Confidentiality Agreement FAR Provision Does Not Permit Employee Theft
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.13.17
Crowell & Moring attorneys David Robbins and Trina Fairley Barlow published an article entitled “FAR Confidentiality Rule Doesn’t Authorize Employee Theft” that dispels common myths about the FAR’s confidentiality agreement provisions at 3.909 and the related contract clauses at FAR 52.203-18 and -19. Although purported whistleblowers are more commonly arguing they are entitled to take contractor documents in support of an enforcement proceeding, this article explains why such arguments are well beyond the scope of the regulation and suggests ways to respond if such a situation arises.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 07.24.26
GAO Finds That Challenge to Agency’s Failure to Comply With DFARS Requirement Comes Too Late
GAO’s recent dismissal of the protest in Tyonek Technical Innovations, LLC, B-424364, B-424364.2, June 30, 2026, carries an important lesson for government contractors: if you believe solicitation terms conflict with a statute or regulation, you must raise that challenge before proposals are due—not during discussions or afterwards.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
