Now You See It; Now You Don’t – the Nondisplacement Executive Order 13495 Is Gone

President Trump revoked EO 13495 on Oct. 31, 2019, without formal rulemaking, and thereby set up a situation where new and existing solicitations, and current contracts containing the Nondisplacement Executive Order clause, will likely be subject to some confusion until the regulatory situation is resolved. But the bottom line is the service employee first right of refusal requirement has been revoked and there will be no more DOL enforcement actions.

Read More
Step by Step: New FOIA Guidance Issued by DOJ

DOJ has issued guidance about how trade secrets and commercial or financial information should be treated under new Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Freedom of Information Act. This guidance hopefully will achieve the Court’s “fair reading” of the term “confidential” when it comes to determining whether information should be exempt from FOIA disclosures.

Read More
Big Things Happened at the DOL Last Week – The Release of the Final 541 Rule Including a Significantly Lower Dollar Threshold for Highly Compensated Employees

Most notably, the final FLSA rule dispenses with the proposed rule’s significant increase in the salary requirement for the Highly Compensated Employee (“HCE”) test, and instead substitues a modest increase from $100,000 to a new salary basis of $107,432, effective January 2020.

Read More
Late Notice Does Not Preclude a SCA Price Adjustment, but Feeble Proof Will Bar the Claim

While the Service Contract Act (“SCA”) price adjustment clause requires contractors to submit their price adjustment prposals within 30 days of the contract modification adding a new wage determination, the Board says that requirement is not jurisdictional and doesn’t bar the claim. However, a failure of proof of actual costs will bar the recovery.

Read More
GWAC Out of Whack: How a GWAC shifted liability for SCA violations to the Government

Ordinarily, a service contractor has the duty to compare the employee positions that will be providing service under a contract with an applicable SCA wage determination so as to ascertain how much the employees should be paid and what benefits they receive. In a recent case, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals held that that is not always the case.

Read More
Now You See It; Now You Don’t -- Service Contract Act Coverage of Indirect Employees

The Service Contract Act (“SCA”) covers all “service employees” working on or in connection with a government service contract. But that begs the issue of when a worker is directly working on a contract versus indirectly facilitating the performance of the work. As to where the coverage line is drawn, that depends on the contract terms and the employee’s job duties.

Read More
DOL Investigations: Check their Math!

Responding to Department of Labor investigations is not a simple exercise. While you are required to cooperate, provide documents and access to employees, you are not obligated to accept an investigator’s findings and you can question them. But, before you push back, be thoughtful. And,don’t forget to check the math.

Read More
What Me Worry -- New SCA H&W Rates Issued by AAM 230.

The U.S. Department of Labor issued All Agency Memorandum (“AAM”) no. 230 posting new health and welfare (“H&W”) fringe benefit rates for Service Contract Act (“SCA”) covered contracts effective July 5, 2019. The new H&W rates are $4.54 an hour, except if there is a sick leave Executive Order clause in the contract, whereupon the H&W rates are set at $4.22 an hour.

Read More
Claims for CBA Negotiation Costs Are Not In Time and Not Subject to Any Price Adjustment In Fixed Priced Contracts

The Court of Federal Claims decsion in Just In Time Staffing maintains the long-established practice of limiting the FAR price adjustment clause to its plain language – covering the increased costs of wages and fringe benefits of the contractor’s employees and certain enumerated payroll taxes — and not to the cost to negotiate a CBA.

Read More
Is This the Beginning of a Fair Reading Era?

Last fall, the Supreme Court held in Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro that statutes should not be construed so as to achieve perceived legislative goals where there is no “textual reason” why they should be given anything other than a “fair reading.” My colleagues and I wondered whether the “fair reading” concept might show up again. Well, it did. Enter Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media.

Read More