With the recent adoption of the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (“VCDPA”), the state’s consumers will have new rights to understand what data a company collects about them, how that data is used, and with whom they share it. In short, the new law will have a national impact on any company doing business in the state.
Led by attorneys from Blank Rome’s Privacy, Security & Data Protection and White Collar Defense & Investigation Groups, this complimentary webinar will provide in-depth analysis of the VCDPA and timely insights on how businesses should prepare to comply with its provisions, including discussion of:
- Scope of the VCDPA;
- The VCDPA compared to the California Consumer Privacy Act and other privacy regimes;
- New data rights of consumers;
- Information security requirements; and
- Issues related to enforcement.
- Sharon R. Klein, Partner and Chair, Privacy, Security & Data Protection, Orange County, CA
- Alex C. Nisenbaum, Partner, Privacy, Security & Data Protection, Orange County, CA
- Jennifer A. Short, Partner, White Collar Defense & Investigations, Washington, D.C.
This course is anticipated to qualify for the following CLE credits: VA 1.0 general credit
QUESTIONS? Please contact Courtney Litman via e-mail.
Tuesday, September 21, 2021
10:00‒11:00 a.m. PDT / 1:00‒2:00 p.m. EDT
Justin A. Chiarodo, Brooke T. Iley, and Albert B. Krachman
“If you want to work with the federal government, do business with us? Get vaccinated” – President Biden, White House Remarks, September 9, 2021
We forecast in March (Will Federal Contractors Be Required to Certify Employee COVID Vaccinations?) possible COVID safety mandates for government contractors. They’ve arrived. President Biden issued a September 9, 2021, executive order (“EO”) that will implement sweeping COVID Safety protocols for government contractors, including potential vaccine mandates, to be established by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force.
This FAQ breaks down the basics and includes our assessment of best practices pending forthcoming rulemaking.
Continue reading “FAQ: Government Contractor COVID Safeguards Executive Order”
“If you want to do business with the federal government,
get your workers vaccinated.”
-President Biden, July 29, 2021
Please join Blank Rome’s Albert B. Krachman, partner in our Government Contracts practice group, and Brooke T. Iley, partner and co-chair of our Labor & Employment practice group, as they provide timely and insightful analysis of President Biden’s vaccination mandate for federal contractors in the wake of the Delta variant, including in-depth discussion of:
- COVID-19 vaccinations as an element of FAR Part 9—Contractor Qualifications
- Scope of Mandate
- Contractor Vaccination Program Design
- Resolving Federal/State/Local Law Conflicts
- Vaccinations and Federal Market Share—Trends to Watch
Tuesday, August 31, 2021 | 1:00—1:30 p.m. EDT
To learn more, please read Will Federal Contractors Be Required to Certify Employee COVID Vaccinations? (Government Contracts Navigator, March 10, 2021).
Merle M. DeLancey Jr.
At the end of July 2021, the Biden administration announced that, in addition to federal government employees, onsite federal contractor employees will be required to attest to their COVID-19 vaccination status. Visitors to federal buildings or federally controlled indoor workspaces and other individuals interacting with the federal workforce also will be required to submit a signed Certification of Vaccination form.
Any onsite contractor employee or visitor who declines to respond or responds that they are not fully vaccinated must (i) wear a mask regardless of the level of community transmission; (ii) physically distance; and (iii) provide proof of having received a negative COVID-19 test from within the previous three days if not enrolled in the applicable agency’s testing program. Federal agencies are required to establish a weekly or twice-weekly testing program for individuals not fully vaccinated. In addition, all onsite contractor employees and visitors, even those fully vaccinated, will be required to wear a mask in areas of high or substantial transmission.
Continue reading “Department of Veterans Affairs Releases Contractor Vaccination Guidelines”
Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Craig Stetson*
Our Part 1 post addressed contract administration related to changes to or a termination of a contract arising from the government’s withdrawal from Afghanistan. This post focuses on the cost management, documentation, and government audit aspects that contractors should be focused on to prepare for and mitigate downstream and currently unknown risks.
Responding to a change or termination will likely involve submitting a request for payment or compensation. The label placed on a contractor’s request for payment depends on whether its contract has been terminated or has experienced a “change.” The type of request for payment also can vary depending on the type of contract involved (i.e., cost reimbursement, fixed price, or labor hour).
Continue reading “Government Contractor Best Practices in Light of Afghanistan Withdrawal (Part 2)”
Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Craig Stetson*
It is hard to describe the manner in which the United States is withdrawing from Afghanistan. At this point, the safety and security of Americans and those who provided critical assistance to U.S. operations in Afghanistan are at the forefront of everyone’s thoughts. However, contractors in Afghanistan must confront the repercussions of shutting down operations in Afghanistan or dealing with significant changes in contract performance requirements. Translated—this means ensuring fair compensation for terminated or changed contracts.
This blog post focuses on the contract administration aspects that contractors should be thinking of now to prepare for and mitigate downstream and currently unknown risks. Below is a list of issues for contractors supporting operations in Afghanistan to consider.
Continue reading “Government Contractor Best Practices in Light of Afghanistan Withdrawal (Part 1)”
Scott Arnold, Justin A. Chiarodo, and Robyn N. Burrows
As directed in President Biden’s January 25, 2021, Executive Order we discussed six months ago, last week the FAR Council proposed increases to the Buy American Act (“BAA”) domestic content requirements, and previewed enhanced price preferences and reporting obligations for “critical” domestic products and components under the BAA.
The proposed rule, issued on July 30, 2021, contains three key elements: (1) Phased increases in domestic content thresholds from the current 55% to 75% by 2029, (2) enhanced price preferences for critical products and components, and (3) post-award reporting requirements for critical products and components.
A virtual public meeting to discuss the proposed rule will be held on August 26, 2021, and comments are due by September 28, 2021. The DAR Council also has an open DFARS Case relating to BAA provisions (2019-D045).
We provide an overview of the rule below along with practical takeaways for contractors to consider in light of these potentially significant changes.
Continue reading “Buy American Act Domestic Content Requirements Likely to Increase Soon”
Merle M. DeLancey Jr.
June 2021 marked the five-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Kingdomware decision, which is best known for broadly interpreting the so-called “Rule of Two” requirement flowing from the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (the “VBA”). The Rule has been criticized for delaying Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) procurements and increasing the prices the government pays for goods and services. However, the importance of the Rule’s purpose—to prioritize and increase the government’s use of small businesses owned by veterans—cannot be credibly challenged.
Over the past five years, the Federal Circuit, Court of Federal Claims, and Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) protest decisions have created some bright-line rules interpreting the VBA’s Rule of Two. After a brief summary of the Rule of Two, this post lays out these bright-line rules, and concludes with predictions regarding future VBA Rule of Two protests.
Continue reading ““Rule of Two” Cheat Sheet”
Merle M. DeLancey Jr.
On July 9, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, designed to promote competition in the American economy with the goal of lowering prices for families, increasing wages for workers, and promoting innovation and even faster economic growth. The Order is expansive—requiring more than 12 federal agencies to pursue 72 initiatives. One of the Order’s prominent targets is drug pricing. At the signing ceremony, President Biden reiterated that “Americans pay two-and-a-half times more for prescription drugs than in any other leading country,” and “nearly one in four Americans struggles to afford their medication.” We have heard similar words multiple times before over many years, however, to date, there has been little progress.
The Order’s initiatives focusing on drug prices do not appear very different from similar efforts in recent years. First, the Order calls on the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to create a plan within 45 days to combat “excessive pricing of prescription drugs and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the federal government for such drugs, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging.” While perhaps a good sound bite, this initiative is not new. In fact, it sounds similar to the Trump administration’s “Most Favored Nation” drug pricing initiative under which Medicare reimbursement for certain drugs would be based on lower prices in other countries. The call for a plan to be delivered in 45 days is curious since it is reported that HHS delivered a new, Biden administration, most favored nation drug pricing rule to the Office of Management Budget for review earlier last week. Perhaps the plan will address how the Biden administration can implement this policy and avoid being bogged down in litigation.
Continue reading “Biden Administration Initiatives to Rein in Drug Prices—Déjà vu All Over Again”
Justin A. Chiarodo and Stephanie M. Harden
Does the mere existence of a deadly epidemic entitle a contractor to monetary relief when it experiences cost increases stemming from that epidemic? Not without Government direction, ruled the Federal Circuit in affirming a decision of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA”) in Pernix Serka JV.
The facts of Pernix Serka are striking: a contractor repeatedly requests guidance for dealing with a major health crisis, the Government refuses to provide guidance, and the contractor is unable to recoup the additional costs it incurs in order to proceed with performance because the Government provided no guidance.
This timely ruling sheds light on strategies contractors should consider for recouping costs stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. We provide a roadmap below for navigating these issues in light of Pernix Serka JV.
The 2014 Ebola Crisis
Pernix Serka was in the midst of performing a contract in Sierra Leone when a deadly Ebola outbreak struck the country in 2014. Pernix Serka diligently sought guidance from the Contracting Officer on its State Department (“DOS”) contract, but the Government refused to weigh in on whether it should temporarily shut down its work on the contract. Ultimately, Pernix Serka decided to temporarily withdraw its personnel, which the Government then characterized as Pernix Serka’s “unilateral” decision. When Pernix Serka sought advice on whether and when to resume work, the Government went so far as to say that “DOS will not provide any instructions or directions” regarding whether and when to return to the work site. The contractor ultimately decided to resume performance, but incurred additional costs when it decided to contract for medical facilities and services on the project site.
Continue reading “Tips to Maximize Contractor Recoveries for Public Health-Related Claims: Lessons from Pernix Serka and the Ebola Crisis”