Have You Encountered Trade Barriers?

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) wants to solve your trade problems!

On July 30, the USITC announced that they are putting together a report that will identify trade-related barriers affecting U.S. small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).  The focus is on trade with the European Union (EU).  As part of the information-gathering process, they will be conducting an October 8 hearing on these issues.

This is our opportunity to identify anything that adversely affects trade between the US and Europe.  The United States is negotiating a trade agreement with the EU so this hearing is an excellent opportunity to get our concerns addressed (before it is too late!).

Pre-hearing written comments are due by September 20, 2013.  ASA plans to submit a filing addressing our members’ concerns to please get your comments into ASA not later than September 13, so we can make sure your comments are reflected in our filing.

Full text of Federal Register Notice:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/30/2013-18272/trade-barriers-us-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises-perceive-as-affecting-exports-to-european-union

US Proposes “Accelerated Payments” for Small Businesses in Government Contracts

Did you know that under current law, a prime contractor might get an accelerated payment from the government, but be under no obligation to similarly accelerate payments to its small business subcontractors?

On July 11, 2012, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued Policy Memorandum M-12-16.  The memorandum directed agencies to temporarily accelerate payments to all prime contractors, in order to allow them to provide prompt payments to their small business subcontractors.  This is a temporary one-year policy.

While the policy memo is in effect, agencies are required to encourage prime contractors to pay small business subcontractors on an accelerated timetable to the maximum extent practicable.  The government has developed a three-pronged approach to implement the policy:

  1. For existing contracts, contracting officers are asked to communicate the policy to contractors and encourage their voluntary cooperation and participation.  All prime contractors will receive accelerated payment from the Government and are encouraged to, in turn, pay their small business subcontractors on an accelerated basis.  But there is no obligation to do so under this prong.
  2. For current solicitations and future contracts, the FAR Council developed a contract clause that would require prime contractors to pay small business subcontractors on an accelerated timetable to the maximum extent practicable.  Such a clause would make the payment of subcontractors on an accelerated basis a contractual obligation.
  3. A government team was assigned to analyze and make recommendations for Federal Acquisition Regulation changes aimed at improving payments by primes to small business subcontractors.

The result of this last prong, the recommendations for Federal Acquisition Regulation changes, is now apparent.  The Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have jointly published a proposed rule that would require federal contracts to include a clause that expressly requires prime contractors to accelerate payment to their small business subcontractors when the payment to the prime contractor is accelerated.

The proposed language for federal contracts looks like this:

Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors

(a) Upon receipt of accelerated payments from the Government, the Contractor shall make accelerated payments to a small business subcontractor, to the maximum extent practicable and prior to when such payment is otherwise required under the applicable contract or subcontract, after receipt of a proper invoice and all other required documentation from the small business subcontractor.

(b) The acceleration of payments under this clause does not provide any new rights under the Prompt Payment Act.

(c) Include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts with small business concerns, including subcontracts with small business concerns for the acquisition of commercial items.

This seems like a positive measure for industry; however, one concern would be that the terms used in this clause are not well defined, and therefore a prime contractor who does not change their internal system to accelerate payments may claim that it is not practicable to accelerate payments.  In such a case, the prime would get the benefit of accelerated payment but might not pass-along the full value of the acceleration to the small business subcontractors.  With this in mind, it might make sense to improve this language to provide firmer metrics for compliance.

ASA members with comments or concerns should contact the Association to register their comments, so we can know your concerns, and should also file comments with the government in accordance with the directions found at 77 Federal Register 75089 (December 19, 2012).  Please let us know whether you feel this clause may be important enough to your business to warrant ASA comments to the docket.

FAA to Review Its Procedural Rules for Their Effect on Small Entities

The FAA is required to perform periodic reviews of its rules to make sure that they minimize the significant economic impact on small entities. This requirement comes from section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The purpose of the review is to determine whether the rules should be continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded, in order to meet the stated objectives of the applicable statute while also minimizing any significant economic impact of the rules upon a substantial number of small entities.   The acronym used for ‘‘significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities’’ is SEIOSNOSE (yes, that is the actual acronym used by the Federal Government in official publications).

The FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups – each representing about 10% of the FAA’s rules. This means that it takes the FAA 10 years to review its rules, so there is a significant opportunity to comment on this process for each rule once every ten years.

The FAA uses a two-step, two-year process for reviewing its rules.  During the first year (the ‘‘analysis year’’), the selected rules will be analyzed to identify those with a SEIOSNOSE.  During the second year (the ‘‘review year’’), each rule identified in the analysis year as having a SEIOSNOSE will be reviewed.  The purpose of the review is to determine if the rule should be continued without change or changed to minimize impact on small entities.

The results of the reviews are published in the Regulatory Agenda in the Federal Register.  For example, for the repair station rules found in Part 145, the FAA “conducted a Section 610 review of this part and found no SEIOSNOSE.”  Many repair stations might be surprised to learn that Part 145 does not impose on them a significant economic impact.

In the upcoming year, the FAA plans to analyze some significant rules.  The 2011 year list includes:

  • 14 CFR part 189—Use of Federal Aviation Administration Communications System
  • 14 CFR part 198—Aviation Insurance
  • 14 CFR part 1—Definitions and Abbreviations
  • 14 CFR part 3—General Requirements
  • 14 CFR part 11—General Rulemaking Procedures
  • 14 CFR part 13—Investigative and Enforcement Procedures
  • 14 CFR part 14—Rules Implementing the Equal Access to Justice Act of 1980
  • 14 CFR part 15—Administrative Claims Under Federal Tort Claims Act
  • 14 CFR part 16—Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings