Category: Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

Senate Majority Leader Schumer Proposes Section 889 Expansion

Robyn N. Burrows and Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

On October 18, 2022, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) issued a press release signaling a potentially significant expansion of Section 889 through a proposed amendment to the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). Schumer’s proposal is aimed at extending the telecommunications supply chain prohibitions in Section 889 to the semiconductor manufacturing industry.

Section 889 currently prohibits contractors from providing the federal government or using any products or services that incorporate “covered telecommunications equipment or services” from five Chinese telecom companies and their affiliates and subsidiaries: (1) Huawei Technologies Company, (2) ZTE Corporation, (3) Hytera Communications Corporation, (4) Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and (5) Dahua Technology Company.

Schumer’s 2023 NDAA amendment would expand Section 889 by banning semiconductor products like microchips from the following three Chinese entities: (1) Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (“SMIC”), (2) ChangXin Memory Technologies (“CXMT”), and (3) Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp. (“YMTC”). Schumer noted that these companies have known links to the Chinese state security and intelligence apparatuses. The amendment is aimed at filling a gap in federal procurement restrictions that currently do not include semiconductor technology and services, creating a vulnerability for cyberattacks and data privacy. The amendment would not take effect until three years after the NDAA’s enactment, or until 2025.

Although we do not yet know whether Schumer’s amendment will be incorporated into the final NDAA bill, contractors should nevertheless begin evaluating their supply chains to identify any semiconductor products from any of the three named Chinese manufacturers. Schumer’s amendment signals a continually expansive interpretation and enforcement of Section 889, which may be reflected in the final rulemaking for Section 889. The current FAR docket anticipates a final rule in December 2022, although these deadlines continue to be moving targets.

Are You Ready for Increasing Buy American Act Content Requirements?

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. ●

Effective October 25, 2022, the domestic content requirements for government purchases subject to the Buy American Act (“BAA”) will increase. A March 7, 2022, final rule implemented significant domestic content threshold increases over a seven-year timeframe for procurements subject to the BAA requirements of FAR Part 25. These increases were based on President Biden’s January 25, 2021, Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers. (See, Buy American Act—Final Rule: What Has Changed?) Note that these changes apply to the BAA as implemented in non-Department of Defense (“DoD”) purchases—the rules for implementing the BAA in DoD acquisitions are set forth in the DFARS, and differ from the FAR implementation in several important respects that we will address in a future post.

Unlike the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”), which bans government purchases of non-compliant products, the BAA applies pricing preferences to encourage government agencies to purchase “domestic end products.” Thus, items that are not BAA compliant may still be purchased by government agencies, but they must be significantly less expensive. Currently, FAR Part 25 provides that large businesses offering domestic end products receive a 20 percent price preference and small businesses offering domestic end products receive a 30 percent price preference. The FAR sets forth a two-part test to determine whether a manufactured end product or construction material qualifies as a domestic end product: (1) the end product or construction material must be manufactured in the United States; and (2) the cost of any components mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States must exceed a certain percentage of the cost of all components.

Continue reading “Are You Ready for Increasing Buy American Act Content Requirements?“

DoD Section 889 Telecommunications Prohibition Waiver Expires

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. ●

Effective October 1, 2022, Department of Defense (“DoD”) contractors must comply with Part B of Section 889 of the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). The approximately two-year long Part B waiver granted to the Director of National Intelligence expired October 1. DoD contractors cannot seek a DoD agency-level waiver as DoD cannot grant waivers under the statute. Thus, as with other agencies, DoD is prohibited from entering into, extending, or renewing contracts with contractors who use covered telecommunications or video surveillance equipment and services from certain Chinese companies in any part of their business.

Compliance with Part A of Section 889 was straightforward. Part A prohibited contractors from selling covered technology to the federal agencies. Comparatively, compliance with Part B is much more complicated. Part B requires a contractor to certify that it does not use “any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.” The prohibition applies to all contracts at any dollar value. “Covered telecommunications equipment or services” is defined as equipment, services and/or video surveillance products from Huawei Technologies Company, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, Hytera Communications Company, Dahua Technology Company, ZTE Corporation, or any entity controlled by the People’s Republic of China.

For more information regarding Part B compliance, see our prior posts For Part B of Section 889, Is Compliance by August 13, 2020, Realistic? and Five Steps to Take to Prepare for Part B of the Section 889 Ban.

Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate Still in Limbo

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Samarth Barot ●

Since December 2021, after a Federal District Court for the Southern District of Georgia issued a nationwide injunction against the federal contractor vaccine mandate, compliance with the federal contractor vaccine mandate has been in limbo. Many hoped that, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit would bring some clarity to vaccine requirements. Unfortunately, that is not the case. On August 26, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that a preliminary injunction was warranted, however the Court narrowed the applicability of the injunction. The court held that the injunction should only apply to the specific plaintiff-states and trade associations in the case, and should not “extend[] nationwide and without distinction to plaintiffs and non-parties alike.” Georgia v. President of the United States, No. 21-14269 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2022).

The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the lower court that a preliminary injunction was warranted, stating that while “Congress crafted the Procurement Act to promote economy and efficiency in federal contracting, the purpose statement does not authorize the President to supplement the statute with any administrative move that may advance that purpose.” Therefore, the Court held that “the President likely exceeded his authority under the Procurement Act when directing executive agencies to enforce” the vaccine mandate.

Continue reading “Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate Still in Limbo“

Flow-Down Clauses: Best Practices

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere ●

Federal government contractors and subcontractors often struggle with flow-down clauses. Fundamentally, prime and subcontractors squabble over flow-down clauses because they involve assumption of risk. A prime contractor has committed to comply with all of the clauses in its prime contract. To the extent a prime contractor does not flow down a clause to its subcontractor, the prime contractor assumes the risk of any subcontractor non-compliance. This is because, if a contracting officer identifies regulatory non-compliance, the government only looks to the party with which it has privity to enforce compliance: the prime contractor. If the prime contractor has not flowed down the applicable clause to its subcontractor, the prime contractor is responsible for its subcontractor’s non-compliance. If the clause has been flowed down, the prime contractor can enforce compliance upon its subcontractor. From a subcontractor perspective, the more flow-down clauses it accepts from its prime contractor, the more compliance risk it assumes.

As a result, prime contractors seek to flow down as many FAR clauses as possible—well beyond the mandatory flow downs discussed below. Subcontractors, meanwhile, seek to keep flow-down clauses to a minimum. Subcontractors must analyze when it is appropriate and productive to resist non-mandatory flow-down clauses, and sometimes the answers to these questions may not be straightforward. Below we address the mandatory flow-down clauses for commercial subcontracts with commercial and non-commercial prime contractors, how subcontractors can handle irrelevant clauses, and best flow-down practices for prime contractors and subcontractors.

Continue reading “Flow-Down Clauses: Best Practices“

New SBA Rule on Small Business Past Performance Also Has Implications for Large Businesses

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. ●

The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) recently issued a final rule that creates new opportunities for small businesses to submit relevant past performance, and new requirements for large/other than small prime contractors to provide past performance reviews to first-tier small business subcontractors.

The final rule is intended to help small businesses overcome the hurdle of having minimal past performance to use in competitive procurements. The rule creates new mechanisms to permit small businesses to use the past performance of a joint venture in which it was a member, or to use its performance as a first-tier subcontractor. The new rule takes effect on August 22, 2022.

Continue reading “New SBA Rule on Small Business Past Performance Also Has Implications for Large Businesses”

Register Your Affirmative Action Plan Now!

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. ●

Federal government contractors and subcontractors with 50 or more employees and a federal contract or subcontract with a value of $50,000 or more measured during any 12-month period are required to develop a written Affirmative Action Program (“AAP”) within 120 days from the start of the federal contract.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) has established a Contractor Portal for federal government contractors to register and certify that they have developed and maintained affirmative action programs at each of their establishments or functional units: OFCCP Contractor Portal. Contractors that do not register and certify are more likely to be selected for an OFCCP AAP audit.

The deadline to register and submit AAP certifications is June 30, 2022.

May 19, 2022: “Special Focus on FSS Post Award Compliance and Audits” at ACI “BIG FOUR” Pharmaceutical Pricing Boot Camp

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. will serve as a speaker for the American Conference Institute (“ACI”) “BIG FOUR” Pharmaceutical Pricing Boot Camp, taking place May 18–19, 2022, as an interactive live virtual conference.

Michael Grivnovics, Director, Federal Supply System, Contracts Division, Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, will join Merle to present the “Special Focus on FSS Post Award Compliance and Audits” session on May 19 at 9:00 a.m. EDT.

For more details, visit our website.

GSA Relaxes Price Increase Limitations for FSS Contractors

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Sara N. Gerber


The General Services Administration (“GSA”) Office of Governmentwide Policy recently authorized contracting officers to provide relief to GSA contractors experiencing cost increases due to surging inflation. See Acquisition Letter. To assist struggling contractors, GSA issued a temporary moratorium on the enforcement of certain limitations contained in GSA economic price adjustment (“EPA”) clauses.

GSA issued the moratorium in response to an uptick in contractors’ requests for price increases and removal of items from their Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) contracts to avoid selling at a loss. In issuing the moratorium, GSA recognized that inflationary pressures and price volatility, caused by supply chain disruptions, strong demand, and labor shortages, are ongoing concerns unlikely to abate in the near term. GSA acknowledged that it must help contractors weather this “unusual time”—especially small businesses and new market entrants—to ensure a resilient and diverse federal industrial base and the government’s continued access to critical “products, services, and solutions.”

Continue reading “GSA Relaxes Price Increase Limitations for FSS Contractors”

The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and Value-Based Purchasing

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

On March 23, 2022, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued long-awaited guidance regarding how drug manufacturers are to report multiple best prices (“BPs”) to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (“MDRP”) under value-based purchasing (“VBP”) arrangements. See Manufacturer Release 116 (medicaid.gov/prescription-drugs/downloads/mfr-rel-116.pdf). CMS delayed issuing the guidance to allow states, payers, and manufacturers to administratively prepare for multiple BP reporting in connection with VBP arrangements. The regulatory amendments are effective July 1, 2022.

VBP Arrangements and Medicaid’s Best Price Rule

VBP arrangements consist of additional rebates or price concessions that states may be able to earn based on a drug’s clinical outcomes in Medicaid beneficiaries. CMS’ challenge was reconciling Medicaid’s long-standing BP reporting rule used to calculate manufacturer rebate payments to states with anticipated low prices available under VBP arrangements. Since 1991, the MDRP agreed to cover every drug a manufacturer sells regardless of price. In exchange for this unprecedented access, manufacturers agreed to pay rebates ensuring that Medicaid programs paid no more than the “best prices” paid by manufacturers’ commercial customers. Many argued that Medicaid’s BP rule prevented states from accessing innovative manufacturer programs involving cutting-edge therapies.

Continue reading “The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and Value-Based Purchasing”
Exit mobile version
%%footer%%