On January 14, 2025, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) announced the end of its general waiver of Buy America requirements for manufactured products. The new FHWA rule aligns the FHWA requirements for manufactured products incorporated into federal highway projects with the domestic content standards of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA).
Once again, the threat of a government shutdown looms over federal contractors and grantees. If Congress does not pass a continuing resolution or other funding legislation before midnight on Saturday, agencies will lack authorized appropriations to fund their operations. Although regrettable, the risk of a shutdown (or debt ceiling crisis) has been a fairly common occurrence over the last few years.
Effective March 31, 2023, OFCCP rescinded the Trump administration’s Final Rule, Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause’s Religious Exemption (Final Rule). The Final Rule was issued in December 2020, during the waning days of the Trump administration. While the text of OFCCP regulation, 41 C.F. R. 60-1.5(a)(5) (OFCCP religious exemption), was not changed by the Final Rule, the Final Rule did add 1) a new paragraph with definitions to terms used in the religious exemption under Executive Order 11246 (E.O. 11246), and 2) a new rule of construction applicable to the religious exemption. The recission of the Final Rule follows OFCCP’s March 1, 2023 recission of Directive 2018-03, which contained the legal interpretations and policies reflected in the Final Rule.
Section 822 of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law No. 117-7776 (Dec. 23, 2022) provides new authority for some defense contractors and subcontractors to obtain price increases that address the impacts of inflation. The new authority is welcome relief for contractors and subcontractors holding fixed-price defense contracts, which typically do not allow a price increase due solely to inflation.
Contractors and contracting officers are often asked to make tough decisions about issues that arise in the course of a complex government contract. Decisions that change the scope of work, the schedule, or the cost of the work must be documented so that the work can proceed. In a perfect world, the parties would execute a bilateral contract modification that addresses and resolves any potential future disputes.
Now that we are two years into the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, it should come as no surprise that several cases discussing whether COVID-19 is an excusable delay have made their way through the ASBCA and CBCA dockets. These cases show that although COVID-19 may be treated as an “epidemic” under the right circumstances according to the enumerated excusable delays in the FAR, the boards have no intention of treating the pandemic as a cure-all for contractors facing potential terminations for default.
When Congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 in December 2019, Congress included the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019 (the Act). The Act, in relevant part, restricts federal contractors from requesting criminal history information from certain job applicants until after the applicant has received a conditional offer
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Boeing Co. v. Secretary of Air Force, 983 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020), provides some useful clarity on the contents of the restrictive markings and legends that contractors affix to the technical data they deliver to the Government.
The case arose from two Air Force contracts for engineering and manufacturing development of radar systems needed for the F-15 Eagle. The contracts required Boeing to deliver technical data to the Air Force with “unlimited rights.” While Boeing retained ownership of the data, the unlimited rights license allowed the Air Force to “use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or disclose [t]he technical data in whole or in part, in any manner, and for any purpose whatsoever, and to have or authorize others to do so.” 983 F.3d at 1325 (citing DFARS 252.227-7013(a)(16)).
As part of our postal industry practice, we annually compile a list of the Top 150 USPS suppliers based on data received under the Freedom of Information Act.
In FY 2017, USPS spent $13.9 billion on outside purchases and rental payments, an increase of $181 million over last year. The biggest increase went to the top 10 USPS suppliers. That group received a total of $3.9 billion, up $400 million from last year and accounting for 28 percent of the Postal Service’s total spend. The Top 150 suppliers received $9.2 billion, about two-thirds of the agency’s total spend. Only 81 suppliers collected revenues exceeding $25 million in 2017.
As it has since 2002, Federal Express Corporation lands atop the list, this year with $1.61 billion in revenues—about a $68 million drop from its 2016 earnings. FedEx carries package and letter mail for the Postal Service. FedEx’s air cargo network contract with the Postal Service has been extended several times, and the latest extension takes it to September 29, 2024.
Transportation and technology companies dominate the top 10 spots on the list of the Top U.S. Postal Service Suppliers for FY 2015. Federal Express Corporation again tops the list, a position it has held since 2002. Overall, the Postal Service spent $12.5 billion on outside purchases, about half of it on transportation.
FedEx