Flow-down

Subscribe to Flow-down via RSS

In addition to prohibiting the flow-down of non-mandatory FAR/DFARS clauses (which we talk about here), the Department of Defense (“DOD”) Final Rule in connection with the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) Case 2017-D010 also touched on the decades-long debate as to which entities actually are subcontractors performing under a Federal prime contract. Yes, you read that correctly – there is no single definition for the terms “subcontract” or “subcontractor.” After almost 40 years of confusion, it appears the DFARS and Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Councils are trying to end the debate once and for all.Continue Reading New Year, (Potentially) New Definition for “Subcontract”

On November 17, 2023, the Department of Defense (“DOD”) published a Final Rule – over five years in the making – addressing DOD policies regarding the applicability of laws to commercial products, commercial services, and commercially available off-the-shelf (“COTS”) products (DFARS Case 2017-D010). Partially implementing Section 874 of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, DOD has imposed new regulations that expressly prohibit Contracting Officers (“CO”) and prime contractors alike from incorporating regulatory requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) in prime contracts and subcontracts unless mandated by regulatory text.Continue Reading It’s the Most Wonderful Time for New DOD Flow Down Policies: Flowing Down Too Many Clauses Will Get Prime Contractors More Than a Lump of Coal

At the end of 2019, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) took another step to limit the potential cyber risks posed by telecommunications equipment manufactured by Chinese companies (and potentially Russian…
Continue Reading DoD’s Squeeze of Chinese Telecom Equipment Continues

This month, and with great fanfare, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its creation of a Procurement Collusion Strike Force.  We know what you’re thinking, and no – this…
Continue Reading A Few Thoughts on DOJ’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force

As you probably know, we have been following very closely developments relating to Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which prohibits executive agencies from purchasing restricted…
Continue Reading The True Impact of the Chinese Telecom Ban on Government Contractors

On September 9, 2019, the U.S. General Services Administration (“GSA”) announced it would be issuing a mass modification (expected sometime this month)[1] requiring all new and existing GSA Multiple Award Schedule (“MAS”) contracts include two new clauses. The new clauses come in response to Section 889 of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), and recently implemented FAR provisions, which impose prohibitions relating to the procurement of certain Chinese telecommunications equipment and services (which we have previously discussed here and here). The two clauses to be added to all MAS contracts are:

  • FAR 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (Aug 2019)
  • GSAR 552.204-70, Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (Aug 2019)

Continue Reading GSA Implements Restrictions on Certain Chinese-Made Telecommunications Services and Equipment

We recently wrote about the FAR Council’s release of an interim rule implementing restrictions on procurements involving certain Chinese telecommunications hardware manufacturers and service providers, such as Huawei and ZTE. The interim rule creates a new FAR Subpart 4.21, as well as two new contract clauses, FAR 52.204-24 and 52.204-25, which were effective August 13, 2019. These restrictions apply not only to prime contractors, but also to all subcontractors and throughout the supply chain. Concurrent with the release of the FAR interim rule, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued a memorandum, laying out DoD procedures to implement the prohibitions contained therein. These procedures apply to contracts, task orders, and delivery orders, including basic ordering agreements (BOAs), orders against BOAs, blanket purchase agreements (BPAs), and calls against BPAs.
Continue Reading Effective Last Month! – DoD’s Implementation of New FAR Prohibitions on Chinese Telecommunications Equipment and Services in Government Contracts

In accordance with Section 889(a)(1)(A) of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. No. 115-232) (the “2019 NDAA”), which required imposition of broad restrictions on procurements involving certain Chinese telecommunications hardware manufacturers such as Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp within one year, the FAR Council has released an interim rule implementing these restrictions. On August 13, the FAR Council released Federal Acquisition Circular 2019-05 (84 Fed. Reg. 40,216), creating a new FAR Subpart 4.21, as well as two new contract clauses, FAR 52.204-24 and 52.204-25, all of which are effective August 13, 2019. These restrictions apply not only to prime contractors, but also to all subcontractors and throughout the supply chain. Government contractors need to know that these new requirements are effective immediately and that opportunities for waivers are very limited.
Continue Reading Effective Immediately! – FAR Amended to Include Prohibition on Chinese Telecommunications Equipment and Services in Government Contracts

Two recent developments have the potential to change the landscape for contractors providing services to the Government.  Government contractors and subcontractors are required to comply with a host of regulations governing their hiring practices and the wages they pay and benefits they provide to certain categories of employees.  A recent Executive Order and court decision, however, have the potential to alter these requirements drastically.
Continue Reading The Changing Landscape for Services Contractors

By Dawn Lurie 

“Yes, we use E-Verify.” “Of course, our company is in compliance, we did an I-9 audit a few years ago – isn’t that the same as E-Verify?” “I know this is not an issue, because I remember being told we addressed all I-9 and E-Verify issues.” “No, the General Counsel’s office doesn’t handle immigration issues.”

You get the picture. Many companies simply do not take immigration compliance seriously. This failing usually does not come from a disinterest in compliance, but rather from a threshold failure to understand the intricacies involved in immigration issues or the potential exposure that could result from noncompliance. Only when faced with government investigations, public scrutiny, or other negative impacts on the business do the right people in the right places start to pay attention. When they learn that federal contractors can be suspended or debarred for failing to adhere to immigration and E-Verify related issues that attention is heightened.Continue Reading Federal Contractors: The FAR E-Verify Clause Revisited – Critical Steps a Contractor Can Take To Foster E-Verify Compliance