1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Vaccine Mandate Mandatory for Government Contractors: Additional Guidance; More Questions

Vaccine Mandate Mandatory for Government Contractors: Additional Guidance; More Questions

Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.06.21

President Biden’s September 9, 2021 announcement of Executive Order 14042 (“EO”) has been followed by several agency pronouncements attempting to provide needed clarity to the contractor community.  The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (“Task Force”) issued detailed guidance on September 24.   On September 30 and October 1, federal agencies began to issue the first Class Deviations, outlining the substantive terms that are likely to be required of covered contractors.  DHS, NASA, DOJ, and the VA have issued Class Deviations and other agencies are expected to follow suit.  We expect the FAR Council to issue the actual FAR clause on Friday, October 8. 

One particular note about the Class Deviations issued to date is that the compliance requirements are seemingly linked to materials posted on the Safer Federal Workforce Task website, “as amended during the performance of this contract.”  This, of course, creates challenges for companies from a compliance standpoint and can complicate the ability to assess impact if the requirements continue to evolve.

These developments and other announcements, including new FAQs announced by the Task Force on October 4, raise numerous questions for contractors that are trying to implement compliance plans and policies.  Major categories of unresolved questions include:

  • Questions about the scope of covered contracts;
  • Questions about which employees will be deemed covered by the EO, including identification of employees “working on” or “in connection with” contracts;
  • Questions about which “worksites” will be deemed “covered contractor workplaces”, particularly in mixed government and commercial work sites;
  • Questions about the substantive obligations to be imposed by the EO, including open issues about the other safety protocols required by the EO;
  • Effective dates of the various obligations; and
  • Contract acceptance and performance issues.

The guidance issued to date also presents important questions about the scope of Presidential authority under the Procurement Act, and the articulated statutory basis for the EO, as well as questions about the President’s constitutional authority to impose these requirements. 

Crowell & Moring is continuing to monitor fast-moving developments in this area.  Our team is available to help companies navigate the many issues raised by the EO.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.26.24

California Office of Health Care Affordability Notice Requirement for Material Change Transactions Closing on or After April 1, 2024

Starting next week, on April 1st, health care entities in California closing “material change transactions” will be required to notify California’s new Office of Health Care Affordability (“OHCA”) and potentially undergo an extensive review process prior to closing. The new review process will impact a broad range of providers, payers, delivery systems, and pharmacy benefit managers with either a current California footprint or a plan to expand into the California market. While health care service plans in California are already subject to an extensive transaction approval process by the Department of Managed Health Care, other health care entities in California have not been required to file notices of transactions historically, and so the notice requirement will have a significant impact on how health care entities need to structure and close deals in California, and the timing on which closing is permitted to occur....