NCTA - The Internet & Television Association supports the FAR Council's efforts to streamline federal procurement and harmonize security prohibitions. However, they specifically urge the Council to adopt the FCC's proposed definition of "produced by" rather than the Council's own proposed definition, arguing that the FCC's version is more workable and avoids unnecessary complications regarding licensed intellectual property.

The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) supports the FAR Council's efforts to streamline federal acquisition processes and harmonize security requirements. They provide specific recommendations to clarify definitions for CUI, commercial software, and AI, while advocating for risk-based supply chain security and "best value" procurement objectives.

The law firm Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP is submitting comments on behalf of a global telecommunications client regarding proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). While the firm supports the overall goal of streamlining the FAR, they argue that several specific provisions create significant administrative burdens, legal uncertainties, and compliance risks for contractors.

The commenter, writing as an individual, opposes the proposed rule because it creates an impractical administrative burden for Governmentwide commercial purchase card (GPC) transactions that exceed the Micro-Purchase Threshold. They argue that the requirement for transaction-specific security representations will hinder rapid response and overseas operations, and they propose several exemptions to maintain procurement efficiency.

Judith Rubinstein, representing the Department of War Education Activity (DoWEA), argues that the proposed FAR provision 52.240-90 is misleading because it implies the existence of a searchable list of all excluded parties in SAM. She recommends deleting or revising the text to reflect that users must search for specific entities rather than scanning a pre-existing list.

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.

The commenter recommends that the Government Purchase Card (GPC) program align its documentation requirements with other contract actions by reducing the administrative burden on merchants. They argue that since the burden of representation has shifted to the submission of an offer under RFO 52.240-90, micro-purchase processes should be simplified to remove overt representation requirements for merchants.

The commenter expresses appreciation for the FAR Council's efforts to streamline regulations but requests clarification on how to handle Section 889 compliance for micro-purchases. They argue that removing representations from SAM.gov could create administrative burdens and inconsistencies for high-volume purchase card transactions and suggest several alternative mechanisms for maintaining compliance.