Insight 8 - Substack.jpg

Due Diligence Enquiries in Entering Teaming Arrangements

Teaming arrangements between contractors are commonplace in federal procurement as the Government often requires solutions encompassing complementary capabilities from multiple contractors to meet its procurement needs. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 9.601 describes two types of contractor teaming arrangements. The first involves an agreement between two or more companies to join forces to act as a prime contractor on a federal contract. This is commonly known as a joint venture (JV). The second type of arrangement is between a prime contractor and a subcontractor to perform under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. Before entering teaming agreements, contractors conduct due diligence reviews on their potential teammates to identify and mitigate risks. Savvy contractors understand that to ensure mutually beneficial arrangements, due diligence reviews must be tailored individually for each procurement, accounting for factors such as contract requirements, potential team members, type of arrangement, and the proposed solution. Comprehensive due diligence reviews may be particularly important when entering a teaming arrangement with a company for the first time. Similarly, due diligence reviews are crucial when prospective contractors from different countries come together to form a team. Contractors can streamline such reviews by focusing on some critical areas when conducting due diligence activities.

o Financial Health

An important consideration in conducting due diligence reviews is assessing the financial stability and sustainability of the potential partner. A financial health review can be performed by reviewing financial statements, including income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements. The 10-K report required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can be obtained for publicly traded companies. A positive net income, substantial working capital, and manageable debt levels are good financial strength indicators. In contrast, significant debts or declining profitability trends could be financial red flags.

o Corporate & Management Structures

Contractors should evaluate the potential partner’s organizational structures, including those of any subsidiaries. This may be particularly important in the context of multi-jurisdictional arrangements. Such teaming agreements should include well-defined choice of law and forum clauses. Executive and management team structures of potential partners should be assessed to ensure that an individual with proper binding authority signs the teaming agreement. Furthermore, it is important to evaluate the experience and qualifications of the management team in managing contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity. Overall, prospective teammates should look for signs of strong leadership and an effective communication structure existing within a well-defined chain of command.

o Technical Competence

While seemingly an obvious first step, contractors should carefully assess a potential teammate’s technical capabilities in the context of the relevant solicitation requirements. Such a particularized assessment, in conjunction with the teammate’s general experience in the relevant field, helps ensure they possess the necessary skills and resources to perform their portion of the proposed solution. Any proposed technical solution involving shared infrastructure should be assessed for feasibility and compatibility. Finally, during the technical expertise review, special consideration should be given to any potential key personnel qualifications, certifications, and experience that may be highlighted in the proposal.

o Past Performance

Contractors should identify and vet potential teammates' past performance histories by requesting that they provide relevant CPARS on similar past contracts. Government references for previous contracts can also be requested to assess past performance. In such scenarios, well-defined confidentiality agreements can help ensure that any past performance information shared for the purposes of entering a teaming arrangement is not improperly disclosed to third parties. Any past contract terminations, defaults, or partnership disputes should be flagged and reviewed.

o Regulatory Compliance

Contractors should seek teammates with a history of compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including facility clearance and security standards. Adequate regulatory compliance can be verified by obtaining copies of licenses and certifications relevant to performance on the contract. Any past regulatory violations or sanctions imposed by the Government should be flagged as issues potentially impacting the team’s responsibility determination.

o Other Legal Matters

Contractors should review any legal issues, litigation, or government investigations that the team member may be subject to. While not necessarily dispositive to the ultimate teaming decision, especially when entering teaming arrangements with large organizations, such issues may nevertheless impact the teammate’s performance on the contract. Such matters may also jeopardize the team’s responsibility determination. Any past or current litigation involving the teammate should be thoroughly investigated and reviewed as posing a potential reputational risk.

Standard teaming agreements should be assessed for potential risks and liabilities and appropriately modified for mitigation. The final teaming agreement should clearly define roles, responsibilities, intellectual property rights, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Any legal issues should also be flagged.

o Cybersecurity Risk Assessments

Contractors must also evaluate their partner’s cybersecurity posture and controls to ensure adequate measures are in place to protect sensitive data. If the teaming arrangement contemplates extensive use of the teammate’s computer systems or networks during performance, such systems and networks should undergo a separate cybersecurity risk assessment.

In conclusion, by conducting thorough due diligence reviews focused on critical areas like financial health, corporate structure, technical competence, past performance, and regulatory compliance, contractors can significantly mitigate risks and increase the chances of a successful teaming arrangement. While each due diligence review is different, identifying and focusing on key risk areas improves the effectiveness of teaming reviews while addressing and mitigating potential risks. Experienced contractors understand that due diligence is an ongoing process, and monitoring teammate’s compliance with requirements and their performance is essential to a successful teaming arrangement. By conducting a comprehensive teaming review upfront, contractors can ensure they are entering a mutually beneficial partnership that strengthens their proposal and positions the team for success.

This Federal Procurement Insight is provided as a general summary of the applicable law in the practice area and does not constitute legal advice. Contractors wishing to learn more are encouraged to consult the TILLIT LAW PLLC Client Portal or Contact Us to determine how the law would apply in a specific situation.

Related Insights

TLF-Federal-Procurement-Insight-1.jpg

To meet the complexities of government contract requirements, companies often form teams to combine their strengths and offer the best possible solutions. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) specifically recognize the importance of contractor teaming arrangements to complement contractor capabilities and offer the Government an optimal combination of performance, cost, and delivery in acquisition. Such teaming arrangements are a powerful tool, but they require careful planning to ensure regulatory compliance. For instance, under FAR 9.603, contractors must fully disclose their teaming arrangements and company relationships in their proposals. Alternatively, if the teaming arrangements are entered into after proposal submissions, the arrangements must be disclosed before they become effective.

Experienced contractors understand that forming teaming arrangements requires a detailed due diligence process to ensure strict compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. In addition to internal considerations and the FAR’s requisite disclosure of the planned teaming arrangements, contractors should also be mindful of anti-trust laws impacting their proposed teaming arrangements as part of their due diligence reviews. For instance, international firms teaming with U.S. contractors to compete on U.S. federal government contracts should especially seek a review by counsel of the potential anticompetitive aspects of their prospective teaming arrangement.

more
TLF-Federal-Procurement-Insight-5.jpg

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires prospective contractors to be deemed responsible before they are awarded federal contracts. FAR subpart 9.1 prescribes policies, standards, and procedures for determining whether prospective contractors and subcontractors are responsible. FAR 9.103 requires contracting officers to make an affirmative determination of responsibility before award. This affirmative determination must be reasonable and factually supported. Prime contractors may also be required to demonstrate the responsibility of their proposed subcontractors when necessary. FAR 9.104 states general and special standards that prospective contractors must meet to demonstrate responsibility to receive contracts.

General Standards

The general standards listed in FAR 9.104 require prospective contractors to:

  • Either have adequate financial resources to perform the contract at issue or have the ability to obtain them.
  • Have the ability to comply with the required or proposed performance or delivery schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental commitments.
  • Have a satisfactory past performance record. Notably, the responsibility determination of prospective contractors cannot solely be made based on a lack of relevant performance history, subject to exceptions of FAR 9.104–2.
  • Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.
  • Possess or have the ability to obtain the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills.
  • Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.
more
TLF-Contract-Claims-Insight-6.jpg

Subcontractors under U.S. federal contracts cannot generally sue the government directly as they lack privity of contract with the government. Privity refers to a legal concept describing a relationship or nexus between contracting parties. The government often utilizes a two-tiered contracting system for procurements where it enters into a contract with the prime contractor that, in turn, contracts with subcontractor(s) to fulfill contractual requirements. Thus, in a federal contract, the government only has a privity of contract with the prime contractor, creating a legal buffer between the government and the subcontractor. Since subcontractors are not in privity with the government, the government does not waive its sovereign immunity, and subcontractors may not bring direct claims against the government.

However, as with most rules in U.S. federal contracting, the no subcontractor privity rule has its exceptions. These exceptions require that subcontractors looking to bring direct claims against the government must first establish a privity of contract with the government. That is, the contractor must successfully demonstrate that it explicitly or implicitly entered into a contract with the government.

more
TLF-Federal-Procurement-Insight-55.jpg

As a sovereign and a contracting party, the government holds the prerogative to terminate a government contract, either partially or completely, whenever it is in its best interest. While a contractor may pose certain challenges to the CO’s decision to terminate a contract, it is generally accepted that the government’s rights in this regard are practically limitless. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) outlines the methods through which the government may settle contracts it terminates for its convenience. Specifically, under FAR § 49.103, the government may settle contracts terminated for convenience through negotiated agreement, CO’s determination, costing-out under vouchers for cost-reimbursable contracts, or through a combination of these methods. Typically, when the government exercises its right to terminate a contract for convenience, it enters into a settlement agreement with the prime contractor. In turn, prime contractors are required to settle any subcontractor termination settlement proposals.

Once the government issues a notice terminating a contract for convenience, the prime contractor must terminate all subcontracts related to the terminated portion of the prime contract. Under FAR § 49.104, prime contractors are required to settle all outstanding liabilities that arise out of the termination of subcontracts and promptly notify the CO of any legal proceedings that may be instituted by a subcontractor. Additionally, FAR § 49.108 generally outlines the parties’ rights, obligations, and procedures pertaining to subcontractor settlement proposals. Notably, FAR § 49.108-2(b) makes it abundantly clear that the government’s rights to terminate the contract for convenience are unaffected by a prime contractor’s failure to include an appropriate termination clause in a subcontract. Therefore, contractors should review the termination clause of their subcontract agreements to ensure their rights are adequately protected in case of a termination for the government’s convenience.

more

Due Diligence Enquiries in Entering Teaming Arrangements

TILLIT LAW Federal Procurement Insights