1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Required Disclosures of Proceedings and Settlements for Contractors and Grantees

New Required Disclosures of Proceedings and Settlements for Contractors and Grantees

Event | 05.06.10, 12:00 AM UTC - 12:00 AM UTC

On March 23, 2010, the FAR Councils issued a final rule amending the FAR to implement the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, known as FAPIIS. The stated purpose of the rule, with an effective date of April 22, 2010, is to enhance the government's ability to evaluate for responsibility determinations the ethics and performance of prospective contractors competing for federal contracts and grants. But, most significantly for industry, many contractors will have to submit certified disclosures pertaining to certain criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings and settlements at the federal and state level.

Unfortunately, even though these requirements are being rolled out right now, there are many unanswered questions. For instance, what are "administrative proceedings" – does the term include tax assessments, environmental citations, workers' compensation claims, and government claims for contract refunds? Must confidential settlement agreements be reported? What about deferred prosecution agreements? How should contractors respond to a question in CCR if the question is not consistent with the rule? Aside from the challenges relating to interpreting the rule and responding accurately in CCR, there are many other unknowns. How will the government use this vast amount of information? Will it have an impact on bid protests? Will this information be publicly available via FOIA or otherwise? It is essential that contractors are attuned to these traps because of the potential civil and criminal ramifications that exist for the unwary.


For more information, please visit these areas: Government Contracts

Insights

Event | 02.20.25

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today: In 1997, the California Supreme Court decided Buss v. Superior Court. In Buss, the court concluded that a liability insurer that defended a mixed action could seek reimbursement from the insured for the defense costs associated with the claims that were not even potentially covered. Since then, numerous courts have held that insurers are entitled to recoup their defense costs associated with uncovered claims or causes of action. On the other hand, a significant number of courts have rejected insurers’ right to recoupment, at least in the absence of a policy provision granting the insurer that right. Some commentators have even suggested that the current judicial trend might be away from permitting insurers to recoup their defense costs. Is that correct? Has the Buss stopped? This panel of coverage experts will analyze insurers’ claimed right to recoupment today, and offer their perspectives on what the law on recoupment should perhaps be and might be in the future.