1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |A Bold New World? GSA Proposes to Swap Its Price Reduction Clause for Monthly Reporting of All Sales Under Schedule and Other Government-Wide GSA Contracts

A Bold New World? GSA Proposes to Swap Its Price Reduction Clause for Monthly Reporting of All Sales Under Schedule and Other Government-Wide GSA Contracts

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.06.15

On March 4, 2015, GSA proposed to change dramatically the way it seeks to obtain the lowest and best price for items purchased off Federal Supply Schedule and other Government-wide GSA contracts by largely abandoning the Price Reduction Clause (and the consequent price monitoring of sales to "basis of award" customers) in favor of imposing a requirement that holders of such contracts report, on a monthly basis, specific information on all sales transactions (including unit prices) to authorized users. While the Price Reduction Clause has caused contractors significant compliance difficulties over the years, this proposal, which will be considered at a April 17 public meeting with written comments due May 4, is intended to provide government customers a powerful database tool by which to obtain the best deal from contractors based upon their actual price history and the ability to compare those unit prices with the actual prices being offered by competitors.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights