March 30, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 89

Advertisement
Advertisement

March 30, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 29, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 28, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 27, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

GSA Makes Participation in Transactional Data Reporting Pilot Voluntary

Contractors should consider weighing benefits and burdens in making the election.

Last week, the US General Services Administration (GSA) announced that it will make participation in its Transactional Data Reporting pilot program (TDR Pilot) voluntary for all GSA contractors. Previously, for Schedules and Special Item Numbers (SINs) included in the TDR Pilot, participation was voluntary for most existing contractors but mandatory for new offerors and those existing contractors approaching exercise of a five-year option period.

As we discussed in our June 2016 post, as implemented, the TDR rule requires that government vendors electronically submit a monthly report containing line-item transactional data (e.g., part number, price paid) for direct sales to the government. GSA has previously opined that the TDR rule should significantly reduce burdens to contractors—in particular, by exempting participating contractors from the requirements of submitting Commercial Sales Practices (CSP) disclosures and complying with the tracking customer requirements of the Price Reductions Clause (PRC).

While most contractors would agree that being relieved of CSP disclosures and PRC monitoring would be a welcome event, the burdens associated with implementing TDR will make determining whether to participate in the TDR Pilot a company-by-company decision.

Takeaways

Key takeaways from GSA’s announcement on the TDR Pilot include the following:

  • Contractors may, at least for now, choose whether or not to participate in the TDR Pilot. Whether it is advantageous for an individual contractor to adopt the TDR Pilot’s reporting requirements—in exchange for eliminating CSP/PRC compliance obligations—turns upon a number of firm-specific considerations, including how easily the company can access the required data and how burdensome existing CSP/PRC requirements are.

  • TDR imposes new and potentially burdensome reporting and monitoring obligations on participating contractors and may require implementing new systems to ensure accurate reporting. Notably, a survey of Coalition for Government Procurement Members estimated the burden of implementing TDR as much higher (approx. 1,200 hours to implement for medium/large contractors) than that estimated by GSA (6 hours).

  • When considering whether to participate in the TDR Pilot—regardless of whether reporting pilot data using an existing system or by implementing a new one—contractors should perform a careful assessment of the sufficiency of its information systems to provide the particular data elements necessary to meet all government requirements.

  • The TDR Pilot currently covers only certain GSA Schedules. Once the pilot ends, it is unclear what course of action GSA will take, or whether it may return to requiring CSP/PRC compliance, even by those that participated in the TDR Pilot. Accordingly, pilot participants should not wholly dismantle processes that were designed to meet CSP/PRC obligations.

Copyright © 2023 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 236
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Sheila A. Armstrong, Morgan Lewis, Contract Negotiation Lawyer, Compliance Audits Attorney
Partner

With a focus on government contracts, Sheila Armstrong represents a variety of companies in all aspects of government contracting including counseling, contract negotiation, and litigation matters. Sheila routinely counsels companies that sell commercial products and services to the government in both contractual and civil settings. She frequently advises clients with respect to General Services Administration (GSA) and Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule contracts, with a focus on proposal preparation, negotiation, contract compliance issues, audits,...

214.466.4175
Stephen Ruscus, Morgan Lewis, government contracts lawyer
Partner

Stephen E. Ruscus represents clients in government contracts procurement, US federal drug pricing programs, and in litigation before the Boards of Contract Appeals, the US Court of Federal Claims, and the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). He also advises in protest practice before the US Small Business Administration and in matters relating to federal procurement of commercial items and services, including those under Federal Supply Schedule contracts.

202-739-5870
Michael Cumming, Morgan Lewis Law Firm, Regulatory Attorney
Associate

Michael Cumming’s practice centers upon defending companies and individuals in government investigations and regulatory matters in the areas of securities, government contracts, and consumer financial services. A former licensed securities professional, Michael frequently aids clients in examinations and enforcement actions brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, FINRA, and state regulators. He has particular experience and industry knowledge relevant to oil and gas private placements. Michael also maintains a robust white collar criminal defense practice,...

214-466-4136