District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act

District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act
Name	District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act
Short title	Procurement Practices Act
Citation	District of Columbia Code
Enacted by	Council of the District of Columbia
Territorial extent	District of Columbia
Status	In force

District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act The District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act establishes the statutory framework governing public procurement in the District of Columbia, setting rules for competitive bidding, contract formation, and administrative remedies. It interfaces with the Home Rule Act and agencies such as the Office of Contracting and Procurement, while affecting interactions with suppliers like Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen Hamilton, and General Dynamics. The Act has been shaped by litigation involving parties such as DC Contractors, Inc. and decisions of courts including the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Overview

The Act codifies procurement policies for executive agencies including the Mayor of the District of Columbia's executive offices and independent entities such as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority. It defines procurement goals that interact with statutes such as the Small Business Act and federal procurement practice exemplars like the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The Act's administrative apparatus coordinates with procurement advisory bodies including the D.C. Auditor and the D.C. Inspector General to ensure accountability in awarding contracts to vendors such as Accenture and IBM.

Scope and Definitions

The statute delineates procurements for goods, services, and construction affecting agencies like the Department of Public Works (District of Columbia) and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (D.C.). It supplies defined terms used in disputes before tribunals such as the Contract Appeals Board (District of Columbia), including definitions parallel to those in contracts involving firms like AECOM and Bechtel. The Act’s reach covers procurement thresholds tied to budget appropriations approved by the Council of the District of Columbia and interacts with regulations promulgated by the D.C. Register.

Procurement Procedures and Methods

Procurement methods established include sealed bidding, competitive proposals, and sole-source awards, modeled in part on procedures used by agencies like the General Services Administration and procurement practices referenced in decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States on contract law. The Act prescribes public notice requirements comparable to practices used by the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank for transparency, and procurement solicitations often involve evaluation factors similar to those in awards to contractors such as KPMG and Ernst & Young. It mandates bid security, performance bonds, and provisions for subcontracting with certified entities listed by bodies such as the District of Columbia Department of Small and Local Business Development and registries like the SAM.gov database.

Contracting Requirements and Compliance

Contract formation under the Act requires terms for warranties, maintenance, and termination for convenience, paralleling contract clauses used by NASA and the Department of Defense. Compliance mechanisms require contractors to adhere to labor laws enforced by agencies including the Department of Employment Services (D.C.) and coordinate with programs such as the Workforce Investment Act for local hiring. The statute imposes reporting requirements akin to those imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission for contractors with public disclosure obligations and mandates ethics provisions referencing standards from commissions like the Office of Government Ethics.

Oversight, Enforcement, and Remedies

Enforcement mechanisms include debarment, suspension, and audit authority exercised by officials such as the Chief Procurement Officer (District of Columbia) and review routes through the Contract Appeals Board (District of Columbia), with judicial review in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and potential further review by the United States Supreme Court. Remedies include injunctive relief, bid protests, and monetary damages similar to remedies in cases involving firms like Black & Veatch and CH2M Hill. Oversight is supported by investigative entities including the D.C. Office of the Inspector General and fiscal reviewers such as the Congressional Budget Office when federal funding implicates procurement actions.

Historically Significant Amendments and Case Law

Key amendments have responded to controversies over sole-source contracts and local preference rules, echoing reforms seen after disputes involving contractors such as DynCorp and ManTech International. Significant appellate decisions interpreting the Act involve litigants and judicial bodies including the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, shaping doctrines on bid protest timeliness, standing, and the deference accorded to procurement officials. Legislative changes have sometimes paralleled federal reforms prompted by high-profile procurement scandals involving companies like Halliburton and reviews by committees such as the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Category:Law of the District of Columbia Category:Procurement law