- within International Law, Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment and Technology topic(s)
- in United States
The comment period closed. The clause survived. When GSA issues Refresh 32, existing Schedule holders will have 60 days to accept — or risk losing their contracts. Here is how to use the time you have left.
The market has spent six weeks debating whether GSA’s proposed AI clause — GSAR 552.239-7001 — is good policy. That debate is largely over. GSA extended the comment period to April 3, 2026, collected industry input, and has signaled the clause will be incorporated into MAS Solicitation Refresh 32. The question is no longer whether contractors will face these obligations, it is when — and whether they will be ready.
Why 60 Days Is Not Enough
When Refresh 32 issues, GSA will send schedule holders a mass modification incorporating the AI clause. Contractors will have 60 days to accept. That sounds reasonable. It is not — not if you are actually using AI in contract performance.
Before you can accept responsibly, you need to inventory every AI system used in your schedule work (including internal tools, not just products delivered to the government), review every EULA and API agreement with commercial AI providers for conflicts with the clause’s data use and IP ownership terms, assess whether any AI component implicates the undefined “American AI” requirement, and analyze your service provider exposure for third-party AI vendors who are not parties to your contract. None of that can likely be done meaningfully in 60 days if you are starting from scratch.
| Practical note: GSA contracting officers have authority to grant exceptions to mass modifications, but in practice they rarely do. The MAS Modification Guide makes clear that GSA can decline to exercise option periods for contractors who have not accepted pending modifications. Declining the modification is not a safe harbor — it puts your entire schedule contract at risk. |
Three Provisions That Deserve Attentions Before You Click Accept
- Custom developments — the government owns more than you think
The clause grants the government full ownership of all “custom developments,” defined broadly to include any modifications, customizations, configurations, or enhancements made to an AI system during contract performance. If your team connects a commercial LLM to a government data source, that integration may be a custom development. The government owns it. You cannot use it for any non-government purpose without the contracting officer’s express authorization. - Training data prohibition — your vendor agreements probably conflict
The clause bars contractors and their service providers from using government data — all inputs submitted by the government and all outputs generated in performance — to train, fine tune, or improve AI models. That prohibition runs downstream to your AI vendors, even though they are not parties to your contract. Most commercial AI platforms’ standard terms do not prohibit model training on customer data. In many cases, those terms affirmatively claim that right. You need to know whether your vendors will agree to the clause’s restrictions before you accept the modification, not after your first government customer submits sensitive data through your platform. - Service provider liability — further than you expect
The clause holds you responsible for compliance by any entity that “directly or indirectly provides, operates, or licenses” an AI system used in contract performance — whether or not that entity is your subcontractor. If you use a commercial AI API and that provider does not comply with the clause’s requirements, you could be exposed, even if you have no contractual relationship with the provider and no realistic mechanism to compel their compliance. Know which of your AI providers fall within this definition before you accept.
The Bilateral Modification Window – Use It
The clause allows the parties to bilaterally supplement or revise certain provisions, including IP and data restrictions. That negotiation window exists before you accept the mass modification, not after. Companies that enter the 60-day period with a clear analysis of which provisions conflict with their commercial rights — and a factual basis for the modifications they are seeking — can have that conversation with their contracting officer. Companies that accept without analysis have likely waived it.
The Bigger Picture
The GSA clause signals where federal AI procurement is heading regardless of its final form. OMB Memo M-25-22 directs all agencies to implement similar requirements, and FAR Council rulemaking is likely to follow. Contractors that build compliance infrastructure around the GSA clause now will be ahead of that curve.
The companies that navigate this transition best will treat it as a contracts and IP management problem — not just a technology problem — and will engage legal counsel before obligations attach, not after disputes arise.
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.
[View Source]
