How COVID-19 Contractors Can Benefit From the Defense Production Act

By Robert Nichols 

March 20, 2020

As part of the government’s response to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, President Trump has signed an Executive Order invoking the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (“DPA”).  Specifically, he invoked a provision of the DPA that gives the Federal government the power to prioritize government contracts for “personal protective equipment,” ventilators, and other medical products over commercial or other contracts for such products.  Other DPA provisions—e.g., financial incentives to develop and expand production and capacity—may soon be invoked.  Nichols Law is already hearing from clients who are being contacted by the Administration for orders under this authority.  We provide this initial guidance for industry.

Overview of the Defense Production Act of 1950

The DPA, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq., dates to the Korean War and is reauthorized regularly.  It authorizes the President to take extraordinary measures with contractors that can provide goods and services needed for the “national defense,” which is broadly defined to include, inter alia, emergency preparedness.  50 U.S.C. §4552(14).  The DPA ties in with Title VI of the Stafford Act, which defines “emergency preparedness” to include “all those activities and measures designed or undertaken to prepare for or minimize the effects of a hazard upon the civilian population, to deal with the immediate emergency conditions which would be created by the hazard, and to effectuate emergency repairs to, or the emergency restoration of, vital utilities and facilities destroyed or damaged by the hazard.”  42 U.S.C. §5195(a)(3).

The DPA’s current authorities include:

  • Priorities and Allocations. Authorizes the President to require businesses to prioritize and accept contracts for materials and services necessary to promote the national defense, and to control the general distribution of materials, services and facilities.
  • Expansion of Productive Capacity and Supply. Authorizes the President to provide incentives for the domestic industrial base to expand production and supply of critical materials and goods.  Such incentives can include loans, loan guarantees, direct purchase and purchase commitments, and the ability to procure and install equipment in private facilities.
  • General Provisions. Provides general provisions relating to the use of DPA authorities and provides additional authorities to the President including the authority to give special preference to small businesses when issuing contracts under DPA authorities.

The DPA previously included additional authorities relating to requisitioning, rationing, wage and price fixing, labor disputes and credit controls and regulation, but those elements of the statute have lapsed.

The March 18, 2020, Executive Order

The President’s March 18, 2020, Executive Order invoked only Title I (Priorities and Allocations) of the DPA.  The Executive Order stated that:

To ensure that our healthcare system is able to surge capacity and capability to respond to the spread of COVID-19, it is critical that all health and medical resources needed to respond to the spread of COVID-19 are properly distributed to the Nation’s healthcare system and others that need them most at this time.

Accordingly, I find that health and medical resources needed to respond to the spread of COVID-19, including personal protective equipment and ventilators, meet the criteria specified in section 101(b) of the Act (50 U.S.C. 4511(b)).

March 18, 2020, Executive Order.

Guidance for Contractors

  1. Pursuant to the priority performance authority of Title I, contractors are required to accept prioritized contracts and orders, also called “rated orders,” with some exceptions that have been established through regulations.

If a rated order is placed with a business, it must generally accept that order so long as it can satisfy the delivery terms, and must provide priority treatment to fulfill that order.  It should also place rated orders with subcontractors and suppliers to ensure that it can fulfill the terms of the rated order.

Exceptions to the requirement that a business accept a rated offer are limited and a careful analysis of the DPA and relevant regulations should be undertaken prior to rejecting one.

  1. Contractors must place rated orders with its subcontractors and suppliers.

Contractors must use rated orders with its own subcontractors and suppliers in order to obtain the items needed to fill its rated order.  The priority rating included it the rated order must be included in each successive order placed to obtain the items needed.  Subcontractors, in turn, must use rated orders for its own suppliers.

  1. Contractors have liability protection when fulfilling rated orders.

Section 707 of the DPA, 50 U.S.C. § 4557, provides liability protection against breach of contract claims for failure to perform non-priority work as a result of having to fulfill rated orders.  Section 707 provides that “No person shall be held liable for damages or penalties for any act or failure to act resulting directly or indirectly from compliance with a rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to [the DPA], notwithstanding that any such rule, regulation, or order shall thereafter be declared by judicial or other competent authority to be invalid.”

  1. There are penalties for not complying with a rated order.

Willful failure to perform any act required by the DPA, or willful performance of an act prohibited by the DPA, is a crime subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 and/or imprisonment for not more than one year.

  1. Focusing on recovering costs and reasonable profits is essential.

Just because the government requires a company to be its supplier does not necessarily mean that the company needs to lose money or forego profits.  Handled properly, accepting a DPA order can be remunerative and the beginning of a longer-term supply relationship.  Getting started on the right foot by properly capturing costs and charging a fair and reasonable profit is key.

Rebuilding the Epidemic Industrial Base

The President is missing an opportunity by not immediately invoking the DPA authorities to expand the industrial base for the production of supplies necessary to fight COVID-19 and future pandemics.  The Federal government (as well as state and local governments and everybody else fighting COVID-19) desperately needs ventilators, surgical gowns, and masks, and should have a stockpile going forward for future pandemics.  While it is Federal policy to let the private sector fill these needs as market forces dictate, the global economy has pushed manufacturing to less expensive jurisdictions (e.g., China, India).  Any national stockpile of medical supplies and protective equipment for uses in emergencies is now facing a shortfall, and our industrial surge capacity to ramp up the production of key pandemic supplies is far too limited.

The Administration should seize this opportunity to promote a U.S. industrial base to produce the supplies and expertise we need for emergencies like COVID -19.  This issue is less about nationality of suppliers, and more about ensuring supply to meet our demands.  Having more overall supply from U.S. manufacturers is critical.

The DPA can be used for more than directing companies to produce goods for U.S. government customers.  It also authorizes the Administration to issue loans and loan guarantees to finance increases in private sector production capabilities.  These tools and incentives should be used now to achieve greater preparedness in the near future.  This can be done by assembling an experienced team of government and private experts in the areas of virus-related supplies to identify the needs, current resources, and expanded capabilities.

In the meantime, agencies should use President Trump’s DPA order this week to immediately ramp up discussions with individual suppliers, to issue prioritized contracts, and to start meeting the need for supplies of key equipment.

Using the DPA authority will not eliminate the problem entirely, but invoking and applying its full authorities now will be a big step forward in combatting the impacts of the current pandemic in the United States, as well as future pandemics.

Coronavirus Indemnification: The Federal Government Should Broadly Authorize Use of P.L. 85-804 to Protect COVID-19 Contractors, as It Did for Anthrax and Ebola

By Robert Nichols, David Bodenheimer, and Andrew Victor

March 11, 2020

The Federal Government’s response to COVID-19 will depend on contractors receiving awards to combat the virus.  Accepting these work scopes will heighten the risk that contractor employees will be exposed to coronavirus, which spreads quickly and appears to have a higher lethality rate than the normal flu.  The potential liability to contractors from tort suits, by employees and others, cannot be estimated.  Fortunately, the U.S. Government has a legal tool available to indemnify contractors that are willing to accept this important mission of defeating this deadly pathogen.

Public Law 85-804 authorizes the Executive Branch to hold harmless and indemnify contractors for claims, losses, and damages related to unusually hazardous risks encountered under government contracts.  This does not cover routine performance interruptions, but rather protects contractors from losses resulting from the specified, unusually hazardous activity on the government’s behalf.  Essentially, P.L. 85-804 can fill a gap in insurance coverage by providing indemnification where the activity is otherwise uninsurable or underinsurable.

For P.L. 85-804 to apply for COVID-19 contractors (and presumably NGOs with grants and cooperative agreements), the contracting agencies and departments must have specific authorization from the President to commit to indemnification.  Certain agencies have standing authorization.  Others will need to obtain it via a new Executive Order.  Our lawyers wrote a White Paper for USAID in 2014 that assisted in that agency receiving P.L. 85-804 authority for contractors battling Ebola.

Additionally, contractors typically must seek P.L. 85-804 coverage by following the procedures in FAR Subpart 50.1.  This involves identifying in advance the risks and the inadequacy of available insurance coverage.  As P.L. 85-804 is written broadly, however, we suggest that the government skip or waive the regulatory steps due to the urgency of the COVID-19 crisis.

The President can issue an Executive Order identifying this situation as a national emergency requiring agencies to act in the national defense, providing blanket authorization for use of P.L. 85-804 coverage to any Federal agency involved in fighting the coronavirus, and stating that contractors need only demonstrate (after the fact) that they used best efforts to obtain insurance.  This would allow agencies to enter into hazardous contracts applying P.L. 85-804 protections more quickly.  Such a decision is not just sound public policy, but also a prudent cost-saving measure to avoid excessive insurance costs that may otherwise be billed to the Federal Government under a contract.

AseraCare Resolves Historic False Claims Act Lawsuit, Preserving Key Lack of “Falsity” Defense

By Robert Rhoad, and Andrew Victor

March 3, 2020

Government contractors should take note of the last week’s announced settlement between hospice care provider AseraCare and the Department of Justice (DOJ) of their long-running False Claims Act (FCA) case, U.S. ex rel. Paradies v. AseraCare Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00245 (N.D. Ala.).  The settlement agreement involves a single $1M payment and requires no Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA).  It stands in stark contrast to the $200M originally sought by DOJ.  The settlement also keeps intact key rulings by the Eleventh Circuit in the case, which clarified that a mere difference of reasonable opinions will not constitute falsity under the FCA – clarity, which will continue to support defenses for those in both the health care and government contracts industries.

The AseraCare case dates back to 2008, when three former employees alleged that the hospice provider overbilled Medicare for its services, particularly hospice benefits for patients who were diagnosed as terminally ill.  A primary issue in the case was whether a difference of opinion between physicians could support FCA liability; the government claimed that a majority of the patients were not terminally ill (as had been diagnosed by treating physicians) and should not have received certain hospice benefits.  The case had a complex procedural history, including an eight-week trial where the jury found Aseracare liable.  Then, in a surprising twist, the trial judge determined she erred in giving the jury instructions, ordered a new trial, and ordered a summary judgment briefing on whether evidence of difference of medical opinion could support falsity under the FCA.  In short, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor or AseraCare.

DOJ appealed and lost at the Eleventh Circuit, which held that a reasonable difference of opinion cannot support a claim of falsity under the FCA.  The Eleventh Circuit issued that decision in September 2019 and remanded the case to the District Court for trial.  Instead of re-trying the case, however, the parties settled.

As we have previously noted, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision is a helpful case for FCA defendants as it stands for the proposition that a legitimate difference of opinion can defeat the FCA’s required “falsity” element – perhaps, even at the pleading stage.  While Aseracare involved differences between clinicians’ diagnoses and government experts’ post-treatment analysis of the same, this logic should prove equally applicable to other government contracting contexts that involve a difference of opinion including, for example, whether a defendant’s interpretation of a regulation or contract provision can be false where reasonable minds can differ as to the interpretation of the regulation or provision.

Notably, on the same day AserCare announced its settlement with DOJ, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Jody Hunt, provided remarks at the Federal Bar Association qui tam conference in Washington, DC.  He stressed that DOJ’s near term focus will include nursing homes, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, and electronic health records.  AAG Hunt highlighted DOJ’s Elder Justice Initiative, which targets subpar nursing homes and DOJ’s increasing focus on MA insurers.  Despite the outcome of Aseracare and the defenses it clarifies, DOJ will remain aggressive in pursuing FCA cases, as well as criminal elder fraud cases.  Indeed, just this morning, DOJ announced the largest coordinated sweep of elder fraud cases in history, with more than 400 defendants charged– a substantial uptick from the 260 defendants charged in last year’s sweep.

Being a Good Partner to USAID: The Importance of an Effective Ethics and Compliance Program to Mitigate Risk of Disallowances, Investigations, and Debarment

By Robert Nichols, Annie Kim, and Steve Shaw

January 22, 2020

This White Paper which is based on input provided by the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) and several of its for-profit and not-for-profit Partners is designed as a resource for USAID Partners to develop ethics and compliance programs tailored to the requirements and expectations of their primary funder.

As one of the world’s largest funders of development and relief goods and services, USAID offers tremendous opportunities for its Partners and beneficiaries.  The last decade, however, has demonstrated that USAID’s Partners must also appreciate the unique compliance risks associated with accepting Federal funding and operating in some of the most volatile and unstable environments in the world.  Partners have faced criminal and civil liabilities as a result of regulatory violations, and in some notable instances, faced suspension and debarment for failing to develop adequate internal controls to deal with the risk of fraud and non-compliance.  Organizations have also fallen under greater scrutiny when it comes to counter-trafficking in persons (“C-TIP”) and sexual exploitation and abuse (“SEA”) failures.  Perhaps more so than ever, USAID Partners should take the necessary steps to develop a ready and capable ethics and compliance program.

 

The FY2018 Suspension and Debarment Report

By Andrew Victor, Annie Kim, and Steve Shaw

The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) provided its annual report to Congress for FY2018 on October 30, 2019. The report apprises Congress of improvements to the suspension and debarment process and provides a summary of federal agencies’ activities over the past year. The ISDC reported that federal agencies took 3,356 actions comprised of 480 suspensions, 1,542 proposed debarments, and 1,334 debarments. This marks an 8% year-over-year decline from FY2017. Last year’s actions, however, total nearly twice those of FY2009, when the ISDC first reported suspensions, proposed debarments, and debarments. The report also highlighted (1) the ISDC’s continuing push to harmonize procurement and non-procurement suspension and debarment procedures; (2) proactive engagements initiated by entities and individuals; and (3) the continuing use of “pre-notice letters” by agencies.

Procurement & Non-procurement Procedures. The ISDC explained that it was exploring the development of a consistent set of procedures for both procurement and non-procurement suspensions and debarments. This includes increasing the use of pre-notice tools covered in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and expanding upon the FAR 9.406-1(a) debarment decision factors by adopting the mitigating and aggravating circumstances under 2 C.F.R. § 180.860. Presumably, if and when formal action occurs, the FAR Council will publish a proposed rule.

Proactive Engagement. The ISDC explained that its outreach efforts have encouraged individuals and entities to provide voluntary submissions to Suspension and Debarment Officials (SDOs) relating to their present responsibility on a proactive basis, such as when a contractor has self-identified possible misconduct or learned of a government investigation into allegations of misconduct. According to the ISDC, bringing matters to the attention of an agency proactively allows both sides to focus on corrective measures, improves internal controls and compliance programs, and promotes a culture of ethics. Voluntary submissions are not tracked by all agencies, but the ISDC reported that eight agencies reported 40 such instances in FY2018. Notwithstanding the ISDC’s remarks about encouraging voluntary submissions, FY2018 continued a decrease from FY2017 (53), itself a decrease from FY2016 (76). The reasons for this downward trend are not readily apparent, but worth noting. Are fewer agencies reporting voluntary submissions? Or are contractors discovering that bringing such matters to the attention of SDOs provides little benefit, as they are getting debarred anyway?

Pre-notice Letters. Pre-notice letters, such as show cause letters or requests for information, are tools for an agency to alert an entity or individual that its conduct is being reviewed and typically provide an opportunity to respond. The ISDC explained that using pre-notice letters enables agencies to assess risk without having to resort to suspension or debarment procedures. In FY 2018, agencies reported issuing 197 pre-notice letters, an amount just slightly over FY2017’s 193.

Overall. Notably, the FY2017-to-FY2018 number of declinations remained the same, 114, despite a 20% decrease in the number of referrals. This should be encouraging to contractors and implementers (i.e., grant recipients) and may be indicative of SDOs more carefully considering FAR 9.406-1(a) decision factors. The proportional increase in declinations should also tell contractors and implementers that the receipt of a pre-notice letter does not necessarily signify an inevitable debarment action. The report makes clear, however, that there is a wide discrepancy for declinations among the agencies. For example, while the EPA had 140 referrals and 41 declinations, the Navy had 398 referrals and 0 declinations and GSA had 392 referrals and 0 declinations. The wide discrepancy most likely indicates that agencies are not required to report declinations, although some do. We believe that the ISDC should require agencies to report declinations so that a more complete picture of activity is conveyed. If required to report them, declinations become another metric, along with exclusion actions, and may lead to a greater willingness for agencies to decline borderline or weak referrals.

Thus, despite a modest overall decline in activity, suspension and debarments remain among the government’s most potent tools. Contractors and implementers should carefully consider how to respond to pre-notice letters and explore how proactive engagements may help protect against suspension and debarment actions.

When faced with possible misconduct, Nichols Law can help determine the benefits and risks of proactively approaching an agency. Likewise, we can help frame a response to a pre-notice letter or to serious questions raised by an agency or Office of Inspector General in order to achieve the best possible outcome. Should an agency be prepared to impose an exclusion, we have a strong record of defending against such actions.

The False Claims Act: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow-What A Long Strange Trip It’s Been-Part III-Tomorrow

By Robert Rhoad

The third and final installment of the FCA Series—informed by the FCA’s history and current state of existence—explores trending developments and the ongoing and anticipated legislative and judicial evolution of the FCA into the near future.

This is part of a three-part series by and Bob Rhoad published in Feature Comments in The Government Contractor on the False Claims Act, which has been occasioned by this year’s 10th anniversary of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and the third anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Escobar decision. The first  and second installments outline the FCA’s past and present, respectively:  from its early history and origins to major legislative and judicial developments that have made it what it is today.

The False Claims Act: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow-What A Long Strange Trip It’s Been-Part II-Today

By Robert Rhoad

You can read our second installment of the FCA Series here, which carries the baton forward to the present, with a focus on major legislative and judicial developments that have made the FCA what it is today—one of the Government’s most potent fraud-fighting weapons at its disposal.

This is part of a  three-part retrospective series by Bob Rhoad published in Feature Comments in The Government Contractor on the False Claims Act, which has been occasioned by this year’s 10th anniversary of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and the third anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Escobar decision. The first installment of the series, entitled “The False Claims Act: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” focused on the history and origins of the False Claims Act from the Civil War to the 1986 Amendments to the turn of the 21st century.

The False Claims Act: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow-What A Long Strange Trip It’s Been-Part I-Yesterday

By Robert Rhoad

Bob Rhoad have written a three-part retrospective series of Feature Comments in The Government Contractor on the False Claims Act, which has been occasioned by this year’s 10th anniversary of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act and the third anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Escobar decision. The first installment of the series, entitled “The False Claims Act: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” focuses on the history and origins of the False Claims Act from the Civil War to the 1986 Amendments to the turn of the 21st century.