Search

On September 22, 2020, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13950: Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping. This order stopped federal agencies, federal grant recipients, and government contractors from conducting training in the workplace that involves "stereotyping" or "scapegoating" based on sex or race, specifically banning discussions of critical race theory and white privilege. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction on December 22, 2020, banning the enforcement of the order, and, on January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden, during his first day in office, revoked the order. However, this did not signify the end of Executive Order 13950's importance. While this executive order is atypical because it utilizes government procurement as a vehicle to enact socially conservative policies, it continues the troubling trend of presidents using executive orders to regulate government contractors. This Note will first analyze three problems with the defunct executive order: (1) the executive order was bad policy; (2) it violated the United States Constitution; and (3) most importantly, the executive order itself is the wrong mechanism to enact social change and regulate government contractors. Second, this Note will explain that the rise and fall of Executive Order 13950 exemplifies the turbulent nature of regulating government contractors through executive orders. Instead of relying on such orders, government officials should regulate labor and employment requirements on government contractors through legislation because such measures are longer lasting, give interested parties the opportunity for input, and undergo more deliberate considerations before enactment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues on notion of the jurisdictional bar on suing the federal government without its consent extends to contractors when they are acting in the capacity of a government agent. It mentions the role that contractors have played and historically afforded protections from suit. It analyze how the changes will affect litigation and argues that doing away with government contractors’ access to a jurisdictional bar will lessen contractors’ abilities to take advantage of their immunity.

When the government contracts with private parties, the risk of fraud runs high. Fraud against the government hurts everyone: taxpayer money is wasted on inferior or nonexistent products and services, and the public bears the burdens attendant to those inadequate goods. To combat fraud, Congress has developed several statutory frameworks to encourage whistleblowers to come forward and report wrongdoing in exchange for a monetary reward. The federal False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to file an action in federal court on behalf of the United States, and to share in any recovery. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC Office of the Whistleblower investigates tips provided by whistleblowers and, in the event of a successful prosecution, pays an award to the tipster. The False Claims Act and SEC program both protect whistleblowers from retaliatory action from their employer. But the SEC program goes a step further: SEC Rule 21F-17 also prevents an employer from taking any action to interfere with the reporting of fraud. In this way, the SEC program protects not only whistleblowers, but also whistleblowing itself. It's time for the False Claims Act to catch up. Congress should look to SEC Rule 21F-17 as a model for how it could amend the False Claims to establish a cause of action against contractors who take steps to chill or restrict their employees from bringing forward claims of fraud. In doing so, it will vindicate the original intent and purpose of the False Claims Act and encourage whistleblowers to come forward and put an end to corporate wrongdoing. Protecting whistleblowing benefits the government, taxpayers, and whistleblowers--and ensures that the False Claims Act remains an effective instrument in the fight against fraud. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses Florida's public records law in relation to debates in the state's legislature regarding an effort to limit attorneys' fees in public records cases as of 2017. The right to access public records is addressed, along with the Florida Legislature and issues involving government contractors law and fee-shifting provisions. Florida's courts are assessed, as well as public agencies, state legislative bills, and a 2016 attorneys' fees-related lawsuit.

The article discusses the author's claim that the 2016 amendments to Florida's Public Records Act provide relief for government contractors from predatory requests, but the legislative changes do not address the legal problems that are associated with public agencies in Florida. A citizen's right to access state and local government records in Florida is examined, along with the state's open government laws, public records-related lawsuits, and exemptions to Florida's Public Records Act.

Copyright of Secuencia: Revista de Historia y Ciencias Sociales is the property of Instituto de Investigaciones - Dr. Jose M. Luis Mora and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article talks about regulatory environment of government contracts by the U.S. Federal government that imposes social policy on government contractors under Davis-Bacon Act and Service Contract Act.

The article discusses America's False Claims Act (FCA) in relation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's ruling in the case Foglia v. Renal Ventures Management LLC which deals with the legal rights of private citizens (relators), registered nurse Thomas Foglia, and a particularity requirement under Rule 9(b) of the nation's Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Qui tam lawsuits (popular actions) are addressed, along with the U.S. government's ability to sue government contractors.

The article discusses U.S. President Barack Obama's issuance of Executive Order No. 13, 672 on July 21, 2014 which prohibits America's federal government from engaging in employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and it also prohibits U.S. federal contractors from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The legal rights of LGBTQ people in America are mentioned, along with civil rights and the U.S. Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013.

The article discusses the legal rights and obligations of employers in America in relation to the concept of vicarious liability (VL) under the U.S. Anti-Kickback Act which was enacted by the nation's Congress in 1946. Corrupt practices in government procurement are addressed, along with the legal rights of government contractors in America and several VL-related lawsuits such as Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root Inc. Qui tam actions and the U.S. False Claims Act are also examined.

The article focuses on the executive order obligations for federal contractor employees in 2015. Topics include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, nondiscrimination laws in the U.S., and the legal status of employers as federal contractors. Information is provided on annual hiring benchmarks for U.S. veterans by employers.

The article focuses on the U.S. Federal Circuit Bar Association's study on the best practices in federal procurement contracting. Topics include the performance issues found, the resolution of government contract disputes, and the precedent set by the U.S. Court of Appeals case M. Maropakis Carpentry Inc. v. United States.

The article comments on the history, evolution, and application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in governing the military justice system. Topics discussed include the role of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA) in regulating the functioning of foreign national contractors, analysis of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces on the case United States v. Ali, and the importance of Fourth and Fifth Amendment Protection of the Constitution.

The federal government spent over $550 billion procuring goods, services, and construction from the private sector last year. To keep these taxpayer dollars from going to inscrutable contractors, the government uses the remedies of suspension and debarment to ensure that only "responsible" parties perform government contracts. The current regulations, however, are too broad and permit agencies to suspend and debar individuals and companies that do not have an established connection to government contracting. In the face of political pressures to increase suspension and debarment actions, these overbroad regulations invite misuse. Not only do actions against such individuals and companies violate the purposes of the suspension and debarment regulations--protecting the government and acting in the public interest--they are inefficient and waste valuable taxpayer resources. Narrowing the scope of suspension and debarment regulations so that agencies may take actions only against those individuals and companies that currently contract, or have previously contracted, with the government ensures suspension and debarment programs are efficiently employing their limited resources with an aim toward protecting the government, not generally policing contractor behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the importance of contract clauses for improvement in transparency of information among contractors of the Federal Government under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Topics discussed include risks of limiting access to environmental information in the contractors' work, impact of increased contracting on the transparency of FOIA and disclosure of environmentally sensitive information. It further discusses the assurance of the contractors for the public welfare.

The article discusses U.S. government regulations in relation to the privatized security industry as of November 2013, focusing on public/private governance and the issue of accountability in relation to government contractors. America's Commission for Wartime Contracting, human rights, and concerns related to potential misconduct by private contractors are assessed. International humanitarian law and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers are examined.

In 2010, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) decided the appeal of MAC International FZE ("MAC"), a company attempting to bring a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) against the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq ("Authority") and the United States. The Authority, staffed primarily by United States employees and funded by U.S. appropriations, United Nations contributions, and Iraqi funds, had failed to pay MAC over five million dollars it was owed under contract. The ASBCA found that the Authority, because it was an international coalition, could not be considered an executive agency of the United States and, as such, the CDA did not apply. Therefore, MAC's claim could not be heard. This Note argues the ASBCA's determination that the Authority was not an agency of the United States highlighted a gap in procurement law. As international coalitions, like the Authority, are not subject to United States procurement law, they are free of all procurement regulation. This situation, which effectively makes coalitions and member states immune from any potential contract action against them, is undesirable. To close this gap, Congress should pass a statute disallowing use of appropriated funds by coalitions that fail to meet a minimum standard of procurement regulation. The proposed language, which mirrors the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement, is flexible enough to meet the needs of coalitions while ensuring that contractors have a forum available to hear and decide contract disputes, thereby adequately accounting for the concerns of both coalition member states and the contractors supplying them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the history of the False Claims Act (FCA) of the U.S. that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs and explains FCA's serving as the basis for various reforms of statutes dealing with income tax cheating and securities law violations. It describes how FCA has dealt with the relators, government contractors who knowingly cheat in their agreements with the government.

The article focuses on the rights of contingency contractors and their standing to bring suits relating to government procurement regulation violations. Topics include the amount of waste and fraud associated with wartime contracting, the lack of oversight on contingency contracts, and the U.S. Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA).

The article discusses the regulation of information security in the government contracting industry as of June 2013, focusing on the U.S. government's attempts to strengthen its regulations and laws in the wake of increasing cybersecurity risks. Several statutes are addressed, including the U.S. Paperwork Reduction Act and the nation's Computer Security Act of 1987. Data security breaches and controlled unclassified information (CUI) are mentioned, along with U.S. Department of Defense and the nation's Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA).

The article discusses the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) of the U.S., which deals with the suspension and debarment laws, regarding government contractors from the perspective of the U.S. Congress. It highlights that the Congress encourages transforming debarment into a tool of punishment that banishes contractors from procurement system irrespective of a contractor's due process rights. It informs that the FAR fails to distinguish between protection or punishment laws.

The article focuses on legal methods to prevent corrupt practices in subcontracting process for the small business operation owned by service-disabled veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces. It also offers information on the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) program and the Veterans First Contracting Program (VFCP) initiated by the U.S. Government to provide economic opportunities to the veterans.

The U.S. Congress created the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) and Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) programs to promote fairness in government contracting. In this article, the authors examine whether increases in racial and gender representation in federal agencies correlate with the proportion of contract dollars awarded to women- and minority-owned firms. Using the theory of representative bureaucracy as a starting point, they find evidence that increases in passive minority representation result in a larger proportion of contract dollars awarded to minority-owned firms, which comports with previous empirical research. There is no evidence, however, that female representation leads directly or indirectly to substantive benefits for women-owned small businesses. Given that the findings for women do not support representative bureaucracy, the authors provide potential alternative explanations. Specifically, they consider gender bias, social identity, and the 'queen bee' phenomenon as possible explanations for why women are less inclined to advocate for other women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent months the Government has taken measures, globally called «Plan Proveedores», aimed at establishing an efficient mechanism for payment and cancellation of outstanding debts to suppliers of local bodies and autonomous regions. This paper summarizes and analyzes the main features of this framework [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, the federal government has greatly expanded its use of contractors to perform services and now purchases more than $260 billion in services every year. The government has increasingly turned to contractors to accomplish its programmatic goals, and contractor personnel are now performing tasks that in the past had been performed by government employees. While government employees are subject to strict ethical standards, most of these standards do not apply to contractor personnel. If a federal employee makes a recommendation on a matter that could affect her financial interest, she could be subject not only to administrative discipline, but also to criminal prosecution. In most cases, a contractor employee who has that same financial interest and makes the same recommendation is not subject to any consequences. In fact, the government does not have any systematic way of even finding out when contractor personnel have such conflicts of interest. The personal conflicts of interest of contractor personnel are largely unregulated. This Article discusses the disparity between the strict regulation of employees and the lax regulation of contractor personnel, explores possible explanations for the wide disparity in standards for these two groups, and suggests several research questions that should be answered prior to deciding whether to impose strict financial conflict standards on contractor personnel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does compliance with rules ensure better program performance and accountability? Since the 1980s, many scholars have answered no to this question, arguing that as managers attempt to comply with a growing thicket of rules, they often lose sight of the performance of their agencies and programs. Even the defenders of a rules-based approach have tended to view it as a necessary, though inconvenient, means of ensuring that democratic values and public rights are protected in the functioning of government. But does compliance with rules inevitably result in a loss of efficiency and effectiveness in the performance of public projects? This essay presents a case study of a public works project and three additional case summaries to demonstrate a theoretical proposition that compliance with rules for contracting and competitive selection of contractors can be an essential element of both a project’s success and its accountability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the existing division among the federal courts of appeals over the intended scope of the federal government contractor defense as articulated in the Supreme Court case `Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.' Background of the case; Establishment of a uniquely federal interest in the case; Discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Presents the text of the speech delivered by Howard E. O'Leary, a member of the District of Columbia Bar, during the annual meeting of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law on August 1988 about the rights of a government contractor in a criminal antitrust investigation.