GSA Will Insert FAR 52.223-99, Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors in Multiple Award or Federal Supply Schedule Contracts for Products and Services
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.06.21
Following President Biden’s announcement of Executive Order 14042 (“EO”) on September 9, 2021, several agencies have issued guidance on the EO’s applicability to the contractor community, which we reported on here. Further to GSA’s September 30, 2021 Class Deviation CD-2021-13, on October 6, 2021, GSA reiterated that a mass modification program for all GSA Schedule Contracts would begin on or around October 8, 2021, and no later than October 15, 2021.
This mass modification applies to GSA Schedule Contracts, regardless of whether they are for products, services, or both. The Class Deviation notes that the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force’s guidance “strongly encourages agencies to incorporate the clause into contracts that are solely for products” and explains:
It is not administratively feasible to distinguish FSS contracts that are solely for products from FSS contracts that are primarily for products but also include ancillary-type services (e.g., installation, maintenance, training, ancillary services acquired via the Order-Level Materials SIN, etc.). Requiring the clause in all FSS contracts will simplify compliance tracking, vendor communication, and customer messaging efforts.
To that end, the GSA announcement states that:
The requirements in the Executive Order (EO) are being implemented across all government contracts via a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) deviation. The clause in the FAR deviation will be incorporated into GSA contracts via a bilateral modification.
Notably, GSA contractors are required to accept the bilateral modifications with FAR 52.223-99 included.
We are continuing to monitor developments in this area. Our team is available to help companies navigate the many issues raised by the EO.
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
