Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12559
Amy NovakOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter opposes the proposed rule because it removes Section 889 representation data from SAM.gov, which they argue will create administrative burdens and inconsistent implementation for micro-purchases and government purchase cards. They recommend retaining existing SAM.gov representations and establishing a dedicated process for micro-purchases, while also requesting clearer language regarding specific exemptions for activities involving covered telecommunications equipment.
There is no guidance for micro-purchases on Section 889 in 40.2.
The proposed rule in FAR 40.2 indicates Section 889 representation data will no longer be stored in SAM, instead will be completed for each contract solicitation. This presents a major implementation challenge for the government purchase card program and micro-purchases that are commercial buys not on an existing government contract. The proposed rule does not identify a government-wide mechanism for documenting vendor compliance when no solicitation exists. This would result in agencies developing independent processes resulting in inconsistent implementation, increased admin cost and additional burden on commercial vendors and agencies. I would recommend the FAR council consider the following:
Retain existing Section 889 SAM.gov representations for streamlined compliance and establish a dedicated Government Purchase Card (GPC) control process specifically tailored for micro-purchases that bypass standard, written solicitations. This approach minimizes administrative burden on cardholders while ensuring no federal funds are used to acquire covered telecommunications equipment or services.
The language in 54.240-3(d)(1)(i) identifying activities that are not individually considered use of covered telecommunications equipment or services is not clear and leaves things open to wide interpretation. Understand this outlines specific exemptions from what is legally considered the “use of covered telecommunications equipment or services” for a contractor, however clarifying language would make this much clearer. I would recommend the FAR council consider the following update to the last sentence:
For purposes of this specific prohibition only, if a contractor engages in any of the following activities involving covered telecommunications equipment or services, those activities do not individually trigger a violation of the “use” prohibition: commercial sales, maintenance, testing services, warranty services, and employee's use of personal equipment.