• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to secondary sidebar

Alston & Bird Government Contracts Blog

  • Home
  • Services
  • Meet Our Team

Final FAR Council Rule Expands the Scope of GIDEP Screening and Reporting and Effectively Mandates GIDEP Membership for Covered Contractors

December 17, 2019 By Jeffrey Belkin and Paul Ghazaryan

The FAR Council recently issued a Final Rule on the Reporting of Nonconforming Items to the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) to address supply chain risks from counterfeit and nonconforming goods. The Rule goes into effect on December 23, 2019. While the Final Rule on its face addresses counterfeit and nonconforming parts, the GIDEP program is potentially more onerous than meets-the-eye.

GIDEP is a U.S. Government funded and managed voluntary information exchange program among government and industry participants.  Its members include, among others, dozens of government agencies such as the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and N.A.S.A. There are also hundreds of industrial organizations manufacturing parts, components, and equipment for the government agency participants.  Using GIDEP data helps governments and manufacturers identify risks, promote safety and reliability, and maximizes resources.

To address supply chain risks from counterfeit and nonconforming goods, the Final Rule requires the inclusion of a new Clause (FAR 52.246-26) in solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of goods or services involving: (1) “critical” items and items subject to “higher-level quality standards”; and (2) Department of Defense acquisitions of electronic items above the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000).

Commercial items are exempt.  Under the Rule, contractors are required to screen the GIDEP database as part of their quality control programs, and report to the Contracting Officer (“CO”) and the GIDEP database within 60 days of “becoming aware or having reason to suspect” that an item is a counterfeit part; and submit reports to GIDEP (but not to the CO) when they detect a major or critical nonconformance in a “common item”.

While the FAR clause on its face requires only limited reporting and is described by the FAR council as “significantly de-scoped” from the version proposed in 2014, as a practical matter, all covered contractors are now effectively required to become GIDEP members.  The new Rule requires contractors to screen the GIDEP database, but access to the database is available only to GIDEP members.  Becoming a member requires, among other things, that the contractor designate a GIDEP representative and submit an annual Utilization Report. Considering the foregoing, the Final Rule is potentially a significant regulatory burden hidden under the guise of a more-limited quality and counterfeit reporting requirement.

Thus, in the coming weeks, Contractors should assess whether and to what extent the new reporting requirements will apply to their operations and make any necessary updates to timely comply with the new Rule. A good starting point is the Frequently Asked Questions on the GIDEP website.

Filed Under: Advice to Contractors & Grant Recipients, Defense, Government Contract-Related Investigations and the False Claims Act, Public Construction, State, Regional and Local Government Contracts Tagged With: Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs), Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Government Spending, U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)

About Jeffrey Belkin

Jeff Belkin is a partner in and co-leader of the firm’s Construction & Government Contracts Group. Jeff represents contractors in False Claims Act and internal investigations, claims litigation and procurement protests, and advises on complex compliance issues.

[Read Bio]

About Paul Ghazaryan

Paul Ghazaryan is an associate in the firm’s Construction & Government Contracts Group. He represents a broad range of clients in negotiating contracts and in litigation related to construction dispute claims.

[Read Bio]

Primary Sidebar

This blog is a service of Alston & Bird’s Government Contracts team and provides insights on cases, rules, trends, and latest developments in local, state, and federal government contracting. Our attorney observations include analysis of investigations, litigation, protests and issues affecting present or prospective prime contractors, subcontractors, and grant recipients across various industries.

Archives

RECEIVE EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS WHEN NEW POSTS ARE ADDED.

A confirmation email has been sent to the email address provided.

Categories

Secondary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • The Moving America Forward Act: If Passed, Will Result in Increased Opportunities for Infrastructure Work and Contracting With the Federal Government
  • Additional GSA Webinar Guidance for Section 889 Part B Implementation Delayed to September 10, 2020
  • GSA Provides Additional Guidance on Section 889 Part B Implementation and “Waivers”
  • DoD Weighs In As Federal Contractors Search for Guidance on Implementation of Section 889 Part B
  • Is a Shakeup Still Imminent for U.S. Domestic Sourcing?
Copyright © 2021 · Alston & Bird · All Rights Reserved. Privacy.
This website uses cookies to improve functionality and performance. By continuing to browse this site, you are consenting to the use of cookies on this website. OkCookie policy