Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer

Tag: China

Prohibited telcom equipment may cost you

The General Services Administration’s (GSA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a new report highlighting GSA’s failure to address prohibited telecom items on its Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts. The report states that this puts customers at risk of unauthorized surveillance by foreign adversaries. In 2017 and 2018, Congress passed laws prohibiting the procurement of certain telecom and video surveillance services from specific entities, with FAS responsible for ensuring compliance. However, the OIG report reveals that FAS’s reliance on contractor self-certifications and the Prohibited Products Robomod process is inadequate in preventing the inclusion of prohibited items on MAS contract price lists. (MerriTalk July 11,2023)

The report also identifies FAS’s shortcomings in taking sufficient action against contractors violating Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) restrictions, as well as the lack of a process to notify customer agencies about purchases of prohibited telecom items. Furthermore, FAS initially failed to comply with FAR requirements by not including subsidiaries and affiliates of named entities in their efforts to identify prohibited items on MAS contracts. To address these issues, the OIG has made five recommendations to FAS Commissioner Sonny Hashmi, including strengthening controls and implementing more stringent consequences for non-compliant contractors. (ibid)

This report from the GSA’s OIG follows the release of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) “Covered List,” which prohibits the sale of telecom network equipment and services from certain China-based providers due to national security concerns. The FCC’s ban aims to safeguard the nation’s communications networks and enhance the security and resilience of the domestic supply chain. These efforts reflect the commitment of both agencies to protect national security and mitigate risks associated with unauthorized telecommunications equipment and services. (ibid)

Questions about prohibited telcom items? give us a call.

Higher federal procurement standards for IT providers – Are you ready?

The White House is spearheading an interagency endeavor concentrating on software development that will determine federal procurement of information technology (IT). In the coming weeks, vendors can expect to see new IT security standards, governmentwide. This comes after many tech companies complained that the effort under the Trump administration limited the import of information and communications technology from “foreign adversaries.” While leaving the definition of the term “foreign adversary” up to the Commerce Secretary. In addition, the rule as it stands today is broad and raises concerns over due process.

The SolarWinds breach will ultimately raise the bar on vendor security, banning tech from many countries, not just China. It also focuses on vendors and the possibility of vulnerability disclosure policies that encourage reporting weaknesses in their products. Ultimately, vendors providing IT products and services to federal agencies must have the proper level of cybersecurity in place.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Acting Director Brandon Wales said agencies are working together to ensure consistency in the government’s approach to supply chain security across the Commerce Department rule, an executive order aimed at removing foreign adversaries from the bulk power sector. Wales also said, “the administration is counting on higher federal procurement standards to elevate security across the private sector as well.”

Are your IT products compliant? Give us a call.

 

 

BAA TAA SBA Huh?

It appears the Buy American Act (BAA) and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA) may, under certain instances, actually reduce the federal market accessibility for US manufacturers. (Federal News Network, October 28, 2019)

In order to be considered for a small-business set-aside, end-items must be manufactured in the U.S. Or the company can qualify as a non-manufacturer (13 CFR 121.406) if:

  • The company is principally engaged in the retail or wholesale  of the product and normally sells the type of product being supplied
  • The company takes ownership of the item with its personnel, equipment or facilities consistent with industry practice and
  • The company supplies the end item of a small business manufacturer, processor or producer made in the U.S. or obtains a waiver of the requirement. (ibid)

Non-manufacturers may receive an individual waiver if the Small Business Administration (SBA) accepts the contracting officer’s determination that no small business manufacturer “reasonably can be expected to offer a product meeting the solicitation specifications.” Additionally, the SBA Administrator may provide a class waiver if she determines that no small business manufacturer “product or class of products is available to participate in the Federal procurement market.”

Of course, TAA restricts product acquisition to manufacturers in the U.S. and certain “designated countries,” (those companies that have a Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. or participate in the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA)). Therefore, products from non-signatory countries such as China are ineligible for award.  Per FAR 25.101(a), BAA restricts the purchase of non-domestic end-products as well. Some exceptions provide more access to foreign end-products than under the TAA; for instance, BAA makes exceptions where the domestic offer is not the low offer (FAR 25.103) as well as in certain instances of public interest for non-availability in the U.S., and at an unreasonable cost. (ibid)

TAA does not apply to small business set-asides, FAR 25.401, leaving the BAA in place. The waiver of the non-manufacturer rule for a set-aside gives a somewhat illogical result. This makes the TAA inapplicable to set-asides, and the BAA applicable to set-asides where the non-manufacturer rule has been waived. This might result in the Government purchasing an item, such as a medical/surgical product, manufactured in a non-designated country that has subsidized its price to assure the product’s selection. Therefore, the intended law restricting non-domestic products actually facilitates more access to those products. This includes products of manufacturers from non-designated countries, rather than providing controlled access over non-domestic end-products. (ibid)

Ultimately, this could harm small and non-small manufacturers producing domestically. This may also open up small business set-asides to products made in China that would otherwise be ineligible for purchase if the TAA applied. A good deal more statutory guidance and analysis are warranted. (ibid)

Do you have questions about your compliance obligations under an upcoming proposal or current contract? Give us a call.