1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Fundamental Shift in GSA Schedule Contract Pricing?

Fundamental Shift in GSA Schedule Contract Pricing?

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.08.08

The Multiple Award Schedule ("MAS") Advisory Panel, established in March 2008 to review pricing and price reduction provisions of the MAS program, has voted to recommend that GSA eliminate, on a gradual basis, the Price Reduction Clause for purchases of both products and services under the Schedule and adopt different and better mechanisms to achieve pricing transparency and competition at both the Schedule contract level and task/delivery order level. The Panel will present its recommendations to the GSA Administrator later this year.

-----------------------

Crowell & Moring Government Contracts Group is pleased to announce a second bullet point service that will focus exclusively on GSA Schedule contracting. GSA Schedule contracts have unique requirements, risks, and rewards, and the products and services purchased by federal and state governments through this contracting vehicle are expanding in scope and volume.

The GSA Schedule Bullet Points will alert you to:

  • changes in the law and policy affecting GSA Schedule contracts
  • new case law affecting GSA Schedule contracts
  • seminars and publications offered by Crowell & Moring of interest to GSA Schedule contract holders

Please respond to this email if you would like to be included in this new bullet point service. Feel free to forward this invitation to others who might be interested in receiving our GSA Schedule Bullet Points.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26

Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow

In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity....

View All Insights