on early in 2016.
1. Reassess Your (and Any Subcontractors’) Small Business Size Status: Most companies operate on a calendar year for tax reporting purposes. For such companies the start of a new tax year, and the end of the prior year, means a change and forward adjustment of the three-year period used to calculate a company’s average annual receipts (AAR) for size determination purposes. See our prior blog article on this topic here. Thus, effective January 1, 2016, companies that have been calculating their size based upon 2012-2014 receipts are required, for the first time, to start using 2013-2015 receipts. Obviously, and depending upon the company’s receipts last year (tax year 2015) vs. 2012, this change alone could change a company’s size status eligibility. Moreover, there have been significant changes in size standards over the past two years as a result of (i) SBA’s ongoing industry-by-industry review and increases to many size standards, and (ii) SBA’s Interim Final Rule issued in June 2014, adjusting all monetary-based size standards for inflation over the prior five years (previously discussed here). A size status review is particularly important this year, not only to ensure that future size certifications are correct, but also to consider whether your company might now be eligible for procurements for which you previously were too large. Please note that this review needs to consider each individual NAICS Code under which your company is listed or considering bidding. Also, check the updated status of any present or proposed subcontractors and teaming partners. While especially important for small businesses, a size status review also is important for large businesses with respect to any current or proposed small business teaming partners or subcontractors.
2. Review and Update Your Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) Listing: The start of a new year is also a good time for small businesses to review, and update as necessary, the company’s SBA DSBS listing. This is a primary source for government agencies, and you need to ensure that your listing is accurate, up-to-date and fully reflects any new information that might help you get new work. In addition to ensuring accuracy as to your current address, phone numbers and size and any socioeconomic status representations, be sure to update your listing to include any new performance history, and new professional and industry certifications, and make sure that your keywords are comprehensive, so as to make it easy for contracting specialists to find you. You might also want to check the listings of your key competitors to see how your listing stacks up, and whether other changes might enhance your competitive status.
3. Review and Update Your SAM Listing: Once you complete the size status reassessment, you need to review and update your listings on the Government’s System for Acquisition Management (SAM), at www.SAM.gov. This is necessary both (1) to ensure the current accuracy of the listed information, and (2) if you are a small business, to maintain and continue your company’s small business status. Please remember that information on SAM is now deemed to be a representation and certification by you as to the current accuracy of the posted information. Both the company and you individually can be held liable for any inaccurate information. Moreover, at least annual updating is required or a small business will lose and be unable to claim small business size status until updated. On a related note, if your business address has changed, be sure to update your Dun & Bradstreet DUNS number listing, and follow-up to ensure that the changes are passed through to and show up on SAM and DSBS.
4. Review and Ensure the Accuracy and Currency of Your Past Performance Information: The start of a new year also is a good time to review the accuracy and currency of your past performance information in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and elsewhere, so that you can initiate efforts to correct and update this information, if needed, in advance of future procurements where such information might be key to your competitive standing and award eligibility. Once a procurement comes down to the critical evaluation and award stages, it is usually too late to impact performance ratings. This is particularly true as to missing past performance evaluations, which take time to be prepared and go through the comment and review process. If you have performed well under one or more contracts over contract performance years that ended during the past year, you should ensure that CPARS evaluations have been performed and entered, documenting your good performance, so that you can claim, and agencies can give you credit, in any new procurement. This also will ensure that you have an opportunity to reply to and explain any negative comments.
5. Update Your Employment Policies, Handbooks, Postings and Subcontract Flow-Downs: While it is always good at the start of each year to review your ethics and compliance programs, it is particularly important this year that you update your employment policies, handbooks, postings and subcontract flow-down clauses, in view of the virtual flood of new Executive Orders and implementing Department of Labor and FAR regulations over the past year, including the increased $10.15 minimum wage effective January 1, 2016, prohibitions on pay secrecy and human trafficking, expansion of the Equal Opportunity Clause to include prohibitions on sexual orientation and gender identity, changes to the rules governing individuals with disabilities, and new VETS tracking and reporting requirements, just to name a few.
There certainly are many other good resolutions you also should consider, including to keep current on new developments. 2016 is going to be very busy, as the Obama administration rushes to implement various initiatives before leaving office. However, taking the five actions listed above will position you well to move forward in 2016.

References: v. 
 §124
 § 520
 § 124
 § 121
 § 121
 § 121
 § 121
 § 121
 § 121