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.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
