TLF-Federal-Procurement-Insight-48.jpg

Reviewing Standard Clauses in Commercial Software License Agreements for Integration in Federal Contracts

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.

  • Change or Termination Clauses

Commercial software license agreements often contain clauses that permit the software manufacturer to make unilateral changes or modifications to the agreement. Such agreements may also include termination clauses allowing the software manufacturer to terminate the contract unilaterally. Due to the unique nature of government contracts, only the government can make unilateral changes to a government contract. For instance, under FAR § 43.201, only the contracting officer can issue modifications or changes pursuant to the included changes clause in the government contract. Similarly, only the government has the ability to terminate a government contract for convenience or cause. Therefore, any standard clauses that allow the software manufacturer to make unilateral changes to or terminate the contract would conflict with the government’s rights and violate the FAR.

  • Confidentiality Clause

Standard commercial software license agreements may contain a confidentiality clause restricting the government’s ability to disclose the contents of the agreement. If such a confidentiality clause is overly broad, it may directly conflict with the government’s obligations to disclose the contract or its terms under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The government may also be obligated to disclose the terms of the agreement pursuant to a court order in litigation or other such circumstances. In reviewing standard commercial software license agreements, contractors should pay close attention to any confidentiality clauses to ensure they are narrow enough to protect the software manufacturer’s interests within the framework of FOIA exemptions. For instance, confidentiality clauses that only prevent disclosure of commercially sensitive or proprietary information should usually comply with the government’s disclosure obligations. However, any overly broad confidentiality clauses that prevent government disclosure of the entire agreement without discrimination should be modified. Contractors should also be mindful of the government’s independent obligations to protect sensitive contractor information and consider removing any confidentiality clauses if not necessary.

  • Integration Clause

Standard integration clauses in commercial software license agreements may state that the licensing agreement is fully integrated, reflecting the entire agreement between the parties. However, such a standard integration clause is defective because it fails to account for the fact that the license agreement is generally incorporated into the government contract as an attachment. Therefore, the commercial software license agreement cannot be the entire contract. Contractors should carefully review and modify the standard integration clause to reflect the commercial software license agreement’s incorporation into the broader government contract.

Commercial software manufacturers or vendors should have an established process for conducting due diligence reviews on commercial software license agreements before sending them to the government for incorporation into government contracts. Such due diligence reviews should include a thorough review of standard commercial contract clauses to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Contractors must be additionally meticulous in their review when submitting a commercial software manufacturer’s End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) for incorporation into a General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. Such a review may prove pivotal to the commercial software manufacturer’s ability to assert claims during any subsequently ordered task orders. In other situations, commercial software vendors and manufacturers may benefit from a repeatable process addressing edits, modifications, or removal of standard commercial clauses before the license agreement is incorporated into a federal contract.

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-Bid-Protest-Insight-12.jpg

A basic tenet of the U.S. federal public procurement system is a fair and competitive bid process. This means federal agencies must provide potential contractors with sufficiently detailed solicitations that are clear and concise so they may compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. However, sometimes, issues arise when the solicitation itself contains hidden pitfalls. These are known as latent ambiguities. A latent ambiguity in a bid protest arises when a defect in the solicitation is not initially visible but only becomes apparent with the introduction of additional evidence, such as additional technical specifications, past performance evaluations, or discussions. Latent ambiguities may be differentiated from patent ambiguities, which are apparent solicitation defects or errors evident on the face of the solicitation.

A latent ambiguity may arise due to various reasons, including poorly drafted solicitation provisions, inconsistent or conflicting solicitation language, a lack of adequate clarification or guidance from the agency in response to offeror queries, or just a change in circumstances since the issuance of the solicitation. To demonstrate the presence of a latent ambiguity, the protestor should demonstrate that the ambiguity is not readily resolvable by referencing the solicitation or any applicable regulations. Furthermore, the protestor must prove that the latent ambiguity is genuine and material. To prove materiality, contractors can demonstrate that the latent ambiguity ultimately had a bearing on the source selection decision. The protestor must also show reliance on its reasonable interpretation of the latent ambiguity and competitive prejudice stemming from that reasonable reliance. In other words, the protestor must show that the latent ambiguity could have two or more reasonable interpretations and that the protestor relied on its own reasonable interpretation of the latent ambiguity in drafting its proposal. Finally, the protestor’s reliance on its own reasonable interpretation should have resulted in competitive prejudice.

more
TLF-Contract-Claims-Insight-8.jpg

The interpretation of federal contracts is generally governed by the plain language of the contract. This means that adjudicative forums assign meaning to federal contracts primarily by giving the contractual words their ordinary sense and without referring to extrinsic evidence. If the plain meaning of contractual words is unambiguous, that meaning generally controls for the purposes of contract interpretation. However, there may be situations where the contract terms are unclear or ambiguous permitting more than one reasonable interpretation. In such situations, adjudicative forums may rely on certain extrinsic evidence to resolve contract interpretation disputes.

  • Extrinsic Evidence in the Solicitation Phase

In resolving the meaning of ambiguous terms in case of interpretive disputes in federal contracts, adjudicative forums often look to the discussions between the government and prospective contractors in the solicitation phase of the procurement. Statements made by government officials during their interactions with prospective contractors at pre-proposal conferences, industry days, or pre-award testing may be used as evidence in contract interpretations as long as such statements do not directly contradict the contract language. As with other extrinsic evidence in the context of contract interpretation, written communications, such as handouts and meeting minutes, generally hold much more weight than oral statements made by government officials.

more
TLF-Contract-Claims-Insight-38.jpg

A War Risks clause may be added to government contracts if performance is required in regions with a risk of war or war-like events. Such a clause helps allocate responsibility between the government and the contractor for any losses or damages caused by such events. While the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) does not specifically contain a standard war risks clause, the defense supplement to the FAR (DFARS) includes clauses such as DFARS 252.228-7000, “Reimbursement for War-Hazard Losses.” Such a clause addresses the allowability of costs of war-hazard benefits for contractor employees. A War Risks clause can typically be negotiated between the government and the prospective contractor at the time of formation of the contract. As contracts in different regions have varying circumstances, risk allocation for specific events described in the War Risks clause should also be tailored and negotiated for each applicable contract. When disputes between the government and the contractor arise that implicate the War Risks clause, adjudicative forums such as the Boards of Contract Appeals or Federal Courts interpret the language of the War Risks clause to allocate increased costs liability between the parties.

more
Insight 45 - Substack.jpg

As contracting parties, government agencies and their contractors must adhere to specific requirements in retaining contracts and records generated during the formation and administration of federal contracts. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contains requirements describing specific retention periods of various records throughout the procurement lifecycle. It is important for contractors to ensure strict compliance with these record retention policies and procedures as contract documents and related materials may be required as supporting evidence in case of bid protests or claims litigation. Furthermore, contract documents and materials may also be subject to Government audits during the required retention periods. Contractors should also be generally cognizant of retention requirements applicable to federal agencies in case they need access to government files and records. Depending on the specific type of file or record, contractors may obtain government records during the discovery process in case of litigation, or pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Federal agencies also make certain contractual documents and records available publicly.

o Contractor Retention of Files & Records Relating to Government Contracts

more

Reviewing Standard Clauses in Commercial Software License Agreements for Integration in Federal Contracts

TILLIT LAW Federal Procurement Insights