1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GSA Finalizes Rule Declaring Certain Commercial Supplier Agreement Terms Unenforceable

GSA Finalizes Rule Declaring Certain Commercial Supplier Agreement Terms Unenforceable

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.26.18

On February 22, 2018, GSA published a final rule amending its acquisition regulation and declaring certain common Commercial Supplier Agreement (CSA) terms—such as indemnification and arbitration provisions, provisions that subject the U.S. Government to state law, and automatic renewal provisions—unenforceable in government contracts as inconsistent with federal procurement law. GSA published the proposed rule in June 2016 (discussed here) and related class deviation (discussed here) in August 2015.


The final rule makes several noteworthy changes to GSA’s proposed rule, including: (1) it reverts the order of precedence of contract terms to give precedence to “[a]ddenda to [the] solicitation or contract, including any commercial supplier agreements as amended by the Commercial Supplier Agreements—Unenforceable Clauses provision” over “[s]olicitation provisions” and “[o]ther paragraphs of [the] clause”; and (2) it removes the previously proposed requirement to provide full text CSA terms with the offer, paving the way for CSA terms to be incorporated by reference. As GSA maintains, this final rule will eliminate the need for negotiation on the identified unenforceable terms and could facilitate faster procurements.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.13.26

Colorado Judge Quashes DOJ Gender-Related Care Subpoena

On January 5, 2026, District of Colorado Magistrate Judge Cyrus Chung issued a recommendation that the district court grant a motion to quash a Department of Justice (DOJ) administrative subpoena that sought records about the provision of gender-related care by Children’s Hospital Colorado (Children’s) in In re: Department of Justice Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-030, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, No. 1:25-mc-00063. The court concluded that the DOJ had failed to carry its “light” burden, noting that no other courts that had considered the more than 20 similar subpoenas issued by DOJ had ruled in the DOJ’s favor.  ...