On December 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that contractors may include restrictive markings on unlimited rights technical data as long as those markings do not restrict the Government’s rights to that technical data.
The Boeing Company (Boeing) entered into two contracts with the United States Air
The Trump administration continues to pursue enforcement of its Executive Order 13950 (the EO), while lawsuits filed by two civil rights groups’ work their way through federal courts. The EO bans federal contractors from utilizing training that “inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping,” which is defined as “ascribing character traits,
Today, August 13, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a series of changes to the OMB Guidance for Grants and Agreements, including the addition of 2 CFR 200.216, Prohibition on certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment, which prohibits grant and loan recipients and subrecipients from using federal funds to
Last week, the General Services Administration (GSA) announced that the Office of Governmentwide Policy would hold a live and recorded virtual webinar panel on August 12, 2020 to discuss the new interim rule implementing the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act Section 889(a)(1)(B) covered telecommunications prohibition.
The panel is expected to address the implementation and application
On July 14, the FAR Council published an interim rule revising FAR 52.204-24 and FAR 52.204-25 to implement Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prohibiting executive agencies from entering into, renewing, or extending contracts with contractors that use Huawei, ZTE, or other identified telecommunications equipment and services (“covered telecommunications equipment and
Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the FY 2019 NDAA, scheduled to become effective on August 13, 2020, bars the Government from entering into a contract, or extending or renewing a contract, with any entity that uses certain covered telecommunications equipment or services. The prohibition against “use” of covered equipment applies broadly to a contractor’s “use” anywhere within
Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the FY 2019 NDAA, scheduled to become effective on August 13, 2020, bars the Government from entering into a contract, or extending or renewing a contract, with any entity that uses certain covered telecommunications equipment or services. The prohibition against “use” of covered equipment applies broadly to a contractor’s “use” anywhere within
In this episode, host Mana Lombardo speaks with Will Chang, partner in the firm’s Health Care and White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement groups and a former trial attorney at the DOJ Criminal Division, Fraud Section; and Yuan Zhou, an associate in the firm’s Government Contracts Group, to discuss the recent impact of the Brand Memo
On June 27, 2018, in Appeal of CiyaSoft Corporation, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that the Government can be bound by terms of a commercial software license agreement that the contracting officer (CO) has neither negotiated nor seen. CiyaSoft Corporation (CiyaSoft) submitted a claim asserting that the Army had breached its contract to purchase computer software by using more copies of the software than were permitted by the contract. The Army denied the claim, in part, because the contract contained no terms specifying how the government would secure and protect the software. Instead, CiyaSoft had included license terms limiting the software’s use (i) inside the box containing the CDs with the software, (ii) on a piece of paper inside the software’s shrinkwrap, and (iii) in clickwrap that was displayed during the software’s installation process. On appeal, the Board found that although the contract included no license terms and the CO never saw or discussed with CiyaSoft the license terms that accompanied the software delivery, the CO had a duty to inquire about what use rights applied to the software and the failure to do so imputed knowledge of the licensing terms on the Army. Pointing to the longstanding policy embodied in the FAR that that the government should accept commercial computer license terms that are customarily provided to other purchasers, the Board held that “the government can be bound by the terms of a commercial software license it has neither negotiated nor seen prior to the receipt of the software, so long as the terms are consistent with those customarily provided by the vendor to other purchasers and do not otherwise violate federal law.”
Continue Reading Commercial License Terms May Govern Even Without Contracting Officer Knowledge
When assessing whether a contractor is eligible for award, contracting officers are required to conduct a meaningful present responsibility determination using the factors contained in FAR 9.1. However, a final rule issued by the FAR Council on September 30, 2016 has inserted a wild card into the process—the agency suspension and debarment official (SDO).
The final rule adopts an interim rule without change, which amends the FAR to establish the following representation and certification requirements: