GSA Clarifies Permissibility of Upfront Payments for Software-as-a-Service Offerings
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.18.24
On March 15, 2024, the General Services Administration (GSA) issued Acquisition Letter MV-2024-01 providing guidance to GSA contracting officers on the use of upfront payments for acquisitions of cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). Specifically, this acquisition letter clarifies that despite statutory prohibitions against the use of “advance” payments outside of narrowly-prescribed circumstances, upfront payments for SaaS licenses do not constitute an “advance” payment subject to these restrictions when made under the following conditions:
- access to the software is granted contemporaneously with payment (i.e., delivery of the license is made contemporaneously with payment);
- the license is acquired under a fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment, even if other portions of the task order or contract are not fixed price;
- the license is priced at a single seat, multi-seat, unit, or subscription price covering a fixed term, defined as “a limited period of time”;
- the license’s pricing/billing model allows for no utilization or consumption metric other than quantity to affect the costs incurred over the negotiated term;
- the license does not require any upfront payment other than the fixed seat, unit, or subscription cost as a prerequisite for access or a pricing discount; and
- within end user or other license agreements, the licensed service is continuous and uninterrupted for the negotiated term of access to the license.
This guidance follows Acquisition Letter MV-21-06, which permitted federal agencies to order cloud computing services on a consumption basis through GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule program (and eliminated application of the Price Reductions Clause to such offerings), and it represents the latest in a series of steps by GSA to better align the federal government’s acquisition practices for information services with customary commercial practices.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action



