United States: Price Reductions Are Dead; Long Live Price Reductions

You no doubt have heard by now about GSA's 23 June effort to "embrace modern technology while moving away from outmoded practices" – specifically, its implementation of the new Transactional Data Reporting Rule ("TDR Rule") and its concurrent elimination of the Price Reductions Clause ("PRC") and the Commercial Sales Practices Format ("CSPF"). See 81 Fed. Reg. 41104 (June 23, 2016). The new rule covers certain GSA Multiple Award Schedules as well as the Agency's GWAC and IDIQ contracts. As it represents the most significant change to the GSA MAS program since 1994 (when GSA removed federal sales as a PRC trigger), the new rule has the potential to change significantly the way Schedule contractors (and others) do business; hence, my willingness to interrupt your otherwise enjoyable day with a treatise on GSA Schedule contracting.

Speaking generally, the Final Rule, effective 60 days after 23 June, reflects a trade with industry. In exchange for your willingness to accept the increased burden of tracking and reporting detailed transaction-level federal sales data, GSA will eliminate the PRC and CSPF – and the complexity, burden, and risk that comes with those two much-maligned provisions – from your contract. So, as my grandmother used to say, what's not to like?

Well, quite a bit apparently. Let's start with the PRC/CSPF side of the proposed contractual trade.

The PRC and the CSPF Sleep With The Fishes

Most within industry (and some within Government) have been complaining about the PRC and the CSPF for years. Both provisions have been attacked time and again as overly complex, extremely burdensome, and substantively unnecessary. In 2010, the Government's own MAS Advisory Panel joined the attack by recognizing the burden and complexity of the PRC and recommending its removal from the Schedules Program. And now GSA itself seems to have seen the light as well. According to GSA, the new Final Rule will do away with "the complex CSP and PRC pricing disclosure requirements." (Id. at 41120).

When this bargain first was presented to contractors in the Proposed Rule, commentators (including yours truly) challenged it as an illusory deal. While the Proposed Rule did do away with the PRC, it left the CSPF in place. In fact, it not only left it in place, it increased its scope by allowing Contracting Officers ("COs") to request an updated CSPF at their discretion. (For more on this, see my prior article titled "I'm Not Dead Yet," at http://www.governmentcontractslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/108/2015/03/Im-Not-Dead-Yet-Article.pdf.

The Final Rule, in contrast, actually eliminates both the PRC and the CSPF. The Rule announces this change as a "substantial burden reduction," which it most certainly is. (Id. at 41104).

Under the new rule, instead of submitting a CSPF, presumably you will need to submit only your proposed Schedule pricing to your CO. GSA then will look into its magical TDR box and use the aggregated transactional data it finds there (described below) to evaluate whether your proposed prices are fair and reasonable. GSA's COs also will use these data to evaluate "requests to adjust pricing and add new items to current contracts" without the submission of a CSPF. (Id. at 41113). Where GSA believes the transactional data at its disposal are inadequate to evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of pricing, the CO retains the discretion to request additional data from the offeror, including "information other than cost or pricing data." GSA says it will be rolling out additional guidance to COs that establishes the following order of evaluation priority:

  1. Using data that are readily available, in accordance with FAR 15.404 . . . including prices paid information on contracts for the same or similar items, contract-level prices on other FSS contracts or Governmentwide contracts for the same or similar items, and commercial data sources providing publicly available pricing information.
  2. Performing market research to compare prices for the same or similar items in accordance with FAR 15.404 . . . .
  3. Requesting additional pricing information such as ''data other than certified cost or pricing data'' (as defined at FAR 2.101) . . . from the offeror in accordance with FAR 15.404 . . . when the offered prices cannot be determined to be fair and reasonable based on the data found from other sources.

GSA explains that this guidance will help align GSA's procedures with the FAR. (81 Fed. Reg. 41114). The FAR, in turn, establishes the following order of preference for price evaluations:

  • Other pricing data available within the Government,
  • Pricing data obtained from sources other than the offeror,
  • Additional pricing data obtained from the offeror, and, as a last resort,
  • Cost data.

Notwithstanding GSA's prioritized list of price evaluation techniques, which does admittedly come close to the FAR's own prioritized list, I suspect in practice COs will look for CSPF-like submissions where they have inadequate transactional data. While they likely won't call it a CSPF, it won't surprise me one bit if the requests call for the same or similar vertical pricing details embraced by the current CSPF.

It also won't surprise me if COs consistently forget the mandate of FAR Part 15.4 that they may "obtain the type and quantity of data necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price, but not more data than is necessary."

Regardless of the price evaluation technique applied, without the CSPF, there will be no negotiation of a Basis of Award customer, which, of course, makes sense since there will be no PRC either. Well, at least there won't be the current version of the PRC. While this is very good news, it is not all roses. In the place of today's highly complex and burdensome PRC, the new PRC provides that

the Government may request from the Contractor, and the Contractor may provide to the Government, a temporary or permanent price reduction at any time during the contract period." (81 Fed. Reg. 41139).

What this new language suggests to me is that any time a GSA CO sees lower pricing in her Magic TDR Box, she can ping the vendor and say "lower your Schedule pricing now." In other words, I'm not quite sure "request" really means "request" here. Or, in the words of the great Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Ironically, this unfettered discretion actually moves us closer to the pre-1994 PRC when sales to federal customers had to be tracked because they could trigger the PRC. While the parallel is not perfect – since (i) it's no longer the contractor's obligation to identify such sales as PRC triggers and (ii) the failure to identify and report such sales won't lead to a Government charge of fraud – it now is more likely that sales to federal customers will have a price-reducing implication for vendors.

All in all, though, the elimination of the PRC and the CSPF is a good thing. But to meaningfully evaluate its worth, one first must examine the flip side of the bilateral coin. So let's now take a look at what GSA has to say about its benefit of the proposed bargain.

Transactional Data Reporting

In exchange for the elimination of the PRC and the CSPF, GSA's new rule requires Schedule holders (and other GSA contractors) to accept a new clause: GSAR 552.238-75 (Transactional Data Reporting). The new clause requires contractors to track and report to GSA the following federal sales details at the line-item level:

  • Contract or BPA Number
  • Order Number
  • Non Federal Entity (The rule is not clear what this one means, but it probably refers to authorized, non-federal purchasers like prime contractors and/or states and localities)
  • Description of Deliverable
  • Manufacturer Name
  • Manufacturer Part Number
  • Unit of Measure
  • Quantity
  • Universal Product Code
  • Price per Unit
  • Total Price

COs can add other data elements to this list, but only with specified management approval.

Upon gathering these data, vendors must report them to GSA on a monthly basis. Reports must be made thirty days following the end of the month through a new GSA portal. (IFF payments, however, still are made quarterly, adding some further complexity into the mix.) These data then will be aggregated with other vendors' data to provide an extensive new cache of business intelligence for GSA Schedule COs and government purchasers. According to GSA, its COs will take these data "into consideration when awarding FSS contracts and evaluating requests to adjust pricing and add new items to current contracts." (81 Fed. Reg. 41113). Ordering activities likewise will be asked to consider transactional data in negotiating their task orders, delivery orders, and BPAs.

I have two primary problems with the collection and use of transactional data:

First, industry should be concerned over the cost of implementing and administering the new rule. GSA's initial burden estimate for the TDR aspect of the rule was 6 hours to set up a compliance system and 2 minutes to 4 hours per month to administer. Industry rightly viewed this estimate as wholly inadequate. To its credit, GSA upped its estimate in the Final Rule. Now GSA posits the average vendor will have to spend 8 hours setting up a manual system and 240 hours setting up an automated system; and from 15 minutes to 48 hours per month in administration time. Frankly, I have no idea whether GSA's estimate is accurate or not; but I know of several companies who think GSA's guess still is too low. Whether it's accurate or not, however, I'm confident the cost of maintaining a TDR reporting system will turn out to be less expensive than the cost of maintaining a PRC/CSPF compliance system.

Second, industry should be extremely concerned that GSA will use its new data to drive prices down to irrational levels by making apples-to-oranges pricing comparisons. Since this concern is a big one, let me illustrate the risk with four scenarios:

  • Scenario One: You sell a high quality, US-made hammer for $50. The GSA CO looks in her magic TDR data box and finds a lesser quality, foreign-made hammer for $25. The CO then demands you either reduce the price of your hammer or take it off Schedule.
  • Scenario Two: You sell a software product for $500 that you fully support with a strong warranty, multiple customer support vehicles, and an industry-leading maintenance program. A competitor sells software with similar basic functionality, but with a far less robust warranty, no meaningful customer support, and no maintenance plan. The CO demands you either reduce the Schedule price of your software or remove it from the Schedule.
  • Scenario Three: You sell a computer system on Schedule for $5,000. You also hold a Schedule BPA and offer that same system through that BPA for $4,500 – a 10% discount. Your (and your competitors') discounted BPA sales find their way into GSA's magic TDR box and into the hands of your GSA CO. The CO demands you either reduce the Schedule price of your computer or remove it from the Schedule. A reduction of your Schedule price, however, will prompt a further reduction to your BPA price, which, in turn, will prompt . . . . Well, you get the idea.
  • Scenario Four: You manufacture a cutting-edge security product tailored specifically for the Government's use, and offer it on Schedule for $50,000. The product is a commercial item, but there are no comparable tailored products in the marketplace. Your GSA CO finds something he/she believes to be roughly comparable in the transactional data at a lower price. The CO demands you either reduce the price of your product or remove it from the Schedule.

While these all are hypothetical scenarios, they are not spun from whole cloth. GSA readily concedes in the Final Rule that its COs will be using the new data to draw imperfect comparisons. According to the Final Rule, "while transactional data is most useful for price analysis when comparing like items, it does not mean the data is not useful when perfect comparisons cannot be made." (Id. at 41112).

GSA clearly is sensitive to this concern. Indeed, one might say GSA is a little too sensitive. The Final Rule repeatedly tries to assuage industry's fear that COs will turn the MAS program into an LPTA (low price / technically acceptable) program, where price is king and value is marginalized if not abandoned. Here are just a few examples of GSA's efforts to assure industry this fear will not be realized:

  • "However, transactional data does not transform the federal acquisition system into a lowest-price procurement model." (Id. at 41108).
  • "The Government's preference will continue to be 'best value' . . ." Id.
  • "Transactional data is viewed in the context of each procurement, taking into account desired terms and conditions, performance levels, past customer satisfaction, and other relevant information." Id.
  • "Training and guidance deployed in connection with this rule emphasizes the importance of considering the best overall value (not just unit price) for each procurement, taking into account desired terms and conditions, performance levels, past customer satisfaction, and other relevant information." (Id. at 41113).
  • "Contracting officers are encouraged to discuss with the offeror perceived variances between offered prices, transactional data, and existing contract-level prices, in order to evaluate whether other attributes (e.g., superior warranties, quantity discounts, etc.) justify awarding higher prices." (Id. at 41114).
  • "The GSAM guidance for FSS contracts, which will be viewable on Acquisition.gov, instructs FSS contracting officers to make fair and reasonable, not lowest-price-regardless, determinations." (Id. at 41117).
  • "FSS contracting officers will be instructed to evaluate the data in the context of each offer, taking into account not only cost and quality discounts, but desired terms and conditions, unique attributes, socio-economic considerations, and other relevant information." (Id. at 41120)

And this is a just a partial list. I can't help feeling the vehemence of GSA's defense underlies an inherent realization that industry's concerns are not overblown. GSA, thou dost protest too much.

GSA's defensiveness and industry's concerns come with good cause. After all, industry had similar fears when GSA rolled out its horizontal pricing evaluation plan (i.e., its plan to evaluate an offeror's prices by comparing them to other offerors' prices), and those fears were realized. COs have been making apples-to-oranges comparisons and pressuring contractors to reduce their prices in precisely this fashion since horizontal pricing came online. And remember, GSA will be relying on its horizontal pricing tool even more than ever as it accumulates more and more purportedly comparable transactional data.

Against this background, all Schedule holders will have to weigh the benefit that comes from the elimination of the PRC/CSPF – in terms of compliance costs and compliance risk – against the likelihood that prices will be driven further down under the new rule.

So What Should You Do?

First, you need to figure out if the new rule applies to you. If you are a GSA GWAC or IDIQ contract holder, the new rule will apply to you right away. For Schedule holders, however, the rule is being implemented in phases as a pilot program. The new clause will not apply to all Schedule holders in the first instance. By its terms, the rule applies only to the following Schedules:

  • Schedule 58 I, Professional Audio/Video, Telemetry/Tracking, Recording/Reproducing and Signal Data Solutions: All SINs
  • Schedule 72, Furnishing and Floor Coverings: All SINs
  • Schedule 03FAC, Facilities Maintenance and Management: All SINs
  • Schedule 51 V, Hardware Superstore: All SINs
  • Schedule 75, Office Products: All SINs
  • Schedule 73, Food Service, Hospitality, Cleaning Equipment and Supplies, Chemicals and Services: All SINs
  • Schedule 00CORP, The Professional Services Schedule: SINs 871-1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, 6, and 7 (Professional Engineering Services)
  • Schedule 70, General Purpose Information Technology Equipment, Software, and Services: SINs 132-8 (Purchase of New Equipment), 132-32, 33, and 34 (Software), and 132-54 and 55 (COMSATCOM)

If you have at least one of the covered SINs, however, then your whole Schedule is covered. On the other hand, the inclusion of one Schedule does not mean your other Schedules are covered. So, for example, if you hold a Schedule 51 and a Schedule 84, your Schedule 51 is covered by the new rule, but your Schedule 84 is not. And you are not permitted to "opt in" your Schedule 84.

Even if your Schedule is covered by the pilot, however, you still have to "opt in" – at least if you are a current Schedule holder. The new rule is optional for current MAS contractors. In other words, it will be incorporated through a bilateral modification, which you will have to agree to. If you don't want the new rule to apply to you, in the words of the late Nancy Regan, just say no.

New Schedule contractors, on the other hand, don't have that choice. The new clause will be incorporated into all new Solicitations and apply to all new contracts following its effective date. Presumably, contract renewals also will incorporate the new clause without the vendor being given an opt in/out option.

Second, you need to figure out whether you are better off accepting the clause now or delaying its application. This decision involves a cost/benefit analysis between (a) the cost of the new TDR in terms of implementation and price pressure and (b) the cost and risk reduction from the elimination of the PRC and CSP. While every vendor will have to balance those competing costs and benefits for themselves, do not undervalue the benefits of tossing out the two most complex and burdensome clauses of the Schedules program. But likewise do not undervalue the very real price pressure that will be put in its place.

You also should include in your deliberation the fact that you likely will be forced to accept the new rule at your next renewal anyway, so holding out may offer only a short-term benefit (if you view it as a benefit at all).

Third, you should reach out to your CO and discuss with him/her the practical issues involved in incorporating the new clause. Will your current CSPF be withdrawn? Will the CO have enough data to make a fair/reasonable assessment? If not, what additional information will she want from you? What will happen to any unique tracking/reporting structures you previously negotiated? Will those go away or linger on? These are all questions your CO should be willing to discuss with you, and they all are questions you should factor into your cost/benefit analysis. As for the timing of such a conversation, the Final Rule provides contractors will be given 30-days advance notice prior to the application of the new rule.

Fourth, if you do decide to opt in to the new regime (or if you are forced to do so because you are a new or renewing contractor), you will need to figure out how to implement a sensible data capture, tracking, and reporting process. The new rule recognizes that the extent of the program may be tied to the volume of Schedule sales (and recognizes that a manual program will work for some while an automated program may be necessary for others). Whether manual or automatic, though, you will need some process that will ensure current, accurate, and complete reports. (GSA, by the way, has made reporting instructions available at its Vendor Support Center website: https://vsc.gsa.gov.)

Fifth, if you opt in, you should spend some time preparing possible responses to COs who may try to compare apples to oranges – at the GSA, the BPA, or the order level. Keep in mind the following FAR mandate: In conducting a price evaluation, "the contracting officer shall limit requests for sales data relating to commercial items to data for the same or similar items during a relevant time period." FAR 15.403-3. The FAR further provides "the contracting officer shall, to the maximum extent practicable, limit the scope of the request for data relating to commercial items to include only data that are in the form regularly maintained by the offeror as part of its commercial operations." Id.

Remember, the Final Rule repeatedly says COs will be trained how to use transactional data in a way that does not convert the Schedule program into LPTA; and they will not be comparing prices where different terms and conditions justify the pricing differential. But, as suggested above, I have my doubts about the quality of that training, and about the CO community's translation of that training into practice. I also have my doubts that GSA's much-touted category managers – folks who will be tasked to become commodity experts in their given areas – will transition smoothly either. We've seen how well-intentioned training can be lost in translation before. One simply need remember that the GSAR for years has instructed COs to consider differences in the cost of doing business with the Government in evaluating proposed Schedule prices, yet GSA COs and auditors routinely ignore that requirement.

Anything Else You Need To Know?

Yes. Here are a few other things to keep on your radar screen.

Data Protection. GSA will be collecting a lot of data here. Much of these data are proprietary and confidential. While GSA claims it has systems in place to secure these data from inadvertent disclosure risk, keep in mind OPM previously gave us the same assurances with respect to its data. What possibly could go wrong here?!

Data Sharing. The Final Rule says GSA's transactional data will be made available to GSA's COs, GSA's category managers, ordering activity COs, AND to the public. GSA says those data will be made available at an aggregated level so as not to disclose proprietary information in violation of FOIA, but we have yet to see how that will work in practice.

In a recent article to its members, the Coalition for Government Procurement recognized an interesting problem for GSA here. With respect to the public release issue, the Coalition astutely asks "how, under the law, GSA will consult with FSS contractors regarding whether the contractor specific data is protected from disclosure as commercial, propriety information." That is an excellent question, which GSA has yet to answer. FAR 15.403-3 provides

The Government shall not disclose outside the Government data obtained relating to commercial items that is exempt from disclosure under 24.202(a) or the Freedom of Information Act ( 5 U.S.C. 552(b)).

Until we have an answer from GSA as to how it intends to deal with this prohibition, vendors should take the necessary steps to protect the data they submit by marking everything proprietary and confidential / not subject to FOIA.

GSA Schedule Audits. It will be quite interesting to see what sort of pre-award and post-award audits the GSA OIG will be conducting in light of the new rule. Since contractors simply will be offering a price to GSA and will be saying nothing about how that offered price relates to their other commercial pricing, it's hard to see what the OIG really has to audit anymore. In fact, vendors in the middle of a current GSA audit should consider reaching out to their CO to ask that the audit be concluded and the CSPF be withdrawn. That being said, the new rule does not modify the OIG's current audit clauses. Consequently, an auditor could try to demand pricing data from a contractor during an audit. An auditor also could focus on a contractor's submission of its transactional data. It is unclear how the ensuing arguments would work themselves out, but you should keep your eyes open for audit requests that, because of the new rule, now are overly broad.

PRC Monitoring. Don't get ahead of the new rule. Until the new clause finds its way into your particular contract – either through a bilateral modification or its incorporation into a new solicitation – you still are obligated to live up to your existing PRC and CSPF obligations.


For many contractors, the new rule will reflect a worthwhile tradeoff. The PRC and CSPF can create significant risk even to companies with well-negotiated pricing/reporting structures. But the new rule is not a blessing for everyone. The increased price pressure – coupled with the increased reporting burden and cost – could impose significant costs on some. Of course, we're really just talking here about the timing of the change since most folks believe the TDR pilot program is here to stay for the long-term. In which case, it seems GSA simply may have replaced one means of reducing prices with another. To borrow (and tailor) a regal phrase from the English and French, price reductions are dead; long live price reductions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
26 Sep 2018, Seminar, San Francisco, United States

Please join us for Sheppard Mullin's Labor & Employment Law Update & Happy Hour Seminar Series.

28 Sep 2018, Other, Los Angeles, United States

Leaders today don't just have to worry about nefarious cybercriminals getting "inside" their firewalls; there's an entire ecosystem of SAAS partners, third party vendors and suppliers, and all the hardware from switches to POS terminals that need to be monitored.

9 Oct 2018, Other, Los Angeles, United States

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP has opened for business in Dallas to proudly serve the Texas business community.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions