GSA Finalizes Rule Declaring Certain Commercial Supplier Agreement Terms Unenforceable
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.26.18
On February 22, 2018, GSA published a final rule amending its acquisition regulation and declaring certain common Commercial Supplier Agreement (CSA) terms—such as indemnification and arbitration provisions, provisions that subject the U.S. Government to state law, and automatic renewal provisions—unenforceable in government contracts as inconsistent with federal procurement law. GSA published the proposed rule in June 2016 (discussed here) and related class deviation (discussed here) in August 2015.
The final rule makes several noteworthy changes to GSA’s proposed rule, including: (1) it reverts the order of precedence of contract terms to give precedence to “[a]ddenda to [the] solicitation or contract, including any commercial supplier agreements as amended by the Commercial Supplier Agreements—Unenforceable Clauses provision” over “[s]olicitation provisions” and “[o]ther paragraphs of [the] clause”; and (2) it removes the previously proposed requirement to provide full text CSA terms with the offer, paving the way for CSA terms to be incorporated by reference. As GSA maintains, this final rule will eliminate the need for negotiation on the identified unenforceable terms and could facilitate faster procurements.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
