Part B Interim Rule Bans Contractors from Using Covered Technology Starting August 13th: 5 Steps for Meeting the Compliance Deadline

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

We previously discussed key elements of the newly released interim rule (“the interim rule” or “the rule”) implementing Part B of Section 889 (“Part B”), which prohibits the federal government from contracting with entities that use certain Chinese telecommunications equipment. This post provides a more detailed analysis of the scope and application of the rule, as well as five compliance recommendations given the impending August 13th deadline.

Rule Applies to All Contracts Effective August 13, 2020

Part B applies to all solicitations, options, and modifications on or after August 13th, including contracts for commercial items, commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, and contracts at or below both the micro-purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds. Like it did with respect to Part A, GSA intends to issue a Mass Modification requiring contractors to certify compliance with Part B. GSA has also released Q&As and FAQs to assist contractors with Part B implementation. The interim rule acknowledges that Part B will have a broad impact across contractors in a range of industries, including healthcare, education, automotive, aviation, and aerospace. The rule, however, does not apply to federal grant recipients (which are subject to a separate rulemaking). Continue reading “Part B Interim Rule Bans Contractors from Using Covered Technology Starting August 13th: 5 Steps for Meeting the Compliance Deadline”

Newly Released Interim Rule Implementing Part B of Section 889

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

On July 10, the government issued the    long-awaited Interim Rule implementing Part B of Section 889 (here is a link to the pre-publication version, with the official version soon to follow). Part B prohibits the federal government from contracting with entities that use certain Chinese telecommunications equipment (previously discussed in our blog posts here and here). The Interim Rule is 86 pages and addresses issues related to compliance with Part B, as well as clarifying aspects of Part A.

These are the key points federal contractors need to know:

  • Effective Date: The effective date remains August 13, 2020. The ban applies to solicitations, options, and modifications on or after August 13. However, as we previously discussed, the Department of Defense may allow its contractors more time to comply, despite the statutory deadline.
  • Required Representation: An offeror must represent that, after conducting a reasonable inquiry, it does/does not use covered telecommunications equipment/services.
    • “Reasonable inquiry” means an inquiry designed to uncover any information in the entity’s possession about the identity of the producer or provider of covered telecommunications equipment or services used by the entity. An internal or third-party audit is not required.
  • Scope of “Use”: Applies to the contractor’s use of covered technology, regardless of whether it is used to perform a federal contract. Thus, a contractor’s commercial operations are included.
  • Affiliates/Subsidiaries: The required representation is not applicable to affiliates or subsidiaries at this time. The FAR Council is considering whether to expand the scope of the representation/prohibition to cover an offeror’s domestic affiliates, parents, and subsidiaries. If expanded, it would be effective August 13, 2021.
  • Subcontractors: The ban and required representation are not applicable to subcontractors at this time. The ban only applies at the prime contractor level and does not include a flow down obligation.
  • Detailed Waiver Process: The Interim Rule includes a detailed and complex process for seeking a waiver (really a two-year delayed application).
  • Suggested Compliance Steps: The Interim Rule suggests contractors adopt a “robust, risk-based compliance approach” to include educating personnel on the ban and implementing corporate enterprise tracking to identify covered equipment/services.

Regulators are still seeking feedback from industry, which suggests the government’s willingness to incorporate changes in a final rule. But prime contractors need to act now. In the next 30 days, prime contractors need to determine through a “reasonable inquiry” whether they use covered equipment, regardless of whether that use relates to performance of a federal contract. To demonstrate a reasonable inquiry, contractors should memorialize all steps taken and decisions made in performing the inquiry.

A more detailed analysis is forthcoming. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding compliance, please contact one of Blank Rome’s Government Contracts practice group attorneys for guidance.

Recovering COVID-19 Costs Where Section 3610 of the CARES Act Does Not Apply

Stephanie M. Harden

The financial relief offered to contractors under Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) is limited to contractors who: 1) cannot perform work at their approved sites due to site closures, and 2) cannot telework. For contractors that do not meet these two conditions, the traditional Request for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) and claims processes are still available and may permit recovery of some cost increases due to COVID-19.

Below we provide a brief refresher of key considerations for contractors considering COVID-related REAs or claims. Of course, the particular facts and terms of each contract will ultimately determine whether cost increases are recoverable.

What Types of Costs May Be Recovered?

Costs stemming from COVID-19 may be recoverable under several Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) clauses:

  • The Changes Clause (g., FAR 52.243-1): A wide array of costs may fall under the Changes clause, such as costs stemming from government direction to alter or stagger work hours, provide additional personnel, use more costly procedures, use procedures requiring additional training for personnel, provide personal protective equipment, or perform additional cleanings. A recent Department of Defense Memorandum is instructive as to how such costs are likely to be viewed, advising that contracting officers should consider whether such costs are “reasonable to protect the health and safety of contract employees as part of the performance of the contract.”
  • The Stop Work Order Clause (FAR 52.242-15): Costs stemming from the government’s direction to stop work will generally be recoverable under this clause. As discussed in our previous blog post, this may include the cost of “idle time” where employees are unable to access work sites, potentially providing some relief to contractors who are not covered by Section 3610 of the­ CARES­­ Act. Arguably, this clause should cover situations in which employees cannot work due to government-required quarantine procedures or government-caused delays, even if the work site is technically open—though this remains an open issue.
  • The Government Delay of Work Clause (FAR 52.242-17): Where the government causes a delay, the costs stemming from such a delay, such as increased material costs, may be recoverable under this clause.

Notably, while the Excusable Delays clause (e.g., FAR 52.249-14) excuses a contractor’s failure to perform for reasons including “epidemics” and “quarantine restrictions,” this clause does not provide financial relief, but rather, provides a basis for excusing what might otherwise give rise to a termination for default.

What Is the Difference between an Equitable Adjustment and a Claim?

A claim is a formal written demand subject to the detailed procedures set forth in the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). Once a claim is made, the Contracting Officer must issue a final decision within 60 days (or, for claims over $100,000, provide a firm date by which a final decision will be issued), which may be appealed to the Boards of Contract Appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. Claims must include a “sum certain”—i.e., the amount of damages being claimed—and claims of $100,000 or more must be certified by the contractor as current and accurate.

An REA is generally considered less adversarial than a claim and is not subject to a formal disputes process. There is no set timeline for resolution of an REA; however, if an REA is not resolved satisfactorily, it can be converted into a claim.

In the context of COVID-related costs, there are advantages and disadvantages of both options.  The less formal REA process provides agencies more leeway as they work to coordinate internally on how to address costs relating to COVID-19, which may ultimately be to the benefit of contractors. However, the claims process puts the government “on the clock” and, thus, may result in a faster response. Note that contractors are entitled to interest that accrues while a claim is pending, but not while an REA is pending. As for legal costs, they are allowable when incurred to support an REA, but are unallowable when incurred in support of a claim.

Timing Considerations

Whether a contractor ultimately submits a request for equitable adjustment or claim, it must notify its Contracting Officer of the delay, disruption, or right to an adjustment, with different deadlines depending upon which clause applies. For example:

  • FAR 52.242-15 (Stop Work Order Clause) requires contractors to assert their right to an adjustment within 30 days after the end of the period of work stoppage;
  • FAR 52.242-17 (Government Delay of Work) requires contractors to notify the Contracting Officer within 20 days of the act or failure to act giving rise to the delay; the contractor must also assert the amount of the claim in writing as soon as practicable after the termination of the delay or interruption, but not later than the day of final payment under the contract; and,
  • FAR 52.243-1 (Changes) requires the contractor to assert its right to an adjustment within 30 days from the date of receipt of a written change order. There is an exception “if the Contracting Officer decides that the facts justify it,” where the request is made before final payment of the contract.

Claims are also subject to a six-year statute of limitations.

As COVID-19 issues permeate virtually all aspects of commerce nationally and internationally, we stand ready to help. Blank Rome’s Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) Task Force includes interdisciplinary resources across every business sector.

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.

Nothing Is Certain except Death, Taxes, and Now COVID-19 Contracts and Relief Funding Audits

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

Despite COVID-19 article overload—and understandable fatigue—there is no doubt that there will be substantial audit activity related to COVID-19 contracts and receipt of relief funding. All of the ingredients for a Perfect Storm are present: unprecedented federal and state spending causing significant government budget deficits, coupled with hyper-partisan politics, and the creation of multiple government audit functions. Add in revenue-stressed government contractors perhaps focusing less on compliance, with a workforce working remotely, and you have everything necessary for a Perfect Storm. Let’s face it, the press and politicians are—or will be—on the lookout for relief funds and sweetheart contracts awarded to companies with cozy relationships with the executive branch, contracts that didn’t provide the intended benefit, and contracts and relief funds that have otherwise already received media attention.

There is nothing you can do to prevent an audit, but you can be prepared.  Below are some very general guidelines you can follow now to make your life easier in the future if you do become the target of an audit or potential audit.

  1. Memorialize Everything. Too many things are happening too fast.  Information that you think you will remember (so you don’t bother to write down or don’t write down with sufficient detail) will be forgotten. Audits can occur two, three, or even five years after the fact. Memories fade. Employees retire or move on.
  2. Ensure You Have Contracting Officer Approvals. Only contracting officers have warrants and only they can authorize changes to contracts that affect dollars, schedule changes, deliverables, and requirements. If you didn’t get contracting officer approval at the time, go back and request approval (in writing) now.
  3. Establish Commonsensical and Clear Labeling. At some point in time, you have moved to a new home and someone has told you to take an extra 30 seconds to add more detailed descriptions on your boxes. For example, while the label “closet” seemed adequate when packing-up, it is not useful when you are looking for bed sheets to sleep on at midnight for the first night in your new home. The same is true with government contracts. Simply labeling a folder or e-mail “HHS contract” is better than nothing, but it is not very helpful when trying to locate a specific conversation or contract modification.
  4. Centralize Contract Files for a Later, Easy Location. It is of no value to maintain documents and records if you cannot find them. Establish standard operating procedures (“SOPs”) so that someone walking in off the street two years from now can read them and easily understand where files are located.
  5. Archive E-mails to Avoid Automatic Deletion Programs. Company information technology systems are overwhelmed. As a result, many companies have implemented programs that automatically delete e-mails after a certain period of time. Design an SOP so that relevant government contracting e-mails are archived in a manner to avoid deletion.
  6. Perform Periodic Internal Spot Reviews. Simply having a compliance policy and procedures are no longer enough. You need to periodically confirm that the policy and procedures are being followed—and are effective. Conduct periodic spot checks and memorialize the results. Remember, the only thing worse than not having a compliance program, is having a program and not following it.
  7. Conduct Exit Interviews and Laptop Ghosting. Know how to find former employees. Don’t simply accept a former employee’s laptop, clean it, and reissue it to another employee. Take the extra time to ghost the laptop and save the contents in a place that you can locate at a later date (again, think two years from now). In addition, take the time to interview departing employees and, among other information, determine the location (hard and soft copy) of relevant government contracting files.

It makes no sense to work hard to win these contracts, help a state or the federal government respond to the COVID-19 national emergency, and record revenue today to only years later have to give back the money you earned because you don’t have documents in your contract files to substantiate information requested by an auditor. To be clear, auditors may be very nice people, but they don’t care that you did a great job and helped an agency achieve its mission. Auditors have a job to do. They have checklists to follow. If the required documents are not provided or available, they cannot and will not check the box. Rather, they will tell you to provide your explanation to the next level of review. Take the time now and follow the above guidelines to protect yourself. You will hate it now and claim that there just isn’t enough time in the day but, if and when you get that audit request, you will be thankful.

Implementation Guidance for Section 3610 of the CARES Act

Brian S. Gocial and Dominique L. Casimir

As we summarized on March 31, 2020, CARES Act Section 3610 throws an immediate lifeline to qualifying firms whose workforce has been displaced by coronavirus COVID-19 shutdowns. On April 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DOD”) issued Class Deviation 2020-O0013 authorizing contracting officers to immediately use a new cost principle, DFARS 231.205-79, to implement section 3610; and on April 9, 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense issued Implementation Guidance for Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and Frequently Asked Questions. This blog post summarizes the new Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) clause and guidance.

What is the purpose of CARES Act Section 3610 and DFARS 231.205-79?

Deviation 2020-O0013 establishes a new cost principle that will allow recovery of employee leave costs related to the COVID-19 pandemic where appropriate. The Class Deviation recognizes that “contractors are struggling to maintain a mission-ready workforce due to work site closures, personnel quarantines, and state and local restrictions on movement related to the COVID-19 pandemic that cannot be resolved through remote work.” To that end, contracting officers are instructed to use DFARS 231.205-79 “to appropriately balance flexibilities and limitations” and are directed to “consider the immediacy of the specific circumstances of the contractor involved and respond accordingly. The survival of many of the businesses the CARES Act is designed to assist may depend on this efficiency.” Continue reading “Implementation Guidance for Section 3610 of the CARES Act”

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”

A Federal Contractor’s Five-Part Guide to the CARES Act

On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) was signed into law. This massive $2.2 trillion economic package provides a host of opportunities and resources for all varieties of federal contractors—from those who need financial assistance through the coronavirus pandemic to those who can leverage their resources to assist the federal government in its response.

The five timely posts below discuss discrete portions of the CARES Act, how they might affect federal contractors, and what federal contractors can do to take advantages of the many programs and opportunities offered under the Act. Please contact us for assistance with any of these, or other components, of the Act.

1. The CARES Act Provides Much Needed Financial Relief for Small Businesses

Michael Joseph Montalbano
This article discusses the expanded $349 billion loan program set aside for small businesses under the CARES Act.

2. CARES Act § 3610: An Immediate Lifeline for Qualifying Federal Contactors Displaced by COVID-19

Michael J. Slattery
This article discusses § 3610 of the CARES Act, which provides funds that federal agencies can use to alleviate disruptions to federal contractors caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

 3. CARES Act Grant Programs: Searching for Opportunity in the Coronavirus Relief Effort

Tjasse L. Fritz
This article discusses the wealth of grant programs available to federal contractors and other businesses under the CARES Act.

4. CARES Act: Significant Funds for Defense Department and Defense Contractors

Adam Proujansky
This article discusses the billions of dollars in loans, loan guarantees, and other financial assistance available through the Department of Defense to defense industry contractors.

5. New Contracting Authorities and Preferences Established under the CARES Act

Albert B. Krachman
This article discusses new contracting authorities delegated under the CARES Act as well as sole source opportunities available under the Act.

As COVID-19 issues permeate virtually all aspects of commerce nationally and internationally, we stand ready to help. Blank Rome’s Coronavirus (“COVID-19”) Task Force includes interdisciplinary resources across every business sector from insurance recovery to HR.

CARES Act: Significant Funds for Defense Department and Defense Contractors

Adam Proujansky

The recently enacted coronavirus COVID-19 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act stimulus package (the “CARES Act” or “the Act”) includes billions of dollars earmarked for the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and defense industry contractors. It does this in two ways:

    1. By providing billions of dollars in loans, loan guarantees, and other financial assistance to businesses through the Department of the Treasury, including up to $17 billion specifically for businesses “critical to maintaining national security;” and
    2. By providing $10.5 billion in supplemental appropriations to DoD, much of which is likely to go to procuring goods and services from federal contractors, including in areas ranging from healthcare to information technology. The Act also contains provisions intended to streamline DoD contracting during the present emergency.

Although the procedures to obtain these loans were not established by the Act, the Secretary of the Treasury is required to publish procedures for applying for these loans within 10 days of enactment. It is expected that DoD will issue solicitations very soon to meet these pressing needs. We expect many contractors in the defense industry will be eligible for these loans, or for the parallel loan program for small businesses being administered by the Small Business Administration under the Act. Continue reading “CARES Act: Significant Funds for Defense Department and Defense Contractors”

Pending Federal Contract Proposals and COVID-19

Albert B. Krachman and Scott Arnold

Contractors that have submitted final proposals and are awaiting award on negotiated procurements may find themselves in an unusual position these days—questioning whether they still want the award in the dramatically changed landscape created by coronavirus COVID-19. In some cases, key personnel may no longer be available or critical supply chains may have become so disrupted that the proposal would require major changes to the technical approach. Assumptions that went into proposal pricing may no longer be valid.

Contractors in this posture may face a Hobson’s choice. Should they hold firm, accept the award, and hope the government is flexible post award? If they believe that they likely cannot perform as proposed, should they withdraw their proposals or risk proposal rejection by submitting late proposal revisions?

In some cases, depending on the stage of the acquisition, there may be opportunities for proposal revisions, but the government typically notifies offerors of a time after which revisions will not be accepted. In a FAR Part 15 acquisition, before the closing date for receipt of proposals, a contractor is generally free to submit proposal revisions. If the government conducts discussions, a contractor is also generally able to revise its proposal, subject to limitations that can be imposed on the permissible scope of revisions. Offerors may withdraw proposals at any time before award. Continue reading “Pending Federal Contract Proposals and COVID-19”