In This Issue

Federal Government

After Arbaugh: Neither Claim Submission, Certification, Nor Timely Appeal Are Jurisdictional Prerequesites to Contract Disputes Act Litigation

As we approach the fortieth anniversary of the Contract Disputes Act of 19781 (CDA), this foundational waiver of sovereign immunity continues to be riddled with the tell-tale signs of repeated “drive-by jurisdictional rulings.”2 This unfortunate state of affairs shocks the conscience when considered in light of the Supreme Court’s systematic efforts to root out such travesties by directing lower courts to reassess prior jurisdictional classification of statutory requirements.3

Federal Government

"Buy American & Hire American": President Trump's Options for Strengthening the Buy American Act

On January 20, 2017, about ten minutes into his inaugural address, President Trump announced his economic vision to the world in five simple words: “Buy American and Hire American.”1 As a presidential candidate, he continuously pushed this populist economic message because he knew it resonated with voters in the Rust Belt states, where the loss of manufacturing jobs have devastated communities.2 Three months into his presidency, on April 21, 2017, President Trump issued executive Order 13,788, directing his cabinet to develop policies to strengthen “Buy American” laws.3 President Trump has made it clear that he wants to revitalize the U.S. manufacturing sector; if he thinks reinforcing domestic preference policies would accomplish that goal, a good place to start is the Buy American Act of 1933 (Buy American Act or Act). The Act requires federal agencies to favor domestic goods over foreign goods in federal procurement.4 It is an overarching statute that aims to protect manufacturing jobs in the United States.5 This Note discusses the Trump administration’s options for strengthening the Buy American Act.

Prosecution

Rehabilitating Prison Contracting: States Must Reclaim Prison Management & Empasize Inmate Rehabilitation through Utilization of Schedule Contracts for State-Run Prison Procurement

In May 2012, a group of San Francisco Bay Area business leaders went to prison.1 It was the first Demo Day of Code.7370, a six-month coding program operating within the walls of San Quentin, California’s oldest penitentiary.2 The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation partnered with The Last Mile, a nonprofit organization, to run Code.7370 — a program in which inmates develop apps to pitch to potential investors.3 Since San Quentin bans internet access, inmates learn to code in an enclosed environment that “simulates a live coding experience.”4 Participating inmates have demonstrated an interest in learning more about programming and about building their own businesses.5

Federal Government

Amending the Government Contractor Defense: A Legislative Solution to Protect the Intelligence Contractors Taking the Fall for Controversial U.S.Government Policies

Suleiman Abdullah Salim, a Tanzanian citizen, alleged that in March 2003 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Kenyan security forces captured him in Somalia and rendered him to Kenya on suspicions of terrorist activity.1 From Kenya, Salim claims he was moved to different CIA detention facilities throughout Afghanistan and subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.2 Salim remained in CIA custody for five years until August 2008 — at which point, he was released and given a Department of Defense (DoD) memorandum informing him that he was “determined to pose no threat to the United States Armed Forces or its interests in Afghanistan.”3 Along with two other individuals claiming the CIA illegally rendered and tortured them, Salim brought action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against two CIA contracted psychologists hired to develop interrogation techniques for use on terrorist suspects.4

Federal Government

Taking a Bite Out of the Big Apple: Local Procurement Lessons from Washington, D.C. and New York City

A recent series of corruption scandals in Washington, D.C., brought attention to the challenges facing D.C.’s local procurement. National news sources covering D.C.’s procurement-related corruption problems cited them as an example of classic Beltway politics — where “cronyism and procurement issues are related.”1 However, procurement corruption is not a uniquely D.C. issue. Instead, it is well known that corruption is a recurrent issue in municipal contracting.2 At the municipal and local level, procurement corruption is particularly difficult to expose because smaller jurisdictions often lack the extensive regulation found at the federal level.3 However, the addition of dense regulatory schemes is not necessarily the answer.4 In particular, complex regulations may make public contracting inefficient and do little to discourage or expose corruption.5