Regulatory: Keep Pending Legislative Acquisition Initiatives on Your Radar
New requirements under consideration may will further complicate the federal acquisition system and increase compliance burdens
August 10, 2010 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Congress currently has under consideration a plethora of new requirements that will further complicate the federal acquisition system and increase compliance burdens. The House has approved, and the Senate Armed Services Committee has reported, versions of the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. Although this legislation focuses on the activities of Department of Defense (DoD), the procurement provisions frequently apply government-wide. Several are worth watching.
The Senate Bill includes a provision (Sec. 815) aimed at reducing supply chain risk in acquisition of national security systems. This provision would permit DoD to restrict sources of supply and also permit exclusion of suppliers who are viewed as unacceptable. While this provision may affect numerous industries, it is likely to have a particular impact on acquisition of information technology.
Section 832 of the Senate Bill would greatly expand the government's rights in technical data. The purpose of this provision is to implement Administration cost reduction initiatives by assuring that DoD can obtain unlimited rights in contractor technical data that is “developed exclusively with federal funds” or “without significant contribution by a contractor or subcontractor.” This provision also requires new regulations that would prevent the government from paying for the same technical data more than once. While these provisions may appear superficially reasonable, they pose significant risks for contractors who provide technical data to the government: that was initially developed with private funds and that has been the subject of further development; or that was developed with mixed contractor and government funding. Privately developed data is frequently provided to the government under license terms that limit its use to particular purposes or agencies. The proposal does not address what will happen to such data.
Both bills include provisions aimed at review and improvement of contractor business systems. Issues regarding the effectiveness and independence of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) over the past two years have coalesced to a degree with concerns regarding whether contractors' systems are complaint with regulatory requirements. These proposals include requirements for mandatory reviews of contractor systems, improved structure and policy oversight at DCAA, and a requirement for contractor “improvement” programs that can involve disapproval of contractor systems or mandatory withholding of a percentage of payments. These proposals appear to be a reaction to the controversial DCAA proposed amendment to the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (“DFARS”) in January 2010 that has generated substantial private sector objection. While oversight in this area is necessary, the DCAA practices have been sufficiently irrational, disruptive and delayed that Congressional action is likely necessary. What remains to be seen is whether Congress' intervention will result in meaningful improvements.
The proposed legislation contains many other provisions that range from improving competition, to in-sourcing, and disclosure of contractor delinquent tax debts.
All of these provisions are a reminder that federal contracting carries substantial burdens and risks. Companies that participate in this highly regulated area must be very attuned to compliance and the impact of more changes to the acquisition laws.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250