ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

I-9 E-Verify Immigration Compliance

Non-Compliance with E-Verify does not Render Company Ineligible for Work

Rate this Entry
In Ashland Sales & Service Co. (Nov. 2013), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) dismissed a protest by Ashland Sales & Service Co. (Ashland), of Olive Hill, Kentucky, alleging that a contract for the Defense Logistics Agency was improperly awarded to Creighton AB, Inc. (Creighton), of Reidsville, Kentucky, because Creighton was not enrolled in the E-Verify system at the time of award.

The issue involved the FAR clause - 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification, which provides a contractor not enrolled in E-Verify at contract award “shall [enroll] within 30 calendar days of contract award.” According to the
decision, Creighton was not enrolled in E-Verify at the time of award, but it enrolled the next day. The GAO found the requirement in the FAR clause allowing enrollment 30 days following award to be a matter of contract administration “having no effect upon the validity of an award.” Thus, the protest involved an issue outside of the GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction, under which it considers “challenges to the award or proposed award of contracts.”

Furthermore, the GAO did not find the awardee’s previous noncompliance with the requirement in the FAR clause related to E-Verify, to be disqualifying. In its protest, Ashland stated the same contracting activity involved in the protest had awarded contracts to Creighton and allowed Creighton to perform work without enrolling in E-Verify as required by the FAR clause, which also was included in these earlier contracts. According to Ashland, this prior noncompliance rendered Creighton’s proposal technically unacceptable and ineligible for award. The GAO stated it did not condone Creighton’s prior failure to enroll in E-Verify, but this did not alter its view that Creighton’s proposal was acceptable or that compliance with the E-Verify requirement was a matter of contract administration that it would not review.

This decision is just another instance of E-Verify becoming an issue in other areas of the law, besides immigration.

Submit "Non-Compliance with E-Verify does not Render Company Ineligible for Work" to Facebook Submit "Non-Compliance with E-Verify does not Render Company Ineligible for Work" to Twitter Submit "Non-Compliance with E-Verify does not Render Company Ineligible for Work" to Google Submit "Non-Compliance with E-Verify does not Render Company Ineligible for Work" to StumbleUpon Submit "Non-Compliance with E-Verify does not Render Company Ineligible for Work" to Reddit Submit "Non-Compliance with E-Verify does not Render Company Ineligible for Work" to Digg Submit "Non-Compliance with E-Verify does not Render Company Ineligible for Work" to del.icio.us

Updated 12-10-2013 at 11:54 AM by BBuchanan

Comments

Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: