Shutterstock_2241902509.jpg

Evidence of Trade Practice and Custom in Federal Contracts

When interpreting terms of a federal contract, dispute adjudicative forums may turn to extrinsic evidence of trade practice and custom to resolve ambiguities. Trade usage refers to the use of terms or language with such regularity in a particular vocation, location, or industry that a contracting party is justified in its expectation that their technical meaning will be observed with respect to the contract. The use of trade practice and custom evidence as an interpretive device is not typically available when contractual language is plain and unambiguous on its face. However, under certain conditions, such as when a term has an accepted industry meaning different from its ordinary meaning, it may be appropriate for the dispute adjudicative forum to turn to evidence of trade practice and custom even when the contractual language is seemingly unambiguous. In such situations, the party introducing the evidence must demonstrate that it reasonably relied upon the accepted industry meaning as opposed to the ordinary meaning at the time of contract formation. In other words, the party presenting the evidence must show that the trade practice or custom genuinely reflected its intent when entering the contract, rather than serving as a post hoc rationalization for its actions.

Parties to a federal contract often rely on evidence of industry trade practice and custom to define technical terms. For instance, when the license agreement of commercial software is incorporated in a federal contract, parties may rely on evidence of trade practice and custom in the commercial software industry to define technical terms in that agreement. In Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) 59913, the Army used such extrinsic evidence to defeat the contractor’s motion for summary judgment in a dispute arising under a contract for commercially available bi-directional translation software. The ASBCA issued its opinion on the contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment on June 1, 2022. Pursuant to the underlying contract, the Army purchased 20 single-user licenses of the commercial software for $96,800 in 2010. The contractor delivered the software to the government on 20 compact disks (CDs), packaged in a box with a written, paper version of the long-form license agreement. Additionally, each CD included a separate piece of paper with a short-form agreement inside the shrinkwrap surrounding the case. Finally, the software installation application included a clickwrap agreement, requiring the end user to click and accept the license agreement before installing the software on a computer.

The long-form license agreement required the Army to provide the contractor with a list of registered users and stated that each license permitted the government to install the software on only one computer. The long-form agreement also prohibited the government from making copies of the software or allowing others to make such copies. Similarly, the short-form shrinkwrap agreement provided that “this CD can be used for installation on one computer system only.” The shrinkwrap agreement instructed the Army to activate each installation with the respective product ID printed on the face of the CD case. The shrinkwrap agreement also warned the government that the software should not be copied onto another CD, hard disk, or any other storage device. Finally, the clickwrap agreement in the installation application required the end user to agree to the software licensing agreement by clicking the accept button and entering the product ID unique to that copy. The clickwrap agreement did not relist the terms of the long-form agreement or inform the user that the software was provided under a single-user license. Software manufacturers often mitigate the risk of unauthorized copying, modification, or distribution by adopting a Software as a Service (SaaS) or other cloud service models. However, this option was not available for the contractor because the software needed to be used on the government’s secure computers in Afghanistan. These computers often did not connect to the internet, and when they did, the internet connection was inconsistent and problematic.

Significantly, while the contract included the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.212-4, “Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Software,” it did not contain the clause at FAR 52.227-19, “Commercial Computer Software License.” In addition to requiring that the terms and provisions of the contract comply with federal laws and the FAR, the clause at FAR 52.227-19 lists specific conditions under which the government may use, copy, reproduce, modify, or disclose the software being acquired. Barring those expressly enumerated conditions, FAR 52.227-19 prohibits the government’s use, reproduction, or disclosure of the software. Thus, the incorporation of that clause in the contract resolves any inconsistencies with the software manufacturer’s commercial licensing agreement regarding the government’s rights to use, reproduce, or disclose the commercial software. The parties also failed to negotiate and set forth the extent of the government’s rights to use the software as required under FAR 27.405-3 when FAR 52.227-19 is not included in the contract. Consequently, the Army was bound by the terms of the included license agreement, which was affirmed by the ASBCA in a related appeal from 2018. In that appeal, the ASBCA determined that the terms of the license agreement were sufficiently consistent with those provided by the contractor to commercial purchasers and did not otherwise violate federal law. The ASBCA also found that the Army had breached the contract by violating the terms of the license agreement, as it had permitted the installation of a single copy of the software onto more than one computer and failed to provide the contractor with a list of registered users.

Meanwhile, one of the legal issues presented to the ASBCA in the contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment in ASBCA 59913 was whether the contract, which was for 20 single-user licenses, limited the Army’s use to 20 unique individual users. Importantly, the contract did not define the term “single-user,” and the contracting officer (CO) indicated that he did not clearly understand what a single-user license might entail. In its motion for partial summary judgment, the contractor took the position that a single-user license meant the software could only be installed on a single computer for one specific individual, and any other use was prohibited. Meanwhile, the government argued that the term “single-user” permitted more than one individual user to access the software on a single computer. According to the Army, the license also allowed it to remove the software from one computer and to subsequently install it on another machine, as long as a single copy of the software was installed on only one computer at any given time. To support its position, the Army attached a declaration from an expert witness stating that the term “single-user,” as used in the commercial software industry, did not restrict the use of a copy of the software to only a single specified user. Instead, in his declaration, the expert witness analogized the single-user license to a library book, which permitted many people, but only one person at a time, to use the software. Based on this expert testimony and drawing inferences in favor of the Army as the non-movant, the ASBCA denied the contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that a dispute over a material fact existed over how the contract’s “single-user” term should be interpreted.

Whenever practicable, contractors should negotiate and incorporate the desired limitations and restrictions on the government’s use of commercial software in their federal contracts. When drafting such limitations and restrictions, contractors need to not only ensure that the license grant is sufficiently narrow and consistent with federal laws and the FAR but also account for trade practice and customs. Since the clause at FAR 52.227-19 was not included in the contract described above, the contractor could have protected its interests by expressly defining what a single-user license entailed in the licensing agreement. For instance, the contractor could have limited the license grant to permit only one authorized individual end user to install and use one copy of the translation software on one computer for exclusive use by that single user on the computer on which the software was first installed. Describing the limitations on the license grant in this manner would have prevented the government from introducing evidence of trade practice and custom with respect to the term “single-user.” However, even though the government successfully defeated the contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment, in later stages of the litigation, the government will have to demonstrate that it reasonably relied on the expert witness’ definition of the term “single-user” at the time of contract formation. Doing so may prove challenging, considering the CO’s testimony that he did not understand what a single-user software license entailed. Finally, the government may have to prove that the definition of “single-user,” as advanced by its expert witness, was prevalent in the commercial software industry at the time of contract formation in 2010. This may present additional challenges if the definition advanced by the expert witness became customary in the industry at a later stage.

This Federal Procurement Insight is provided as a general summary of the applicable law in the practice area and does not constitute legal advice. Contractors wishing to learn more are encouraged to consult the TILLIT LAW PLLC Client Portal or Contact Us to determine how the law would apply in a specific situation.

Related Insights

TLF-Contract-Claims-Insight-12.jpg

The U.S. Federal Government often utilizes federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts to purchase commercially available off-the-shelf software (COTS) software from reputable pre-vetted software vendors. These FSS contracts are administered by the General Services Administration (GSA), and they eliminate the need for lengthy open-market solicitations for common COTS software products. FSS contracts permit agencies to purchase COTS software products quickly and efficiently from pre-vetted software vendors using pricing that reflects volume discounts due to GSA’s government-wide purchasing leverage. Generally, the COTS software product manufacturer’s end-user licensing agreement (EULA) is incorporated into the procurement contract and dictates the Government’s use of the COTS software. The term “contractor” has been expressly defined in 41 U.S.C. § 7107(7) as a “party to a Federal Government contract other than the Federal Government.” Therefore, in COTS software product purchases, since the pre-vetted software vendor has the FSS contract with the Government, the COTS software product manufacturer is generally not considered a contractor in the traditional sense because it is not a party to the Government contract. Accordingly, since the CDA does not permit appeals by anyone who is not a party to a Government contract, COTS software product manufacturers are generally unable to bring contract claims against the Government under the CDA. However, subcontractors and certain third parties may achieve privity of contract with the Government under particular circumstances, which allows them to bring claims against the Federal Government under the CDA.

more
TLF-Bid-Protest-Insight-14.jpg

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994 establishes the Government’s preference for acquiring commercial items through customary commercial practices. Therefore, prospective contractors may raise pre-award protests against commercial item solicitations that deviate from customary commercial practices without obtaining an adequate waiver for doing so. In defending against such protests, it is the Government’s burden to show that it conducted adequate market research, which demonstrated that the solicitation provisions at issue are consistent with customary commercial practices. Alternatively, if the Government deviates from such customary commercial practices, it must obtain a waiver. Such waivers must be based on adequate market research, describe the customary commercial practice in the marketplace, and demonstrate why the Government’s requirements cannot be met by following customary commercial practices. In other words, the government must demonstrate its need to include solicitation provisions that are inconsistent with customary commercial practices.

In B-411760.2, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained a bid protest alleging that the Army failed to conduct adequate market research to reasonably support its determination that the pricing terms for a solicitation procuring a commercial service were consistent with customary commercial practices. The FAR Part 12 solicitation was issued in 2015 to procure solid waste management services at Fort Polk, Louisiana, where nearly 44,000 U.S. Army soldiers trained yearly before deployment. The solicitation contemplated a single-award indefinite-delivery requirements contract and required prospective contractors to submit pricing reflecting all fixed and variable costs per ton. That is, contractors were only permitted to invoice the Government based on the tonnage of waste collected. The incumbent contractor filed a pre-award protest alleging that the solicitation’s per-ton pricing provisions were inconsistent with customary commercial practice.

more
TLF-Federal-Procurement-Insight-48.jpg

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 12.212(a) requires the federal government to acquire commercial software under the same licenses customarily provided to the public. Since the FAR does not offer standard licensing agreements or terms for commercial software, contractors must generally negotiate the terms of use when the commercial software license is incorporated into a government contract. Since any terms incorporated into a federal contract must be consistent with federal law and take into account any sovereign immunity considerations, contractors should thoroughly review the license agreement before submitting it to the government for incorporation. While each commercial software license agreement is different and potentially raises unique challenges during its incorporation into federal contracts, contractors should carefully review the following standard clauses in a commercial license agreement for compliance.

  • Assignment Clause

FAR § 42.12 outlines specific requirements that must be met before contractors are allowed to assign government contracts. A standard commercial software license agreement may permit unilateral assignment. However, such an assignment would violate the FAR, which requires express government approval, among other requirements, before the assignment of a government contract. Therefore, to ensure compliance with the FAR, software vendors should consult with the software manufacturer as necessary and remove any standard assignment clauses before submitting the licensing agreement to the government for incorporation. Suppose the software manufacturer is reluctant or unable to remove the assignment clause from the agreement. In that case, the assignment clause should, at a minimum, be modified to include express language that addresses and promises compliance with FAR § 42.12 in case of any contract assignments.

more
TLF-Contract-Claims-Insight-66.jpg

Software manufacturers that provide commercial software to the government via pre-approved intermediary software vendors on the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) do not contract directly with the federal government. Due to this lack of privity of contract with the government, such software manufacturers are unable to bring direct contract claims against the government under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Since the software manufacturers’ end-user licensing agreement (EULA) is typically incorporated into the government contract and dictates the government’s use of the commercial software – the government’s violation of the EULA is considered a non-frivolous cause of action for a breach of contract claim. However, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) refused to recognize the right of software manufacturers in such situations to bring a direct CDA claim when the intermediary GSA FSS software vendor does not sponsor their claim against the government.

In the underlying claim at issue, the software manufacturer had alleged that end users at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) violated its EULA in 2015. The claim was not sponsored by the GSA FSS software vendor. The software manufacturer alleged that as part of FAR Part 12 acquisition of software licenses, FDA end users owed it a freestanding obligation, as they had “clicked” a box representing their agreement to the terms of the EULA. According to the software manufacturer, this freestanding obligation owed by FDA end users, created a privity of contract between the software manufacturer and the FDA. Meanwhile, the GSA and the FDA did not deny the software manufacturer’s allegations concerning the specific acts of the FDA end users leading to the alleged violations of the EULA. However, the agencies generally denied violating any legal obligations to the software manufacturer citing a lack of privity between the government and the software manufacturer, and the GSA FSS software vendor’s lack of sponsorship of the software manufacturer’s claim. The software manufacturer’s January 2019 appeal at the CBCA was dismissed by the Board for a lack of jurisdiction. The software manufacturer appealed the CBCA’s dismissal at the Federal Circuit. In March 2024, the Federal Circuit in Avue Technologies Corp. v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 96 F.4th 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (covered here) vacated and remanded for the CBCA to consider as a merits issue, whether the software manufacturer was a party to – or otherwise had enforceable rights pursuant to the “procurement contract” – defined by the Federal Circuit as the software manufacturer’s EULA in addition to the underlying GSA FSS or task order contract.

more

Evidence of Trade Practice and Custom in Federal Contracts

TILLIT LAW Federal Procurement Insights