Proposed Rules

Subscribe to Proposed Rules via RSS

By Curt Dombek, Thad McBride and Mark Jensen

In a significant step in the reform of U.S. export controls, the Department of Commerce issued a proposed rule on Friday, July 15, 2011, that would fundamentally affect the overlap between, and operation of, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) administered by the U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, and the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) administered by the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security. See Proposed Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): Control of Items the President Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions List, 76 Fed. Reg. 41,958 (July 15, 2011) (amending 15 C.F.R. Pts. 730, 732, 734, 738, 740, 742, 743, 744, 746, 748, 756, 762 ,770, 772 and 774). The changes, which are based on the interagency review of the U.S. export control system that was initiated by President Obama in August 2009, would create a regulatory construct for harmonizing the United States Munitions List (“USML”) of the ITAR and the Commerce Control List (“CCL”) of the EAR, as well as standardizing certain key definitions between the two regulatory systems.
 Continue Reading Proposed Rule Details Major Changes to U.S. Export Controls

By David S. Gallacher

Those familiar with Government contracting know at least a little bit about the elusive and fickle regulatory requirements for Independent Research and Development (“IR&D” or “IRAD”) costs. IR&D is a means by which the U.S. Government supports a Contractor’s independent R&D efforts. By reimbursing a Contractor’s independent R&D costs, the Government long has hoped to advance the state of the art without stifling a contractor’s innovation under the weight of a federal bureaucracy, while simultaneously banking on the fact that the U.S. Government also will benefit from the technology advancements. But two recent developments may change the essential nature of IR&D, making it less “independent” and more “dependent” on Government rights and oversight. To quote Bob Dylan – “the times they are a changin’.” 
 Continue Reading The Times They Are A Changin’ – Independent Research and Development May Not Be So “Independent” Any More

By Curtis M. Dombek

On March 15, 2011, the State Department Directorate of Defense Trade Controls published a proposed new rule that marks a significant change in the approach to ITAR regulation. Historically, ITAR controls have always applied to commercial end products incorporating any ITAR controlled components. This was the basis of the highly publicized QRS chip case, in which the State Department asserted continuing ITAR control over avionics chips that had originated on a military program but had come to be widely used in civilian jet aircraft. That case resulted eventually in a special exception to allow jet aircraft to remain in production and passenger service with the QRS chip and without ITAR licensing.
 Continue Reading Proposed ITAR Rule To Relax ITAR Licensing For Components Incorporated Into Commercial Products

By: John W. Chierichella and W. Bruce Shirk

We previously noted DCAA’s hasty implementation of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (“CAFC’s”) decision in Gates v. Raytheon Co., 584 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2009), requiring daily compounding of interest on adjustments made to rectify Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) noncompliances. DCAA Implements Federal Circuit Decision Requiring Interest Compounded Daily on Adjustments for CAS Noncompliances (June 14, 2010). We say “hasty” because – while noting that its holding was required by Canadian Fur Trappers v. United States, 884 F.2d 563 (Fed. Cir. 1989) – the panel expressed reservations regarding that decision’s validity, commenting that appellee’s (Raytheon’s) arguments “may support the proposition that Canadian Fur Trappers was erroneously decided.” Not surprisingly, Raytheon accepted this implicit invitation to petition for rehearing en banc, and that petition is currently pending. Nonetheless, the FAR Councils are now rushing to mimic DCAA by proposing in equally hasty fashion to extend the holding to overpayments under the Truth in Negotiations Act (“TINA”). 75 Fed. Reg. 57719-57721 (Sept. 22, 2010).
 Continue Reading Rush To Judgment – FAR Councils Propose Daily Compounding Of Interest For TINA Violations

By John W. Chierichella and W. Bruce Shirk

The Department of Defense recently proposed a rule that would revise guidance for award-fee evaluations to require:
 

  • The incorporation of award-fee plans into all DOD award-fee contracts,
     
  • The use of objective criteria to the maximum extent possible to measure contract performance including, where appropriate, use of formula-based incentives rather than or in addition to an award fee,
     
  • The elimination of provisional award-fee payments, i.e., payments made prior to evaluation of contractor performance, which have been allowed since 2003 in accordance with DFARS 216.405-2, and
     
  • Reservation of at least 40% of the available award fee pool for payment after the final evaluation period.

75 Fed. Reg. 22728-29 (April 30, 2010).
 Continue Reading DOD Proposed Rule Would Eliminate Provisional Award Fee And Defer Substantial Award Fee Payments