1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Clearing The Decks--FAR Council Finally Issues COTS Waivers Mandated By Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996

Clearing The Decks--FAR Council Finally Issues COTS Waivers Mandated By Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.23.09

Six years after the initial advance notice of proposed rulemaking, on January 15, 2009, the FAR Council issued its final rule identifying additional statutory requirements to be waived when the government purchases commercial, off-the-shelf equipment as narrowly defined in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (commercial items, sold in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace, and offered to the government without modification), relieving COTS procurements from compliance with only one statute of significance--the Buy American Act, but significantly not the Trade Agreements Act (applicable to many of the GSA schedule and other contract vehicles under which the government buys COTS items)--and even then the new rule provides only a partial waiver: the item must still be "manufactured" (an undefined term) in the United States, but the origin of the components will no longer be relevant in determining the country of origin for COTS items. Neither this final FAR rule nor a separately published interim DFARS rule (that effectively provided a similar partial waiver) limits or revokes the existing waiver provided as a result of annual authorization act provisions wholly exempting from the Buy American Act information technology products that qualify under the broader definition for commercial items.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.29.25

President Trump Issues Executive Order Deprioritizing Disparate Impact Theory of Discrimination

On April 23, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, declaring it the policy of the United States “to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible to avoid violating the constitution, Federal civil rights laws, and basic American ideals.” The order reasons that “disparate impact liability all but requires individuals and businesses to consider race and engage in racial balancing to avoid potentially crippling legal liability.”...