1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |FAR Council Introduces Limits on the Single-Offer Adequate Price Competition Exception

FAR Council Introduces Limits on the Single-Offer Adequate Price Competition Exception

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.01.19

On June 12, 2019, the FAR Council issued a final rule amending the FAR to address an exception from certified cost or pricing data requirements when price is based on adequate competition.  In particular, the final rule amends the definition of “adequate price competition” in FAR 15.403-1(c) for submission of certified cost or pricing data to DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard so that the adequate price competition exception now applies only when “two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement.”  This means that if only one offer is received, even if submitted with the expectation of competition, the exception no longer applies.  For all other agencies, the exception still applies even when only one offer is received, provided there is a reasonable expectation that two or more responsible offerors would submit offers, or price analysis demonstrates that the proposed price is reasonable.  Though this rule represents a change to the FAR, we note that a similar rule has existed in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement at 215.371-3 for a number of years.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 7 min read | 11.08.24

New BIS Guidance Continues Trend of Enhanced EAR Compliance Expectations for Financial Institutions

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) issued new guidance (“BIS Guidance”) for financial institutions (“FIs”) on October 9, 2024, recommending that FIs undertake specific compliance practices to minimize their risk of violating General Prohibition (“GP”) 10 of BIS’s Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”).  GP 10 prohibits any person (U.S. or otherwise) from selling, transferring, exporting, reexporting, financing, ordering, buying, removing, concealing, storing, using, loaning, disposing of, transporting, forwarding, or otherwise servicing an item “subject to the EAR” with knowledge that that item was, or will be, exported, reexported, or transferred in violation of the EAR.  Knowledge in this context goes beyond actual knowledge, and can be inferred from circumstances surrounding a transaction; in other words, a “known or should have known” standard.  Although BIS has published several joint alerts with FinCEN encouraging financial institutions to look for potential red flags of evasion of export controls, this guidance goes further in establishing specific export compliance best practices for financial institutions and suggests that financial institutions that finance or otherwise service prohibited exports risk liability under the EAR....

View All Insights