Compliance

Well, that was quick.  In four memos dated September 30 and October 1, contractors learned the terms of the contract provisions implementing the COVID-19 vaccine and masking requirements mandated by President Biden’s Executive Order (EO) 14042, discussed here, and the implementing guidance issued by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force) on September 24. In the next 10 days we expect to see most other agencies issue deviation memos similar to the General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Defense (DoD) memos discussed below.

As discussed in this post, while the contract provisions, along with updated guidance from the Task Force, answer some of the open questions, contractors are still in the unfortunate position of rushing to ensure they are compliant with these requirements when the contract provisions apply to them without knowing the answers to some fundamental questions. Despite these open questions, companies have little time, for example, to ensure that covered employees are vaccinated by the December 8, 2021 deadline. After that deadline, any contractor that becomes subject to these requirements will have to ensure that on new contracts or options/extensions that incorporate the new clause, covered employees are fully vaccinated by the first day of performance, which of course is impossible unless contractors enforce these vaccine mandates in advance. That said, the memos do seem to clarify that compliance with the Task Force guidance will not be required for prime contracts solely for the manufacturing of products.

The FAR Clause

On September 30, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council issued a memo providing agencies with “initial direction” requiring the implementation of the Task Force guidance. It includes FAR 52.223-99, Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors (OCT 2021) (Deviation), along with directions that agencies “expeditiously” issue class deviations to ensure that contracting officers can begin using the clause on or before October 15, 2021.Continue Reading And … They’re Off! Contractors Race to Comply Now that the COVID-19 Vaccination Deviations Have Arrived

I recently outlined the ever-growing list of compliance obligations for businesses that sell goods and services to the federal government in an article for Risk Management. “Some of the new regulatory requirements – such as obligations relating to cybersecurity and counterfeit parts – address challenges posed by an increasingly global, networked economy,” I explained in the article. “Others, such as the mandatory disclosure requirement, continue the trend of the government relying on third parties, whether it be whistleblowers or contractors themselves, to police the procurement system.”

To address the rising risk these complications pose, businesses should first ensure they have established an underlying compliance structure required by federal procurement regulations, as well as design effective training programs, translate the obligations into actionable policies, and effectively monitor adherence with those policies.Continue Reading Compliance Obligations for Government Contractors

Please join us for the Compliance & Government Investigations Seminar hosted by Bass, Berry & Sims and FTI Consulting. Due to ongoing COVID-19 concerns, this event will be virtual only.

We are excited for this year’s complimentary CLE program, which will provide the same caliber of practical advice, insight into government developments, and thoughtful discussion from industry panelists you have come to expect from this seminar. This year’s topics include:

  • Inside Scoop: Top Issues In-House Counsel Currently Face
  • Update on International Trade Regulations and Enforcement
  • SEC Update: Key Enforcement and Regulatory Priorities
  • Running an Investigation
  • Antitrust Is Back: DOJ and FTC Signal Significant Increase in Antitrust Enforcement
  • Data Privacy Update
  • Healthcare Fraud Enforcement Updates
  • Hot Topics in Procurement Fraud in 2021 and Beyond
  • COVID-19 Funding Fallout: Preparation for Government Scrutiny

This year’s seminar will be held from 8:30 a.m.–3:45 p.m. CDT on Tuesday, September 28. To register, please click here.

Click here to view the agenda.Continue Reading [Virtual Event] 8th Annual Compliance & Government Investigations Seminar

The FAR Council recently published its proposed rule to implement a part of President Biden’s January 28, 2021 Executive Order No. 14005 (EO 14005), which dictated certain revisions to the Buy American Act (BAA) regulations. As discussed in our previous blog post, Section 8 of EO 14005 directed the FAR Council to consider the following:

  • Replacing the “component test” at FAR Part 25.
  • Increasing the threshold for domestic content.
  • Increasing price preferences for domestic end products.

The proposed rule addresses Section 8 of EO 14005 by proposing to do the following:

  • Increase the domestic content threshold instead of replacing the domestic content test (at least for the time being), with scheduled increases.
  • Permit a limited period during which U.S.-made end products meeting the current domestic content threshold (greater than 55%) will be considered “domestic end products” under certain circumstances.
  • Establish a list of critical products and critical components subject to additional price preferences and post-award reporting requirements.

Continue Reading Buy American Baby Steps: FAR Council Publishes Proposed Rule Implementing Part of President Biden’s Executive Order

To protect the U.S. industrial base, among other reasons, companies that sell goods to the U.S. government are required to comply with domestic source restrictions that dictate the percentage of domestic content and have the potential to impact design, sourcing, and manufacturing decisions.  In many respects, these restrictions are out of step with the decades-long trend toward globalization of commercial supply chains.

Two recent developments, the implementation of former President Trump’s July 15, 2019, Executive Order 13881, Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials, and President Biden’s January 25, 2021, Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers, continue to tighten these restrictions. These requirements have the potential to cause a further divergence between commercial and government production, reversing the push toward commercial contracting and eliminating the associated efficiencies and cost-savings to the U.S. taxpayers.

Overview of the Buy American Act

The Buy American Act (BAA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 8301-8305, provides a price preference for goods sold to the U.S. government that are deemed to be “domestic end products.”  To qualify for that designation, a product has to be both manufactured in the United States and the majority of its components have to be sourced domestically.  For decades prior to the January 2021 final rule, the domestic component, or content, requirement, was set at 50%.  In addition, that domestic content requirement was waived for all commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) items.Continue Reading Heightened Buy American Act Requirements Are Here and More Are on the Way

Since August 13, 2019, the government has been prohibited from procuring equipment or services using “covered telecommunications equipment or services” as a substantial or essential component of any system according to the implementation of Section 889(a)(1)(A) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (FY19 NDAA).

Beginning on August 13, 2020, according to the implementation of Section 889(a)(1)(B), the government is prohibited from contracting with an entity that uses any equipment or services using “covered telecommunications equipment or services” as a substantial or essential component of any system or as critical technology as part of any system. This applies regardless of whether the use of the prohibited equipment or services is in the performance of work under a government contract.Continue Reading Section 889 Prohibitions Expanded from Procurement to “Use”

The recently passed Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) injected previously unthinkable amounts of stimulus funds into the struggling U.S. economy. To oversee the disbursement of these funds and to curb fraud and misuse, the CARES Act created various oversight and enforcement mechanisms. Notable among these is the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR). As we explained in a recent post, the SIGPR is conferred broad powers to audit and investigate waste, fraud and abuse involving hundreds of billions of dollars in CARES Act funds. Additional primary oversight bodies include the Congressional Oversight Commission and the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC).

While arguably the most significant oversight leadership position, the SIGPR remains vacant; however, that may not be the case for much longer. President Trump’s pick for the SIGPR role, Brian D. Miller, has not yet been confirmed by the Senate – although Miller’s confirmation hearings were held on May 5 and his nomination was advanced to the Senate floor on May 12. The actions of similar special inspectors general offices, and in particular that established to oversee the stimulus package Congress passed after the 2008 financial crisis (the Special Investigator General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or SIGTARP), suggest the office of the SIGPR will be particularly aggressive in pursuing fraud and misuse related to disbursed CARES Act funds. Yet, even if the Senate confirms Miller soon, considerable time may pass before the Office of the SIGPR can bring to bear its full investigative and audit powers. After all, the Office of the SIGPR is not yet in existence and should Miller, who served as the GSA Inspector General from 2005 through 2014, be confirmed, he will need to lay the agency’s operational groundwork from scratch, including hiring a full staff of employees (Miller expects to hire 75-100 employees), securing office space, and equipping the office, etc.Continue Reading Update: Investigations Under the CARES Act Ramp Up Even as Oversight Roles Remain Vacant

As developments related to COVID-19 continue to unfold, Bass, Berry & Sims attorneys are monitoring the situation and providing guidance through a series of video chats entitled, “COVID-19 Compliance Conversations.”

In this episode, Thad McBride is joined by Ed Bond, the Director of IBM’s Export Regulation Office, to discuss issues that exporters need to…

As developments related to COVID-19 continue to unfold, Bass, Berry & Sims attorneys are monitoring the situation and providing guidance through a series of video chats entitled, “COVID-19 Compliance Conversations.”

In this episode, Thad McBride and Lindsey Fetzer provide a brief overview of compliance considerations related to international donations and charitable contributions. Watch the…

On March 27, President Trump signed into law the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill, named the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).  The law, the most expensive single piece of legislation ever passed, includes hundreds of billions in funds to help businesses remain afloat.  To provide oversight into how these funds are used, the CARES Act establishes a Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery (SIGPR), along with two other oversight bodies.

This action is not without precedent, as Congress established a similar watchdog to oversee the stimulus funds disbursed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP).  SIGTARP’s broad interpretation of its mandate, as well as its aggressive pursuit of fraud involving stimulus funds, are instructive to forecasting how SIGPR will fulfill its mission and to how recipients of CARES Act funds can protect themselves.

SIGPR Duties & Powers

The CARES Act tasks the SIGPR with monitoring fraud, waste and abuse involving the $500 billion of CARES Act funds allocated to the Treasury Secretary (Economic Stabilization Fund) to support businesses, states and municipalities impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The SIGPR, who will be appointed by the president and requires Senate confirmation, will be empowered to “conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the making, purchase, management, and sale of loans, loan guarantees, and other investments” relating to the Economic Stabilization Fund.Continue Reading The Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery – Crisis Funding Comes with Heightened Investigation Risk

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.