DoD Proposes Rule on Evaluation of Joint Venture Past Performance for Construction and A&E Services Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.01.21
On May 20, 2021, the Department of Defense published a proposed rule to implement section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, regarding inclusion of best available information regarding the past performance of first-tier subcontractors and of individual partners on construction and architect-engineer (A&E) contracts. The proposed rule would add one new solicitation provision and two new contract clauses.
The two new proposed contract clauses provide for a contracting officer’s performance evaluations of:
- Individual partners of joint ventures for construction and A&E services contracts with an estimated value in accordance with the threshold set forth in FAR 42.1502(e), currently $750,000; and
- First-tier subcontractors performing a portion of a construction or A&E services contract exceeding the threshold set forth in FAR 42.1502(e) or 20% of the value of the prime contract, whichever is higher.
An exception may be granted when submission of annual past performance evaluations would not provide the best representation of the contractor’s performance, including subcontractors and joint venture partners.
The provision to be used in solicitations for construction and architect-engineer services requires the contracting officer to consider as part of the past performance evaluation an offeror’s past performance as a first-tier subcontractor or individual partner of a joint venture under construction and/or architect-engineer services contracts.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
In Appeal of Bahadir (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied the government’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, ruling in favor of the contractor on both key issues raised by the government. The case arises from a contract for construction work at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, under which Appellant alleged government-caused delay and filed certified prolongation claims using a “windows analysis” methodology. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that Appellant failed to state a sum certain for each of what the government characterized as 38 distinct claims, and separately that four claims had not been properly presented to the Contracting Officer.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.26
Missouri AG Sues Kansas City Over Race- and Sex-Based Contracting Program
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.06.26
