1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |The Fate of the Price Reduction Clause Remains Uncertain: GSA Extends, But Does Not Make Permanent, the Transactional Data Rule Pilot Program

The Fate of the Price Reduction Clause Remains Uncertain: GSA Extends, But Does Not Make Permanent, the Transactional Data Rule Pilot Program

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.21.19

On August 19, 2019 the General Services Administration (GSA) announced that it will extend the Transactional Data Rule (TDR) Pilot Program, applicable to certain Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts, through Fiscal Year 2020, while the agency focuses on the consolidation of the 24 GSA Schedules into one single schedule. The TDR pilot is intended to reduce the burden on contractors by eliminating two of the most complicated requirements of the FSS program – the requirement to submit commercial sales practices (CSP) disclosure and the requirement to track pricing to the basis of award customer(s) under the Price Reduction Clause (PRC) – and instead requires contractors submit monthly electronic reports of sales under the FSS contract. In terms of benefit to the Government, the goal of the TDR model is to provide the Government with transparency into the federal marketplace to produce market-driven pricing reductions throughout the contract lifecycle. While many contractors have been waiting to see whether the TDR program will be expanded or made permanent (in the face of significant criticism of the TDR pilot by the GSA Office of Inspector General (OIG)), for now, GSA has kicked the can down the road.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....