Court of Federal Claims Rules on TAA
The Court of Federal Claims recently issued a ruling that will now allow companies to source products from non-TAA countries. The Court held that the components of a drug being sold to the VA had nothing to do with its country of origin when determining whether it was U.S.-made under the FAR trade regulations. While the holding was limited to pharmaceuticals, the Court’s reasoning made it clear that if the product being deliver to the government is created in the United States, then the country from which any of its product come is irrelevant in certifying trade agreements compliance under the FAR. The case is Acetris Health, LLC v. United States, 2018-2399 (February 10, 2020).
U.S. District Court Rules Against Huawei
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has ruled against Huawei’s constitutional challenge of the law banning its products from federal contracts. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., et al v. United States of America, et al., 4:19-CV-159.
Report Indicates Set-Asides Going to Non-SDVOSBs
DoD’s Office of Inspector General released a report of its audit of service disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) contract awards on February 20, 2020. The report found that DoD has awarded $876M in contracts to ineligible companies. Unlike when doing business with the VA, DoD only requires SDVOSBs self-certify their status via SAM and a representation to the contracting officer. DoD has no policies in place to confirm whether the entity is actually a SDVOSB under the regulations or the requirements for SDVOSB subcontracting. According to the report, this factor contributed most significantly to the award of SDVOSB set-asides to contractors disqualified from participating in the procurement.
Our government contracts briefs, reports, and articles are published by Attorney Kristi Morgan Aronica. She serves as counsel to government contractors and subcontractors throughout Texas and nationally.