Regulatory Compliance and Ethics Archives - Page 4 of 12

BIS Issues New Export Controls Targeting GAAFET, Quantum, and Additive Manufacturing, and Ushers in New Age of Plurilateral Export Controls: 5 Key Takeaways

Anthony Rapa, Alan G. Kashdan, and Brendan S. Saslow ●

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) recently issued an interim final rule (“IFR”) under the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) imposing licensing requirements for exports to all destinations worldwide of certain gate all-around field effect transistor (“GAAFET”) technology, quantum computing items, advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment (“SME”), additive manufacturing equipment, and aerospace coating systems technology.

The new measures are notable not only for their restrictive application to all destinations in the world—an unusual type of control under the EAR—but also for their institution of a new license exception, “Implemented Export Controls” (“IEC”), that allows for exports of the newly controlled items to specified “like-minded” countries that have instituted comparable export controls that are harmonized with U.S. controls.

The new controls are effective immediately as of September 6, 2024, with the exception of controls over certain quantum items, which take effect November 5, 2024, the cutoff date for public comment on the IFR.

Read the full client alert on our website.

FAR Council Issues Final Rule on Sustainable Products & Services

Sara N. Gerber ●

As part of the Biden administration’s effort to use federal purchasing power to tackle climate change, the FAR Council issued a final rule, effective May 22, 2024, requiring agencies to procure “sustainable products and services,” to the “maximum extent practicable.” The “sustainable products and services” rule is just one of several proposed rules and directives intended to compel the government and government contractors to do business in a more environmentally sustainable way.

Under the final rule, the procurement of sustainable products and services is considered “practicable” if the products or services meet “reasonable performance requirements” and can be acquired “competitively within a reasonable performance schedule” and at “a reasonable price.” Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 23.103(a)(1). To determine whether the price is reasonable, the regulation directs agencies to “consider whether the product is cost-effective over the life of the product.” FAR 23.103(a)(2). If an agency determines that it is not practicable to procure sustainable products or services, the contracting officer must document the reason in writing in the contract file. FAR 23.103(a)(2).

DOJ Looks to Incentivize Whistleblowers with New Pilot Program

Robyn N. Burrows ●

On March 7, 2024, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is designing and launching a pilot program to pay monetary rewards to whistleblowers who report significant corporate or financial misconduct. The pilot program, which will roll out later this year, is intended to encourage individuals to report misconduct and for companies to further invest in their internal compliance and reporting systems.

Several agencies have already established similar programs that reward whistleblowers financially, including the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). Those programs, however, are limited in scope to each agency, resulting in what Monaco referred to as a “patchwork quilt” that does not address the full range of corporate and financial misconduct. The new pilot program is intended to fill these gaps.

Key Aspects of Pilot Program

Over the next 90 days, DOJ will be engaging in a “policy sprint” to gather information, consult with stakeholders, and design the pilot program. DOJ’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (“MLARS”) will lead the development and administration of the program.

The program’s core concepts will include the following:

Award Thresholds: DOJ expects to establish a monetary threshold to focus its resources on the most significant cases. Both the SEC and CFTC whistleblower programs limit rewards to cases in which the agency orders sanctions of one million dollars or more. DOJ may end up adopting a similar threshold.
Victim Compensation: Whistleblowers will only receive payment after all victims have been compensated.
“First in the Door”: Eligibility is limited to whistleblowers who provide truthful information not already known to the government. The information cannot be in response to any government inquiry, pre-existing reporting obligation, or imminent threat of disclosure. As Monaco emphasized, “you have to tell us something we didn’t already know.”
No Criminal Involvement: Whistleblowers cannot be involved in the criminal activity itself.
No Existing Incentive Programs: The program applies only in cases where there is no existing disclosure incentive, including qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act or another federal whistleblower program.

Enforcement Priorities

Although DOJ seeks information about any violation of federal law, Monaco clarified that the government is primarily interested in:

Criminal abuses of the U.S. financial system;
Foreign corruption cases outside the SEC’s jurisdiction; and
Domestic corruption cases, especially involving illegal corporate payments to government officials.

What to Expect from the Pilot Program?

Increase in voluntary disclosures

The new whistleblower program builds on DOJ’s prior efforts to strengthen corporate enforcement by encouraging voluntary disclosures. With the new pilot program offering monetary rewards to those “first in the door,” companies assessing whether to self-report potential misconduct must consider whether a whistleblower might get to DOJ first (thereby preventing the company from reaping the benefits of a voluntary disclosure). This may encourage companies to self-report misconduct earlier and more often. As Monaco stated, “[O]ur message to whistleblowers is clear: the Department of Justice wants to hear from you. And to those considering a voluntary self-disclosure, our message is equally clear: knock on our door before we knock on yours.”

More referrals to DOJ—and potentially fewer internal whistleblower reports

With the prospect of potentially significant financial rewards, we can expect more employees to report wrongdoing directly to DOJ, rather than going through corporate whistleblower channels. Companies should therefore ensure employees are aware of and have easy access to whistleblower hotlines to encourage internal reporting.

Focus on non-public companies

One of the “gaps” DOJ seeks to fill with the whistleblower program is to target foreign corruption cases outside the jurisdiction of the SEC, which already has its own whistleblower program. Thus, DOJ is likely to focus on suspected violations by non-public corporations.

We expect more information on program details and implementation over the coming months and will follow up with further updates.

DOD Finalizes Rule Concerning Domestic Content Preference

Samarth Barot and Shane M. Hannon ●

On February 15, the Department of Defense (“DOD”) finalized a rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) to supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) implementation of Executive Order 14005, addressing domestic preferences in DOD procurement. Defense contractors should be aware of the specific changes and ensure their sourcing and supply chain systems incorporate the updated requirements.

Background

As we discussed in prior posts, in January 2021 President Biden issued an executive order strengthening the Buy American Act’s (“BAA”) preference for domestic products and services in federal procurements. The executive order directed the FAR Council to consider proposing a rule to increase the BAA’s domestic content threshold for domestic end products.

The FAR Council then issued a final rule that increased the domestic content threshold for domestic end products (covered here). Previously, a product was considered a domestic end product if the cost of its components mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States exceeded 55 percent of the cost of all components. The FAR Council’s final rule increased that domestic content threshold to 60 percent and implemented a phased increase to 65 percent in 2024 and 75 percent in 2029. However, the rule also included a fallback threshold of 55 percent if (1) no end products exist that meet the new domestic content threshold or (2) such end products do exist but are unreasonably expensive. This fallback threshold will persist until 2030.

Starting December 4th, Contractors Must Rid Supply Chains of Covered Articles and Sources Subject to FASC Orders

Robyn N. Burrows ●

Effective December 4, 2023, a new interim rule will prohibit contractors from delivering or using covered articles and sources subject to exclusion or removal orders issued under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 (“FASCSA”). The rule is intended to eliminate certain technology from the federal supply chain that foreign adversaries might exploit to commit malicious cyber acts. The interim rule allows the executive branch through the Federal Acquisition Security Council (“FASC”) to exclude certain technologies and manufacturers from federal procurements and even to require removal of covered articles from federal or contractor information systems during performance.

The rule imposes a host of new obligations, including certification, monitoring, and reporting requirements. This post provides practical guidance on the rule and several compliance tips to help contractors prepare for the December deadline.

Background

Congress passed Section 202 of the FASCSA to protect the information and communications technology (“ICT”) supply chain against threats and vulnerabilities that may lead to data and intellectual property theft, damage to critical infrastructure, or national security harm. The Act established the FASC as an interagency council authorized to make recommendations for orders that would require the removal of covered articles from agency information systems (removal orders) or the exclusion of sources or covered articles from agency procurement actions (exclusion orders) (collectively referred to as “FASCSA orders”).

In August 2021, the FASC issued a final rule establishing procedures for recommending removal and exclusion orders. The FASC evaluates supply chain risk based on several non-exclusive factors and sends its recommendations to the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to consider when deciding whether to issue a FASCSA order. If a FASCSA order is issued, agencies are required to implement the exclusion or removal order.

Proposed Bill Would Bar Contractors from Conducting Business in Russia

Robyn N. Burrows

On March 21, 2022, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, introduced the “Federal Contracting for Peace and Security Act” (H.R. 7185). In light of Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine, the proposed bill would prohibit federal agencies from contracting with companies operating in Russia. The Committee approved an amended version on April 6, and the bill will be sent to the House of Representatives for further consideration. If passed, the bill would have a significant impact on government contractors that continue to operate in Russia by terminating existing contracts and barring them from further contracting opportunities.

We provide below an overview of the key elements of the bill. We anticipate further clarifications as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. Contractors should closely monitor these developments as this legislation will likely pose challenges to companies seeking to quickly disentangle themselves from any ongoing Russian business.

Is Your Company Prepared for the New Cyber Incident Reporting Requirements?

Michael J. Montalbano

On March 11, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022. The Law includes new reporting requirements for companies who experience cyber incidents or make ransomware payments.

Under the Law, covered entities that experience covered cyber incidents must report the incident to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) within 72 hours after the covered entity reasonably believes that a covered cyber incident has occurred. Covered entities must also notify CISA within 24 hours of making a ransomware payment.

The new cyber reporting law tasks CISA with creating more precise definitions for who constitutes a “covered entity” and what constitutes a “cyber incident.” Even the general language of the statute, however, provides some guidance for companies.

Beyond DOJ’s Blockbuster Year in FCA Recoveries, Whistleblower Activity and Investigations Continue

Elizabeth N. Jochum and Jennifer A. Short

The attention-grabbing headline from the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) annually released statistics on False Claims Act (“FCA”) settlements and judgments is that the government recovered more than $5.6 billion from FCA cases in fiscal year (“FY”) 2021. While this is the second largest annual recovery in FCA history and the largest since 2014, procurement fraud cases represented a substantially smaller percentage of the total recoveries than in years past. Healthcare resolutions dominated, accounting for more than five billion of the $5.6 billion in settlements and judgments. In previous years, healthcare matters have accounted for closer to two-thirds of the total recoveries, making last year’s outsized healthcare figure—driven by the blockbuster opioid settlements of late 2020[1]—an outlier.

Beyond the top-line dollar figures, the report shows that FCA activity continues at a healthy, if not fully robust, pace. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact qui tam filings; the number of new whistleblower suits dropped to 598 in FY 2021, a ten-year low. The number of DOJ-initiated matters remains higher than the near-term average, particularly in healthcare, but also in Department of Defense (“DOD”)-related cases. Contractors, healthcare providers, and others—especially those who received federal funding through pandemic aid programs—can anticipate that FCA investigations and resolutions will play out over the next several years.

Expect GSA to More Closely Scrutinize Trade Agreements Act Compliance

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

On January 21, 2022, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) informed the Federal Acquisition Service (“FAS”) that ongoing monitoring by the OIG found that the FAS failed to properly monitor the sale of products for compliance with the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) during the COVID-19 response. Previously, in April 2020, GSA relaxed compliance with the TAA for a limited number of Federal Supply Classes (“FSCs”) to aid the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicable FSCs included those covering N95 masks, cleaners and disinfectants, disposable gloves, and hand sanitizers. After several extensions, the TAA exception policy expired on April 30, 2021.

The OIG identified two deficiencies in FAS’ implementation of the TAA exception policy. First, the OIG found that FAS failed to properly track the addition of non-compliant products to contracts. As a result, after expiration of the exception policy, there was no effective way for GSA to remove the non-compliant products from contracts. Second, the OIG found that GSA improperly permitted the addition of non-compliant products to GSA contracts. For example, some products that were added were unrelated to the government’s response to the pandemic; some products were added to GSA contracts prior to the effective date of the TAA exception policy; and, remarkably, in one case, a product was added to a contract that identified North Korea as its country of origin.

Affirmative Action Program Compliance Alert: OFCCP Online Contractor Portal

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

Beginning February 1, 2022, contractors and subcontractors required to maintain affirmative action plans (“AAPs”) can register for access to a new secure online contractor portal. The portal was developed and will be monitored by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”). OFCCP has been working on an information and verification process for three years. In August 2021, the Office of Management and Budget approved OFCCP’s use of the portal. The portal provides contractors a secure method of (i) annually certifying compliance with AAP requirements and (ii) submitting AAPs to OFCCP during audits or compliance evaluations.

Executive Order 11246 and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require contractors and subcontractors that hold a contract valued at $50,000 or more and employ 50 or more employees to comply with equal employment and affirmative action requirements. This includes developing and maintaining written AAPs. Currently, only services and supply contractors, not construction contractors, are required to certify compliance.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Background

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: