What Does a Potential One-Year Delay for Part B of Section 889 Mean for Your Compliance Efforts?

Justin A. Chiarodo, Merle DeLancey Jr., and Robyn N. Burrows

In remarks to Congress and statements this week, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) announced that it is considering a one-year delay for full implementation of Part B of the Section 889 ban (we previously summarized the ban, which prohibits the government from contracting with entities using certain Chinese telecommunications equipment, here). The ban is currently scheduled to go into effect on August 13, 2020. What does this welcome development mean for contractors? We think it warrants prioritizing near-term compliance efforts to high-risk areas, pending forthcoming rulemaking that will provide needed specifics on the way forward.


During June 10 remarks before the House Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord expressed the DoD’s full support for the intent of Section 889, but admitted she is “very concerned” about being able to accomplish Part B implementation by August 13. As to whether the DoD can meet the current timeline given COVID-19 disruptions and the lack of an interim rule, Ms. Lord acknowledged that “we need more time” for contractors to comply.

Following the undersecretary’s testimony, the DoD announced that it is considering adding contract language giving its suppliers an additional year to reach full compliance with Part B. Though not final, the DoD’s proposed delay could relieve DoD contractors from full compliance with the impending August deadline. We anticipate this approach would be similar to the phase-in period for compliance with the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Safeguarding and Cyber Incident Reporting clause. It is not yet clear whether the Office of Management and Budget, which currently has the draft interim rule for Part B, will incorporate a delayed implementation into that forthcoming rule.

The DoD also signaled that it is poised to advocate for a more risk-based approach to Part B implementation and rulemaking. During her testimony, Ms. Lord expressed concern with the “unintended consequences” of a minor infraction several layers deep within the supply chain potentially shutting down major portions of the defense industrial base by disqualifying key prime contractors from doing business with the federal government. The DoD suggested that the use of a risk-based approach may be useful to achieve effective implementation. The DoD’s consideration of a risk-based approach indicates that it is equally concerned about its contractors’ ability to comply with a strict application of Part B.

How DoD’s Announcements Inform Compliance Efforts with Part B

Without an interim rule and with less than two months before the statutory August deadline, how should contractors begin implementing Part B? Given the DoD’s recent comments suggesting a risk-based approach, contractors should consider adjusting their Part B implementation efforts using a risk assessment framework, prioritizing high-risk areas. That is, contractors should identify the extent to which telecommunications or video surveillance equipment is used to support government contracts, the nature of that work, and the frequency with which the technology is used.

The nature of the product’s telecommunication function also informs its risk potential. For example, computers, routers, phones, and network equipment can generally be considered a higher priority area than technology that, although technically subject to the ban, presents a moderate to low cybersecurity risk, depending on the nature and frequency of use (e.g., HVAC systems, fax machines, copiers, scanners).

Contractors should also communicate with key suppliers to ensure that they are aware of the rule and are similarly working to prepare for Part B.

Although the DoD’s statements are welcome news—and reflect that the government is mindful of the challenges presented by the ban—the DoD remains committed to Section 889 and contractors should proceed accordingly.

Veterans Affairs Granted Unprecedented Procurement Authority under P.L. 85-804

John M. Clerici and Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

On April 10, 2020, the President issued a Memorandum to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”) authorizing the exercise of authority under Public Law 85-804, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1431-35. (See Memorandum on Authorizing the Exercise of Authority under Public Law 85-804.) This is a significant action that contractors must understand and be prepared to use for their benefit.

P.L. 85-804’s expansive powers are rarely invoked, used only in unique circumstances that require “extraordinary contractual actions.” See FAR Part 50. President Obama relied on P.L. 85-804 in 2014 when he granted the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) the authority to indemnify companies from lawsuits related to contracts performed in Africa in support of USAID’s response to the Ebola outbreak. Because there are now other legal authorities the U.S. Government may use to offer liability protection in certain circumstances (e.g., the SAFETY Act of 2002; the PREP Act of 2005), conferring liability protection under P.L. 85-804 is uncommon. The use of the law to broadly expand the U.S. Government’s contracting powers is truly extraordinary. Continue reading “Veterans Affairs Granted Unprecedented Procurement Authority under P.L. 85-804”

VA Federal Supply Schedule Contracts and the Coronavirus

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

In response to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) has relaxed procurement rules and regulations to facilitate purchases from VA federal supply schedules (“FSS”). On March 20, 2020, the VA National Acquisition Center (“NAC”) informed all VA FSS holders that, based upon the President’s invocation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the “Stafford Act”), state and local governments, territories, and tribes have full access to VA FSS contracts. See Presidential Declaration of National Emergency COVID-19 – State and Local Government Ordering Procedures.

Thus, even if a contractor did not elect to participate in Disaster Recovery Purchasing at the time of contract award, contractors are now permitted to accept any orders by state and local governments. However, whether to accept any state or local government order is voluntary not mandatory. Continue reading “VA Federal Supply Schedule Contracts and the Coronavirus”

GSA Federal Supply Schedules Contracts and the Coronavirus: Risks and Rewards

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

On March 19, 2020, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) issued guidance regarding its process for issuing Defense Priorities and Allocation System (“DPAS”) Rated Orders. Significantly, however, GSA reminded its contracting officers that “[e]xisting Government sources of supply and contract vehicles should be considered first. Check to see if the required supplies are available.” See gsa.gov/buying-selling/purchasing-programs/gsa-schedules/gsa-schedule-offerings/consolidated-schedule/industrial-products-services-category and gsaadvantage.gov/advantage/search/specialCategory.do?cat=ADV.DR. GSA federal supply schedules (“FSS”) can be a contracting officer’s one-stop shop for protective equipment, disinfectants, hand sanitizers, and other products and supplies to combat the coronavirus COVID-19. The GSA FSS also offers a variety of solutions for agencies looking for teleworking options. See gsa.gov/buying-selling/purchasing-programs/gsa-schedules/gsa-schedule-offerings/consolidated-schedule/professional-services-category.

The largest active buyer in the market right now remains the federal government. FSS is an important tool for the government to get supplies and services, but do not be fooled. With these potential opportunities, there also are potential risks for FSS contractors that fail to follow the terms and conditions of their FSS contracts and/or seek to cut corners.

As is often the case, FSS vendors go above and beyond to provide services or deliver supplies to federal agencies to respond to emergency situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. As is also the case, months later, after the dust settles, agency offices of inspector general arrive to audit contracts. Inevitably, in the effort to expeditiously fill government orders, things get overlooked or ignored, and “but I was helping the agency fulfill its mission in response to a pandemic” is not a defense that will resonate with government auditors.

Based upon our experience, here are some tips for FSS vendors to follow and/or traps to avoid: Continue reading “GSA Federal Supply Schedules Contracts and the Coronavirus: Risks and Rewards”

For Part B of Section 889, Is Compliance by August 13, 2020, Realistic?

Merle M. DeLancey Jr., Justin A. Chiarodo, and Robyn N. Burrows

On March 10, 2020, the Department of Commerce extended the deadline for U.S. companies to stop doing business with Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and its non-U.S. affiliates. The deadline has been extended multiple times and is now May 15, 2020. Under the extension, U.S. businesses can continue to work with Huawei on the operation of existing networks and mobile services, including cybersecurity research considered critical for network reliability.

Huawei was added to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security “Entity List” in May 2019. The Entity List includes foreign entities who have engaged in activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests.

In addition to the extension, the Commerce Department is seeking public comments through March 25, 2020, regarding the continuing need for, and scope of, possible future extensions concerning Huawei. The multiple extensions and new request for public comments are intended to allow time for companies and persons to shift from Huawei or its affiliates to alternative sources of equipment, software, and technology. Continue reading “For Part B of Section 889, Is Compliance by August 13, 2020, Realistic?”

Five Steps to Take to Prepare for Part B of the Section 889 Ban

Merle M. DeLancey Jr., Justin A. Chiarodo, and Robyn N. Burrows

Part B of Section 889 takes effect August 13, 2020. The ban prohibits the federal government from contracting with any “entity that uses” telecommunications and video surveillance products or services from Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. (Huawei) and four other Chinese entities, including their affiliates and subsidiaries (we’ve previously covered Section 889 here and here). This post examines recent industry feedback during a public meeting with the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and provides five compliance recommendations pending forthcoming rulemaking.

On March 2, 2020, DoD held a public meeting on Part B. Several trade associations gave feedback, and raised five major concerns: 1) the broad scope of the rule; 2) the inability of many contractors to meet the August 2020 compliance deadline; 3) whether the rule will apply outside the United States; 4) whether the term “use” would include a reseller’s commercial sales of prohibited products, thus precluding a supplier from contracting with the federal government; and 5) whether the “entity” subject to the ban includes only the legal entity executing the contract with the federal government, or also its affiliates and subsidiaries. Unfortunately, DoD did not indicate when an interim rule might issue. Continue reading “Five Steps to Take to Prepare for Part B of the Section 889 Ban”

Are You Prepared to Comply with the Fast Approaching Prohibition on the Use of Banned Telecommunications Equipment?

Merle M. DeLancey Jr., Justin A. Chiarodo, and Robyn N. Burrows

Background      

Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) imposed major new supply chain restrictions on the use of “covered” telecommunications products and services from Huawei Technologies Company Ltd. and several other Chinese entities and their affiliates.

Part A of Section 889 became effective in August 2019 and bans companies from providing covered technology to the Federal Government. Under Part A, a company cannot sell any product or provide any service to the government that uses covered technology. Compliance with Part A requires contractors to flow down the prohibition to subcontractors. Continue reading “Are You Prepared to Comply with the Fast Approaching Prohibition on the Use of Banned Telecommunications Equipment?”

After Acetris Decision, Trade Agreements Act Compliance Questions Abound: Contractors Need Guidance

Merle M. DeLancey Jr., Jay P. Lessler, and James R. Staiger

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Acetris has left many contractors scratching their heads and asking questions. To recap, on February 10, 2020, the Federal Circuit held that, under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), to qualify as a “U.S.-made end product” under the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”), a drug must be either “manufactured” in the United States or “substantially transformed” in the United States. (See Federal Circuit Holds Generic Drugs Manufactured in the U.S. from API Produced in India Qualify for Sale to U.S. under Trade Agreements Act (Acetris Decision).) This is a stark change from the Government’s long-held position that manufacturing and substantial transformation were one in the same.

As a result of the Acetris decision, federal contractors seeking to comply with or maintain compliance with the TAA are facing many questions. Some of the more prominent questions are below. Continue reading “After Acetris Decision, Trade Agreements Act Compliance Questions Abound: Contractors Need Guidance”

Federal Circuit Holds Generic Drugs Manufactured in the U.S. from API Produced in India Qualify for Sale to U.S. under Trade Agreements Act (Acetris Decision)

Merle M. DeLancey Jr., Jay P. Lessler, and James R. Staiger

Earlier today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision that is sure to send shockwaves through the generic drug industry. In Acetris, the Federal Circuit held that a generic drug manufactured in the United States complied with the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) and could be sold to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court made this determination even though the drug’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) came from a non-designated country, India. In reaching its decision, the court broke away from longstanding Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) precedent that the country where the API was produced dictated the location of “substantial transformation” and thus the country of origin for any resulting drug. The court held that under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), to qualify as a “U.S.-made end product” under the TAA, a drug must be either “manufactured” in the United States or “substantially transformed” in the United States—but not be both.

For years, generic drug manufacturers that manufacture drugs in the United States from API produced in India and China have been precluded from selling their drugs to the U.S. Government under the TAA. The Federal Circuit’s Acetris decision opens up the U.S. Government market for generic drugs manufactured in the U.S. from API produced in India and China.

 

 

GSA’s Big Changes in 2020, Part 5: The Mass Mod Is Coming, the Mass Mod Is Coming . . . Wait, It’s Here!

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

This is the last in a series of posts updating current and prospective Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) contractors about the big changes implemented or being implemented by the General Services Administration (“GSA”) in 2020—including consolidation of 24 schedules into one, streamlined schedule (called the Multiple Award Schedule or “MAS”). This post concerns GSA’s recent release of the Mass Modification (“Mass Mod”) implementing the terms and conditions for the MAS. Here is what you need to know: Continue reading “GSA’s Big Changes in 2020, Part 5: The Mass Mod Is Coming, the Mass Mod Is Coming . . . Wait, It’s Here!”