Federal Acquisition Service Extends and Enhances Temporary Economic Price Adjustment Authorities for Multiple Award Schedule Contractors
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.14.22
Not to be outdone by the Department of Defense’s commitment to consider inflation relief, on September 12, 2022, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) Federal Acquisition Service published a Supplement to Acquisition Letter MV-22-02, extending and enhancing policies to provide inflation relief to GSA Schedule contractors. As we previously explained, the original Acquisition Letter relaxed certain limitations on Schedule contractors’ ability to obtain Economic Price Adjustments (EPAs). Specifically, it suspended limits on the frequency, size, and total number of EPAs a contractor could obtain during each contract term, while also lowering the approval threshold required for GSA to issue an EPA. The relief provided by the original Acquisition Letter was set to expire on September 30, 2022, but is now extended through at least March 31, 2023.
Furthermore, to streamline and expedite the issuance of EPAs, contracting officers will be authorized to directly issue EPAs—without needing to obtain additional approvals—for as long as the Supplement remains in effect. The Supplement nevertheless reminds contracting officers that EPAs must otherwise be consistent with the terms of the underlying contract.
As was the case under the original Acquisition Letter, the policies described in the Supplement apply only to Schedule contracts administered by GSA, and they are discretionary for Schedules administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Schedule contractors facing inflationary pressures should therefore review their contracts to confirm the availability of these relaxed EPA procedures.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25




