On October 5, 2023, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued an interim Federal Acquisition Regulation rule (FAR rule) that implements the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (FASCSA).  This FAR rule implements the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 and the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC) final rule for complying with exclusion or removal orders. The FAR rule represents yet another step by the Government to mitigate the security risks that the Government perceives with the use of information technology that may be produced or provided by countries considered to be foreign adversaries.  Like similar supply chain prohibitions, the rule requires contractors to conduct diligence to ensure that articles and sources covered by a FASCA exclusion or removal order are not provided to the Government, to make an affirmative representation to the Government that such articles and sources will not be provided, and to promptly report if any are identified.  The FAR rule will become effective on December 4, 2023, and will apply to new contracts and contracts subject to extension or renewal.  The rule instructs that existing IDIQ contracts should be modified by the Government within six months of December 4, 2023 to apply the requirements to future orders.

Additional information about the rule and its relationship to existing FASCSA regulations is outlined below.

FASCSA Regulations

At its core, the FAR rule outlines a standard approach for contracting agencies and contractors to follow to comply with FASCSA statutory requirements and implementing FASCSA regulations that the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC) finalized in 2021.  In broad stokes, the FASC regulations outline the procedural approach that civilian, defense, and intelligence agencies need to follow in order to make determinations relating to “Covered Articles” (i.e., products and services) and “Covered Sources” (i.e., federal contractors and suppliers).  Further detail on these procedures is described in our client alert of the interim rule available here.[1] 

The FASC regulations address the treatment of both mandatory and voluntary submissions of information to the FASC.  Federal agencies are required to “expeditiously” submit information to the FASC when they determine that “there is a reasonable basis to conclude a substantial supply chain risk exists in connection with a source or covered article.”  Voluntary submissions can come from either federal agencies or from non-federal entities (including from companies or individuals). 

That rule specifies that upon a referral of the FASC or any member of the FASC, the written request of the head of an executive agency or a designee, or based on information submitted to the FASC by any individual or non-federal entity that the FASC determines to be credible, the FASC will undertake a process to determine whether to recommend an exclusion or removal order.  The ultimate determination depends on a variety of non-exclusive factors relating to that source or article, including the functionality and features of the covered articles; the security, authenticity, and integrity of covered articles; ownership of, control of, or influence over the source or covered article(s) by a foreign government or parties owned or controlled by a foreign government; implications to national, homeland security, or critical functions associated with the use of the source(s) or covered article(s); and capacity of the source or the U.S. Government to mitigate risks. 

Recommendations by the FASC are then provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), the Secretary of Defense (DoD), and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).  These agencies are responsible for civilian, defense, and intelligence agency exclusions, respectively, and each agency may make its own determination as to whether to issue an order.  As part of this process, any impacted source(s) are notified that the FASC has recommended exclusion, and are allowed 30 days to respond.  Should one or more agencies determine that an exclusion is warranted, then the impacted source(s) may only appeal the determination through a federal court of appeals. 

FAR Rule

The FAR rule effectively outlines procedures that should be followed by agencies and contractors once an exclusion order has been issued by one or more of DHS, DoD, or DNI.  The rule features three notable requirements:  (1) a mandatory representation to the Government prior to entering into a contract that no covered articles will be provided and no covered sources will be used during contract performance, (2) a contract clause that similarly prohibits the provision of covered articles or the use of covered sources, and (3) a mandatory reporting requirement should covered articles or sources be identified during contract performance.

Representation Requirement

Prior to entering into a new contract, contractors will be required to represent that they will not provide or use any covered article, or any products or services produced or provided by a covered source, during contract performance, if the covered article or the source is prohibited by an applicable FASCSA order in effect on the date the solicitation was issued.  This representation is made based on a “reasonable inquiry” standard.  The standard will be familiar to those contractors that have taken steps to comply with Part B of Section 889 of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (FY19 NDAA), which we have covered previously here.  Indeed, the term is defined in virtually the same way as it is in the Section 889 rule:

[A]n inquiry designed to uncover any information in the entity’s possession about the identity of any covered articles, or any products or services produced or provided by a source.  This applies when the covered article or the source is subject to an applicable FASCSA order.  A reasonable inquiry excludes the need to include an internal or third-party audit.

As with Section 889, the bounds of what information may be considered to be “in the entity’s possession” are not defined, which may cause difficulties for contractors that must determine how and when to limit these inquiries. 

To make the representation, contractors must both review the solicitation for any applicable FASCSA orders that are identified in the solicitation and review the System for Award Management for any identified covered articles or sources that may be applicable to the procurement.  If covered articles or sources are identified and will be used in performance, then contractors must disclose the nature of those articles or sources to the contracting officer, in order to allow the agency to make a determination as to whether the agency will pursue a waiver.

Waivers are contemplated by the rule, and generally require agencies to submit a request to the agency that issued the FASC order that the order not apply to either the agency, specific actions or acquisitions (including for a limited period of time before compliance with the order is practicable), or other activities as appropriate.  In doing so, agencies must submit a “compelling justification for why an exception should be granted,” such as on impacts to “mission-critical functions” or considerations relating to the “national interest.”

Contracting Clause

Future contract awards, including those below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and those for the acquisition of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) items, will contain a new clause that similarly requires the contractor to adhere to the prohibition on the provision or use of covered articles or sources during contract performance.  The clause, which must be flowed down to subcontractors, only prohibits those articles or sources that were identified as being restricted at the time of the solicitation; prohibitions on new sources or articles are only effective through contract modification. 

With this said, contracting agencies are required to modify the contract within six months should applicable FASC orders be identified after issuance of a solicitation or contract.  Further, contractors are required to continually check SAM for new covered articles or sources at least every three months, to conduct a reasonable inquiry on any new article or source identified, and – following the procedures described in more detail below – to submit a report to the contracting officer if such an article or source is identified.  It is not clear what, if any, action agencies should take if a contractor identifies and reports on a new covered article or source that was not in effect at the time of the solicitation. 

Reporting Requirement

If a covered article or source is identified, then contractors are required to report certain information either to the DoD DIBNet (for DoD contracts) or to the contracting officer (civilian and other contracts) within three business days from the date of identification.  The report should include, among other things, the name of the product or service provided; the name of the covered article or source subject to a FASC order; brand, model number, and description of the article; and any readily available information about mitigation actions undertaken or recommended.  Contractors must follow this report with a second report to be issued ten days after the initial report that contains, among other things, further information about mitigation actions undertaken or recommended and efforts the contractor undertook to prevent submission or use of the covered article or the product or service produced or provided by a source subject to an applicable FASCSA order and efforts to be taken in the future to present such occurrences. 

Conclusion

Despite the continued emphasis on supply chain security, the rule differs from existing requirements in some ways, such as by specifying how ongoing diligence must occur, and how often checks need to be made.  The requirements will necessitate contractors to assess and likely modify their purchasing approaches.  Indeed, the FAR Council itself has recognized the overall complexity of the rule, noting that “[d]ue to the complexity of this novel requirement, it has taken several years to draft and develop the framework of this FAR rule and involved many Government agencies in the process.”  Contractors should therefore consider taking steps to develop processes to comply with the rule as soon as possible.    


[1] The September 9, 2020 interim rule covered in this alert was finalized by the FASC on August 26, 2021.  In describing the changes between the interim rule and the final rule, the FASC stated:

In general, numerous minor changes were made to the interim rule’s text to clarify or simplify it. Although the substance of the final rule largely matches that of the interim rule, several changes have been made in response to public comments and input from Federal stakeholders.

86 Fed. Reg. 47,581, 47,582 (Aug. 26, 2021).

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Susan B. Cassidy Susan B. Cassidy

Susan is co-chair of the firm’s Aerospace and Defense Industry Group and is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She previously served as in-house counsel for two major defense contractors and advises a broad range of government contractors…

Susan is co-chair of the firm’s Aerospace and Defense Industry Group and is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts and Cybersecurity Practice Groups. She previously served as in-house counsel for two major defense contractors and advises a broad range of government contractors on compliance with FAR and DFARS requirements, with a special expertise in supply chain, cybersecurity and FedRAMP requirements. She has an active investigations practice and advises contractors when faced with cyber incidents involving government information. Susan relies on her expertise and experience with the Defense Department and the Intelligence Community to help her clients navigate the complex regulatory intersection of cybersecurity, national security, and government contracts. She is Chambers rated in both Government Contracts and Government Contracts Cybersecurity. In 2023, Chambers USA quoted sources stating that “Susan’s in-house experience coupled with her deep understanding of the regulatory requirements is the perfect balance to navigate legal and commercial matters.”

Her clients range from new entrants into the federal procurement market to well established defense contractors and she provides compliance advices across a broad spectrum of procurement issues. Susan consistently remains at the forefront of legislative and regulatory changes in the procurement area, and in 2018, the National Law Review selected her as a “Go-to Thought Leader” on the topic of Cybersecurity for Government Contractors.

In her work with global, national, and start-up contractors, Susan advises companies on all aspects of government supply chain issues including:

  • Government cybersecurity requirements, including the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), DFARS 7012, and NIST SP 800-171 requirements,
  • Evolving sourcing issues such as Section 889, counterfeit part requirements, Section 5949 and limitations on sourcing from China
  • Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC) regulations and product exclusions,
  • Controlled unclassified information (CUI) obligations, and
  • M&A government cybersecurity due diligence.

Susan has an active internal investigations practice that assists clients when allegations of non-compliance arise with procurement requirements, such as in the following areas:

  • Procurement fraud and FAR mandatory disclosure requirements,
  • Cyber incidents and data spills involving sensitive government information,
  • Allegations of violations of national security requirements, and
  • Compliance with MIL-SPEC requirements, the Qualified Products List, and other sourcing obligations.

In addition to her counseling and investigatory practice, Susan has considerable litigation experience and has represented clients in bid protests, prime-subcontractor disputes, Administrative Procedure Act cases, and product liability litigation before federal courts, state courts, and administrative agencies.

Susan is a former Public Contract Law Procurement Division Co-Chair, former Co-Chair and current Vice-Chair of the ABA PCL Cybersecurity, Privacy and Emerging Technology Committee.

Prior to joining Covington, Susan served as in-house senior counsel at Northrop Grumman Corporation and Motorola Incorporated.

Photo of Ashden Fein Ashden Fein

Ashden Fein is a vice chair of the firm’s global Cybersecurity practice. He advises clients on cybersecurity and national security matters, including crisis management and incident response, risk management and governance, government and internal investigations, and regulatory compliance.

For cybersecurity matters, Ashden counsels clients…

Ashden Fein is a vice chair of the firm’s global Cybersecurity practice. He advises clients on cybersecurity and national security matters, including crisis management and incident response, risk management and governance, government and internal investigations, and regulatory compliance.

For cybersecurity matters, Ashden counsels clients on preparing for and responding to cyber-based attacks, assessing security controls and practices for the protection of data and systems, developing and implementing cybersecurity risk management and governance programs, and complying with federal and state regulatory requirements. Ashden frequently supports clients as the lead investigator and crisis manager for global cyber and data security incidents, including data breaches involving personal data, advanced persistent threats targeting intellectual property across industries, state-sponsored theft of sensitive U.S. government information, extortion and ransomware, and destructive attacks.

Additionally, Ashden assists clients from across industries with leading internal investigations and responding to government inquiries related to the U.S. national security and insider risks. He also advises aerospace, defense, and intelligence contractors on security compliance under U.S. national security laws and regulations including, among others, the National Industrial Security Program (NISPOM), U.S. government cybersecurity regulations, FedRAMP, and requirements related to supply chain security.

Before joining Covington, Ashden served on active duty in the U.S. Army as a Military Intelligence officer and prosecutor specializing in cybercrime and national security investigations and prosecutions — to include serving as the lead trial lawyer in the prosecution of Private Chelsea (Bradley) Manning for the unlawful disclosure of classified information to Wikileaks.

Ashden currently serves as a Judge Advocate in the
U.S. Army Reserve.

Photo of Michael Wagner Michael Wagner

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and…

Mike Wagner represents companies and individuals in complex compliance and enforcement matters arising in the public procurement context. Combining deep regulatory expertise and extensive investigations experience, Mike helps government contractors navigate detailed procurement rules and achieve the efficient resolution of government investigations and enforcement actions.

Mike regularly represents contractors in federal and state compliance and enforcement matters relating to a range of procurement laws and regulations. He has particular experience handling investigations and litigation brought under the civil False Claims Act, and he routinely counsels government contractors on mandatory and voluntary disclosure considerations under the FAR, DFARS, and related regulatory regimes. He also represents contractors in high-stakes suspension and debarment matters at the federal and state levels, and he has served as Co-Chair of the ABA Suspension & Debarment Committee and is principal editor of the American Bar Association’s Practitioner’s Guide to Suspension & Debarment (4th ed.) (2018).

Mike also has extensive experience representing companies pursuing and negotiating grants, cooperative agreements, and Other Transaction Authority agreements (OTAs). In this regard, he has particular familiarity with the semiconductor and clean energy industries, and he has devoted substantial time in recent years to advising clients on strategic considerations for pursuing opportunities under the CHIPS Act, Inflation Reduction Act, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

In his counseling practice, Mike regularly advises government contractors and suppliers on best practices for managing the rapidly-evolving array of cybersecurity and supply chain security rules and requirements. In particular, he helps companies assess and navigate domestic preference and country-of-origin requirements under the Buy American Act (BAA), Trade Agreements Act (TAA), Berry Amendment, and DOD Specialty Metals regulation. He also assists clients in managing product and information security considerations related to overseas manufacture and development of Information and Communication Technologies & Services (ICTS).

Mike serves on Covington’s Hiring Committee and is Co-Chair of the firm’s Summer Associate Program. He is a frequent writer and speaker on issues relating to procurement fraud and contractor responsibility, and he has served as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School.

Photo of Robert Huffman Robert Huffman

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing…

Bob Huffman counsels government contractors on emerging technology issues, including artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, and software supply chain security, that are currently affecting federal and state procurement. His areas of expertise include the Department of Defense (DOD) and other agency acquisition regulations governing information security and the reporting of cyber incidents, the proposed Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program, the requirements for secure software development self-attestations and bills of materials (SBOMs) emanating from the May 2021 Executive Order on Cybersecurity, and the various requirements for responsible AI procurement, safety, and testing currently being implemented under the October 2023 AI Executive Order. 

Bob also represents contractors in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation and investigations involving cybersecurity and other technology compliance issues, as well more traditional government contracting costs, quality, and regulatory compliance issues. These investigations include significant parallel civil/criminal proceedings growing out of the Department of Justice’s Cyber Fraud Initiative. They also include investigations resulting from False Claims Act qui tam lawsuits and other enforcement proceedings. Bob has represented clients in over a dozen FCA qui tam suits.

Bob also regularly counsels clients on government contracting supply chain compliance issues, including those arising under the Buy American Act/Trade Agreements Act and Section 889 of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act. In addition, Bob advises government contractors on rules relating to IP, including government patent rights, technical data rights, rights in computer software, and the rules applicable to IP in the acquisition of commercial products, services, and software. He focuses this aspect of his practice on the overlap of these traditional government contracts IP rules with the IP issues associated with the acquisition of AI services and the data needed to train the large learning models on which those services are based. 

Bob writes extensively in the areas of procurement-related AI, cybersecurity, software security, and supply chain regulation. He also teaches a course at Georgetown Law School that focuses on the technology, supply chain, and national security issues associated with energy and climate change.

Photo of Ryan Burnette Ryan Burnette

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with defense and intelligence contracting, as well as with cybersecurity, supply chain…

Ryan Burnette is a government contracts and technology-focused lawyer that advises on federal contracting compliance requirements and on government and internal investigations that stem from these obligations. Ryan has particular experience with defense and intelligence contracting, as well as with cybersecurity, supply chain, artificial intelligence, and software development requirements.

Ryan also advises on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) compliance, public policy matters, agency disputes, and government cost accounting, drawing on his prior experience in providing overall direction for the federal contracting system to offer insight on the practical implications of regulations. He has assisted industry clients with the resolution of complex civil and criminal investigations by the Department of Justice, and he regularly speaks and writes on government contracts, cybersecurity, national security, and emerging technology topics.

Ryan is especially experienced with:

  • Government cybersecurity standards, including the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP); DFARS 252.204-7012, DFARS 252.204-7020, and other agency cybersecurity requirements; National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications, such as NIST SP 800-171; and the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program.
  • Software and artificial intelligence (AI) requirements, including federal secure software development frameworks and software security attestations; software bill of materials requirements; and current and forthcoming AI data disclosure, validation, and configuration requirements, including unique requirements that are applicable to the use of large language models (LLMs) and dual use foundation models.
  • Supply chain requirements, including Section 889 of the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act; restrictions on covered semiconductors and printed circuit boards; Information and Communications Technology and Services (ICTS) restrictions; and federal exclusionary authorities, such as matters relating to the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC).
  • Information handling, marking, and dissemination requirements, including those relating to Covered Defense Information (CDI) and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
  • Federal Cost Accounting Standards and FAR Part 31 allocation and reimbursement requirements.

Prior to joining Covington, Ryan served in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the Executive Office of the President, where he focused on the development and implementation of government-wide contracting regulations and administrative actions affecting more than $400 billion dollars’ worth of goods and services each year.  While in government, Ryan helped develop several contracting-related Executive Orders, and worked with White House and agency officials on regulatory and policy matters affecting contractor disclosure and agency responsibility determinations, labor and employment issues, IT contracting, commercial item acquisitions, performance contracting, schedule contracting and interagency acquisitions, competition requirements, and suspension and debarment, among others.  Additionally, Ryan was selected to serve on a core team that led reform of security processes affecting federal background investigations for cleared federal employees and contractors in the wake of significant issues affecting the program.  These efforts resulted in the establishment of a semi-autonomous U.S. Government agency to conduct and manage background investigations.