Advertisement

June 19, 2013

New Definition of 'Inherently Governmental Function' Affects Government Insourcing Decisions

On September 9, 2011, the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) issued final guidance on what constitutes an “inherently governmental function.” The new definition, which will eventually replace existing definitions in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and elsewhere, has immediate implications for federal agencies deciding whether to insource work. The OFPP also provides guidance to agencies in deciding when to use contractors to perform “critical functions” and functions “closely associated” with inherently government functions.

This new definition is important because federal law prohibits contractors from performing “inherently governmental functions.” Furthermore, federal agencies deciding whether or not to insource work are required to take specific actions before and after contract award to prevent contractor performance of inherently governmental functions and overreliance on contractors in “closely associated” and “critical functions.”

The OFPP’s definition of an “inherently governmental function” is built around the statutory definition in the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act (FAIR Act) as one “so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by federal government employees.” The OFPP policy letter lists 24 examples of functions considered to be inherently governmental. In connection with procurement activities, the OFPP defines inherently governmental to include:

(1) determining when supplies or services are to be acquired by the government (noting that agencies may give contractors the authority to acquire supplies at prices within specified ranges and subject to other reasonable conditions deemed appropriate by the agency 
(2) participating as a voting member on any source selection boards 
(3) approving any contractual documents 
(4) determining that prices are fair and reasonable 
(5) awarding contracts 
(6) administering contracts 
(7) terminating contracts 
(8) determining whether contract costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable 
(9) participating as a voting member on performance evaluation boards

Functions “closely associated” with inherently governmental functions are not considered to be inherently governmental, but approach being in that category because of the nature of the function and risk that performing such functions may impinge on the government’s performance of inherently government functions. Examples of “closely associated” functions include “supporting acquisition” in the areas of (1) acquisition planning (market research, developing inputs for government cost estimates, drafting statements of work), (2) source selection (preparing a technical evaluation, participating as a technical adviser, drafting price negotiations memoranda), and (3) contracting management (assisting in the evaluation of a contractor’s performance, providing support for assessing contract claims).

Agencies are required to guard against any expansion of “closely associated” work becoming an inherently government functions by following a checklist of responsibilities, including limiting or guiding the contractor’s discretion, assigning government employees to give special management attention to the contractor’s activities, and taking steps to avoid or mitigate conflicts of interest.

The OFPP also defined a “critical function” as one that is “necessary to the agency being able to effectively perform and maintain control of its mission and operations.” In its guidance, the OFPP requires agencies to arrive at their own determinations of what constitutes a “critical function,” which may create inconsistencies across different agencies. Many respondents also have expressed concerns that what constitutes a “critical function” is not entirely clear, and that there are few restrictions on an agency’s ability to decide that a given function is “critical.”

©2013 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Mr. Jack represents contractors in various matters relating to federal government contracts, including preparing protests and claims at the Government Accountability Office, the Court of Federal Claims and Boards of Contract Appeals. Mr. Jack also conducts internal investigations of contractor compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations, performs risk assessments for product liability issues associated with government-funded technologies, counsels contractors on intellectual property issues, assists clients on the government contract...

202-331-3100

About the Author

Associate

Caitlin Kaprove is an Associate in the Government Contracts Practice Group of Greenberg Traurig's Washington, D.C. office. Ms. Kaprove's practice focuses on government contracts, with additional experience in general litigation and public and private international law.

202-530-8565

About the Author

Chair, Government Contracts Practice

Jacob B. Pankowski is Chair of the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group. His practice spans nearly 30 years of experience and is focused on representing government contractors and subcontractors of all sizes in their dealings and disputes with federal, state, and local governments. Mr. Pankowski’s government contracts practice covers a broad range of areas and concentrates in contract and subcontract performance issues, claims analysis and preparation, federal supply schedule issues, information technology issues, rights in technical data and intellectual property, and...

202-331-3100

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.