GSA Panel to Discuss New Section 889 Interim Rule Implementation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.29.20
Last week, the General Services Administration (GSA) announced that the Office of Governmentwide Policy would hold a live and recorded virtual webinar panel on August 12, 2020 to discuss the new interim rule implementing the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act Section 889(a)(1)(B) covered telecommunications prohibition.
The panel is expected to address the implementation and application of the new interim rule and answer the public’s pre-submitted questions. Panelists will include Directors and Division Directors from offices of the Federal Acquisition Service and Public Building Service, including:
- Multiple Awards Schedule Program Management Office
- City Pair Program, Office of Travel, Employee Relocation, and Transportation
- IT Security Subcategory, Office of Information Technology Category
- Vehicle Purchasing Division, Office of Motor Vehicle Management
- Special Programs Division, Office of Project Delivery, Office of Design and Construction
- Innovation Technology and Performance Division, Office of Facilities Management
- Lease Policy and Innovation Division, Office of Leasing
Questions may be submitted until August 5 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern. Attendees must register.
DoD also issued guidance last week for Section 889 implementation that provides guidance to contracting officers generally and describes the role of the contracting officer in evaluating whether use of covered telecommunications equipment is a substantial or essential component of a system and whether an exception otherwise applies.
For a discussion of the new interim rule, see our July 14 summary of the new rule or our July 17 webinar addressing the nuances of the new rule.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance




