Massachusetts aims to be the “cornerstone of the defense industry,” with Governor Maura Healey announcing nearly $47 million in government funding for defense-related projects. Last year, the Department of Defense ranked Massachusetts ninth out of the top ten states in total Defense spending in FY2023, and the state is aiming
Continue Reading Massachusetts Seeks to Expand Defense Footprint with Nearly $47 Million in New Projects
Sarah Schuler
Sarah Schuler is an associate in the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, advising clients across a broad range of government contracting compliance issues. Her areas of expertise include advising on intellectual property and data rights issues under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, including obligations imposed by the Bayh-Dole Act; application of the Freedom of Information Act to government contracts and related records; domestic sourcing requirements imposed under the Buy American Act and Trade Agreements Act; pricing and other compliance related issues arising under Federal Supply Schedule contracts; small business affiliation and certification analyses; the scope of flow-down requirements for subcontractors; and federal grant compliance under the Uniform Guidance and agency supplements. Sarah also counsels clients to navigate time-sensitive inquiries arising from contract compliance-related issues.
Sarah also maintains an active pro bono practice, providing counsel to U.S. service members with respect to the correction of military records and discharge upgrade requests.
Overhauling the GSA Schedule
On October 17, 2025, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) announced that it plans to issue a Mass Modification to GSA’s Multiple Award Schedule (“MAS” or “Schedule”) Solicitation[1] and Schedule contracts in November 2025 (“Refresh”). Periodically, GSA may issue a Mass Modification to Schedule contracts to uniformly impose changes to the contract terms applicable to all Schedule contract holders, often as a result of changes in applicable law, regulation, or policy. This approach also ensures that existing Schedule contracts have consistent terms, even though with the evergreen nature of the Solicitation those contracts have been entered into at different times and are at different stages of performance.
This Refresh (i.e., Refresh #30) will implement several significant changes with the goal to align the GSA Schedule with recent developments in the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (“RFO”).[2] Although the full text of the Refresh is not yet available, GSA’s Refresh outline provides insight into the changes that are to come as GSA seeks to gain implementation experience with the RFO clauses, provisions, and ordering procedures through its Schedule contracts. Given GSA’s leadership of the RFO process, and this year’s Executive Order to consolidate domestic procurement of common goods and services in GSA to the extent permitted by law,[3] it is no surprise that it has acted quickly to revise its long-term government-wide contracting vehicle according to these recent developments.
Along with the Refresh announcement, GSA opened a 10 business day comment window on buy.gsa.gov, which we expect will close on October 31, 2025. Schedules contractors will be expected to accept the Refresh no later than 90 days from its release which is expected sometime in November. Below we discuss relevant background on the RFO process as it relates to the Schedule and anticipated changes to provisions and clauses in the Refresh. We will continue to watch for updates as GSA’s implementation of the RFO unfolds. Continue Reading Overhauling the GSA Schedule
Not to Be Outpaced: NDAA Presents Measures Addressing China
Following our recent overview of key topics to watch in the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2024, available here, we continue our coverage with a “deep dive” into NDAA provisions related to the People’s Republic of China (“China” or “PRC”) in each of the House and Senate bills. DoD’s focus on strengthening U.S. deterrence and competitive positioning vis-à-vis China features prominently in the 2022 National Defense Strategy (“NDS”) and in recent national security discourse. This focus is shared by the Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (“Select Committee”), led by Chairman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL).
It is no surprise, then, that House and Senate versions of the NDAA include hundreds of provisions—leveraging all elements of national power—intended to address what the NDS brands as China’s “pacing” challenge, including many grounded in Select Committee policy recommendations. Because the NDAA is viewed as “must-pass” legislation, it has served in past years as a vehicle through which other bills not directly related to DoD are enacted in law. In one respect, this year is no different—the Senate version of the NDAA incorporates both the Department of State and Intelligence 2024 Authorization bills, each of which includes provisions related to China.
To get a flavor of the approach to China in this year’s NDAA, look no further than the “Ending China’s Developing Nation Status Act” in Section 1399L of the Senate bill, which would require U.S. opposition to granting China “developing nation” status in treaties under negotiation and by international organizations of which the U.S. and China are members, such as the World Trade Organization. Classification as a “developing nation” affords China access to preferential loans and other economic benefits intended to increase trading opportunities, notwithstanding its current status as an upper-middle income country (as determined by the World Bank), and the world’s second largest economy, trailing only the U.S. Not to be outdone, Section 155 of the House bill contains a provision mandating expedited deployment of advanced radars to track high-altitude balloons and other potential threats to the U.S., in direct response to the incident earlier this year in which a Chinese balloon flew across the U.S. before being shot down by the Air Force.
Given these provisions, and many more (some we discuss below), this year’s NDAA strikes us as different. It incorporates many more China-related provisions and many of these would impose greater obligations on government contractors to limit their interactions with the PRC and entities affiliated with the PRC Government. Whether the laundry list of China-related provisions in the current NDAA survive, and in what form, will be determined by the conference process currently underway. But these provisions have the potential to impose significant near-term burdens on contractors—requiring them to assess their obligations and make adjustments to ensure compliance. Indeed, these provisions may be far more disruptive than requirements imposed by prior year NDAA China provisions that contractors have navigated by reassessing supply chains and increasing due diligence. All government contractors and suppliers to government contractors with any connection to China would be well advised to monitor how the NDAA conference approaches resolution of this legislation over the coming months.Continue Reading Not to Be Outpaced: NDAA Presents Measures Addressing China
Biden Administration 100-Day Supply Chain Assessment: Insights for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
The End of CSP and PRC Requirements? — GSA’s TDR Pilot Program Faces Further Internal Criticism
For the last several years, GSA has been piloting just such an alternative: the Transactional Data Reporting (“TDR”) program, through which the government collects transaction-level data on products and services purchased through the Schedule to make data-driven decisions that save taxpayer dollars. GSA has been running a TDR pilot program for several years to test the potential for a new regulatory regime, though the program sometimes has been the source of criticism and controversy. Now that controversy has heightened further: GSA’s Office of Inspector General published an audit report on June 24, 2021 that is sharply critical of the program, only to see GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (“FAS”) Commissioner publicly reject the report’s conclusions and defend TDR’s effectiveness.
Continue Reading The End of CSP and PRC Requirements? — GSA’s TDR Pilot Program Faces Further Internal Criticism
U.S. Senators Propose Trade-Pact Waivers Amidst Focus on Domestic Preference Laws
…
Continue Reading U.S. Senators Propose Trade-Pact Waivers Amidst Focus on Domestic Preference Laws