FAR & Beyond: The Right Direction on MAPS?
According to reports, the Army’s Marketplace for the Acquisition of Professional Services (MAPS) procurement is shifting directions once again. On January 28, the Army announced that the MAPS solicitation was to be released on February 2, 2026, with proposals due the first week in March. However, the timing has changed with another pause in direction. In a February 1, 2026, SAM.gov notice, the Army announced that it would be issuing another draft solicitation before the end of the quarter. Significantly, each delay eats into each potential offeror’s bid and proposal funds supporting their competitive efforts for MAPS. The start and stop pattern of MAPS raises questions. How does MAPS square with the Administration’s efforts to reduce unnecessary, costly contract duplication? Are there any alternatives to MAPS? Is MAPS headed in the right direction?
Unnecessary contract duplication reduces efficiency and raises costs for government and industry, resulting in reduced competition that deprives the government of access to best value solutions from the commercial marketplace. MAPS is duplicative of a host of existing governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC) vehicles for professional and information technology (IT) services. As such, the Army could immediately be using OASIS+ and any of the GSA or NASA IT GWACs to meet its immediate needs.
The existing GWAC marketplace collectively provides an efficient, effective, and competitive alternative to MAPS. Utilizing pre-existing contract vehicles will save the Army valuable time and funding in executing on the MAPS mission requirements. Such an approach is consistent with the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul (RFO) as outlined in FAR Part 8. Moreover, the RFO increases flexibility and efficiency in managing procurement programs through pre-existing, multiple award, GWACs. For example, the RFO authorizes Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) on multiple award contracts like OASIS+, Alliant 3, and NASA SEWP VI. BPAs are an effective procurement management tool supporting the underlying requirements MAPS seeks to meet. In sum, the management costs of competing, evaluating and administering MAPS are eliminated by the Army if it utilizes ongoing governmentwide contract vehicles. The probable lengthy bid protest process will only increase costs for government and industry. The RFO provides a roadmap for addressing contract duplication, will the Army take it?
Finally, regarding contract administration and “off-ramps,” the MAPS draft solicitation provides that contractors propose on at least 50 percent of the task orders. Failure to propose on at least 50 percent can lead to a contractor being “off ramped” from the contract. This is fundamentally at odds with a truly competitive market. Contractors should not be subject to mandatory competition requirements. Such an approach creates a dynamic of “faux” competition. The result will be zombie proposals that check the competition box but are not effectively responsive to a requirement. The mandate will cost the Army and industry scare bid and proposal funds with no real benefit. Consistent with the RFO and commercial best practices, competition is enhanced through open communication, sound requirements development, and the elimination of government unique processes and procedures.
In summary, taking the RFO roadmap will ensure the highest level of ongoing competition for commercial services, products, and solutions to meet the Army’s mission requirements.
Registration Now Open: 2026 Spring Training Conference
Registration is now open for the Coalition’s 2026 Spring Training Conference, taking place on May 13–14, 2026, at the Fairview Marriott in Falls Church, Virginia!
This year’s Spring Training Conference will examine next steps in the Revolutionary Federal Market, continuing important conversations from January’s Winter Training Conference on the latest developments shaping federal procurement.
The two-day program will focus on governmentwide and healthcare procurement issues, providing timely insights into policy developments, market trends, and acquisition priorities. Sessions will explore evolving compliance requirements, emerging acquisition strategies, and key initiatives affecting contractors and agencies. Attendees will hear directly from government decision makers and industry experts on what lies ahead in the dynamic federal procurement landscape.
Register today to secure your spot and stay ahead of the federal market! To register for the Spring Training Conference, click here. For assistance with registration, please contact Mady Whiting at mady.whiting@thecgp.org.
Hotel Reservations
Please use this link to secure your room in our block at the discounted rate before April 27, 2026: Book your group rate for CGP Spring Training Conference
Sponsorships Available for the 2026 Spring Training Conference!
The Coalition’s 2026 Spring Training Conference will take place on May 13-14, 2026 at the Fairview Marriott in Falls Church, VA. This two-day event will focus on governmentwide and healthcare procurement issues, and will dive into current developments in the dynamic world of federal procurement, with insights from key government decision makers and industry experts.
Several sponsorship opportunities are available for the Spring Training Conference. Sponsorship provides a valuable opportunity to showcase your organization, support the conference program, and connect with attendees from across the federal procurement community.
View the opportunities here and secure your sponsorship today! If you have any questions, or are ready to secure your sponsorship, please contact Heather Tarpley at htarpley@thecgp.org.
Thank You to Our Current Spring Training Conference Sponsors!
Talks on Funding DHS at Impasse
The Hill reports that talks to end the partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have “hit a wall” as both sides remain in opposition. According to the White House, the two sides “are still pretty far apart.”
Immigration enforcement operations continue due to funding provided in last year’s “one big beautiful” bill. However, the funding lapse is creating operational constraints for other DHS components, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Coast Guard, which may face staffing disruptions, delayed training and maintenance, and limits on non-essential activities.
GSA Inspector General Finds Price Variability Risks in MAS Program
The General Services Administration (GSA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report titled “Federal Agencies Are at Risk of Overpaying for Products in the Multiple Award Schedule Program Due to Significant Price Variability.” The review examined whether GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) is effectively addressing price variability to ensure agencies obtain the lowest-cost options.
The OIG found that agencies may be at risk of overpaying due to pricing variability driven by inadequate price evaluations, inaccurate product data in GSA Advantage!, and pricing oversight policies it described as “unused and ineffective.” The report cited instances where market research reviewed only small portions of large catalogs and found that 93 of 100 sampled products contained inaccurate GSA Advantage! data. The OIG also reported that FAS no longer performs Competitive Pricing Initiative (CPI) analyses and does not fully utilize available pricing verification tools.
The OIG recommended that FAS:
- Resume iterations of CPI at the MAS Program level to identify, address, and reduce price variability.
- Strengthen policies and procedures to:
- (a) Address data inaccuracies within FAS pricing tools; and
- (b) Ensure bilateral contract modifications are submitted and approved prior to catalog changes.
- Provide additional guidance to contracting officers regarding adequate sampling techniques for large catalogs to ensure information accuracy.
- Inform federal customer agencies that they should perform separate and independent price determinations because significant price variability puts federal customer agencies at risk of overpaying for products on MAS contracts.
- Increase oversight and implement additional controls related to temporary price reductions.
FAS agreed with recommendations 1, 3, and 5; partially agreed with 2b; and disagreed with 2a and 4. In response, FAS stated the findings lack context and are overstated, emphasizing that MAS pricing remains highly competitive compared to commercial markets and other government vehicles.
Proposed Rule Restricts Certain Semiconductor Procurements
On Tuesday, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council published a proposed rule titled, “Prohibition on Certain Semiconductor Products and Services.” The rule would amend the FAR to prohibit agencies from procuring “covered semiconductor products and services” as required by Section 5949 of the Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act.
The proposed rule defines covered products and services as those provided by companies owned or controlled by the government of a “foreign country of concern” as determined by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Commerce. The rule specifically identifies Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC), ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT), and Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp. (YMTC).
The FAR Council proposes applying the prohibition below the micro-purchase threshold and to commercial procurements, including procurements for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products. The prohibition would take effect December 23, 2027.
Comments on the proposed rule are due April 20, 2026. The Coalition previously submitted feedback on the related Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and plans to submit comments on this proposed rule. Members wishing to provide input for the Coalition’s consideration should email Greg Waldron at gwaldron@thecgp.org by April 3, 2026.
Pentagon Seeks Industry Input on FAR and DFARS Changes
According to MeriTalk, in a February 10 letter, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael Duffey invited defense industrial base stakeholders to propose changes to the FAR and Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS). The request is tied to Phase 2 of the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO), which will use formal rulemaking to codify recent RFO class deviations.
The Pentagon is seeking recommendations that help the government:
- Field technology and modernize systems at a pace that outmatches adversaries;
- Increase production capacity to support wartime surge requirements; and
- Place the acquisition system and industrial base on a wartime footing.
Feedback can be submitted to John Tenaglia and Kimberly Ziegler at osd.pentagon.ousda-s.mbx.dfars@mail.mil.
The Coalition plans to respond to this request. Members wishing to provide input should email their thoughts to Greg Waldron at gwaldron@thecgp.org as soon as possible.
VA Acquisition Data at Risk
The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report finding that user access controls in the Integrated Financial and Acquisition Management System (iFAMS) are insufficient to protect sensitive acquisition data.
iFAMS is being deployed as part of VA’s $8.6 billion Financial Management Business Transformation program to replace legacy financial systems. In a sample review of 20 users, the OIG found access was not properly limited, increasing the risk of unnecessary exposure to sensitive acquisition information. The report warned the risk could grow as additional personnel are added during future implementation waves.
The OIG found that 91 percent of the 2,818 users with access to Technology Acquisition Center (TAC) data did not work for TAC, and 78 percent were assigned roles granting broad access to sensitive information. The report attributed these risks to overly broad access controls, incomplete quality reviews of user permissions, and limitations in the Identity and Access Management system that prevent full visibility into user access.
The OIG recommended implementing more granular access controls, strengthening periodic access reviews, and improving oversight visibility. VA agreed with the recommendations and plans to complete corrective actions by May 2026.
Gregory Barbaccia Name GSA TTS Acting Director
On Thursday, GSA announced that Gregory Barbaccia, currently the Federal Chief Information Officer at the Office Management and Budget (OMB), will serve as GSA’s Acting Director for Technology Transformation Services (TTS) and Senior Advisor to the Administrator.
As TTS Director and Senior Advisor, Barbaccia will collaborate with GSA programs and federal agencies to advance secure, scalable, and user-centered technologies that support agency missions and improve outcomes for the public. In his advisory role, he will also focus on emerging technologies, digital delivery best practices, and cross-government collaboration, reinforcing GSA’s role as a central provider of acquisition, real estate, and technology services.
“Greg brings a powerful combination of technology strategy and hands-on execution that will accelerate GSA’s mission to transform how the federal government buys, builds, and delivers digital services,” said GSA Administrator Edward C. Forst. “His leadership will drive smart, secure technology investments that deliver real results for President Trump’s priorities and our stakeholders.”
“I want to acknowledge the work TTS has done to modernize how the federal government builds and delivers digital services, making interactions with government simpler, more accessible, and more efficient for the American public,” said Federal CIO at the White House OMB and Acting TTS Director, Greg Barbaccia. “I’m looking forward to building on that success and deepening partnerships that drive better technology outcomes across agencies. By serving in this dual capacity, we’re ensuring continuity of leadership and a strong focus on delivering value to the taxpayer through smart, mission-aligned technology transformation.”
GAO Seeks Feedback on HHS and IHS Contracting Changes
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reached out to the Coalition for information regarding the effect of contracting workforce changes since January 2025 on the Department of Health and Human Services. GAO has expressed particular interest in the effect of workforce changes on the Indian Health Service (IHS). In addition to workforce changes, GAO is also interested in the effect of changes since January 2025 to funding provided by IHS through contracts. GAO’s goal is to gather information on the scale and impact of recent changes in workforce and contracting. Particular areas of interest include:
- Known changes or challenges with HHS contracting since January 2025, particularly with IHS.
- Known extent and impact of HHS contracting delays, terminations, or reductions since January 2025, particularly with IHS.
- Any knowledge regarding information received from HHS as it relates to contract delays, terminations, or reductions since January 2025.
Please provide any comments, insights, or questions to Joseph Snyderwine at JSnyderwine@thecgp.org.
GSA Evaluates USAi Program Implementation
NextGov reports that GSA is conducting an initial analysis of its USAi program to improve transparency around federal artificial intelligence (AI) adoption. GSA’s Chief AI Officer Zach Whitman said that the agency is documenting feedback, tracking use cases and mission impacts, and working to establish a committee of representatives from federal agencies to guide the platform’s future. A public report on the program’s first six months will be released in accordance with President Trump’s American AI Action Plan.
Whitman said that agencies retain full privacy over their AI pilot data, while GSA analyzes broader adoption trends. Due to recent and potential government shutdowns, officials may extend the testing timeline, with a possible full launch in 2027. He emphasized transparency, collaboration, and flexibility in AI procurement, noting that successful AI adoption is not limited to the USAi platform.
DISA to Modernize Service Delivery Through New Cloud Environment
MeriTalk reports that the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is launching a new cloud environment designed to better meet operational needs. The effort shifts away from a traditional infrastructure-focused model to a more flexible framework built around three “ramps”:
- Classic hosting through DISA’s Hosting and Compute Center;
- Expanded private and hybrid cloud offerings such as Stratus and enhanced on-premises virtual hosting; and
- Commercial cloud services through the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability contract.
The initiative also emphasizes faster capability delivery, greater cost predictability, and the integration of AI and financial operations practices to strengthen support for modern military missions.
Legal Corner: A Recent Federal Circuit Case Highlights the Perils of Not Intervening in a Bid Protest and Raises Issues Caused by a Party’s Failure To File a Redacted Pleading
Authored by Luke Levasseur, Evan Williams & David O’Neill; Fox Rothschild
A federal contractor whose contract award is challenged in a bid protest often faces a dilemma: whether to intervene and participate in the litigation. Intervention generally requires an awardee to retain counsel who can be admitted under a protective order at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC)—which can be resource-intensive. However, failing to have counsel advocating for the awardee results in government counsel alone defending the procurement process and any allegations that arise with respect to the awardee’s proposal. Although an awardee’s interests are often consistent with the agency’s, they can sometimes diverge sharply—and an awardee’s failure to have an advocate admitted under the protective order and in the fight can result in a lost award.
There are no guarantees that an awardee’s intervention can save a protested contract award, as GAO, COFC, and agency corrective action decisions often turn on the issues related to the quality of the agency’s evaluation or award process that are outside the awardee’s control. That said, a recent and ongoing Federal Circuit appeal, Global K9 Protection Group LLC v. U.S., illustrates that choosing not to intervene can result in other parties litigating with respect to the awardee’s interests with the awardee being absent in the litigation. Among other things, such an absence from bid protest litigation can cost the awardee a lost contract award, potential termination(s) of other contracts held by the awardee, and harm to the awardee’s business reputation.
Background
The Global K9 Protection Group LLC (Global K9) protest involves a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) “procurement for Third-Party Canine-Mail Screening with Real-Time X-ray Analysis [and] interpretation.” The agency’s evaluation and award process were subjected to a series of protests and corrective actions, most of which are not relevant (or discussed) here. Ultimately, USPS awarded clusters of service areas to two offerors: American K-9 Detection Services, LLC was awarded four clusters, and K2 Solutions, Inc. (K2) was awarded seven clusters. Global K9 protested the evaluation and award decision.[1]
At the COFC, K2 received a redacted copy of Global K9’s initial bid protest. Because the protest grounds shown in the redacted protest did not appear to attack K2’s proposal, K2 chose not to intervene and, instead, relied on the agency’s and U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) defense of the agency’s evaluation and award decision.
After production of the agency record at COFC, Global K9 filed an amended complaint that, among other things, attacked K2’s proposal as containing misrepresentations regarding K2’s past performance. Contrary to the requirements of paragraph 12 of the court’s protective order, Global K9 did not file a redacted copy of its amended complaint. Although K2 was monitoring theprotest docket at COFC, it apparently did not appreciate the risk presented by an amended complaint as it did not seek or otherwise receive a copy of the redacted version of the amended complaint from the agency (or the court). As a result, K2 was unaware that its proposal and past performance had become important issues in the protest.
The parties to the protest (without K2) briefed and argued the issues raised by Global K9’s amended complaint and the record. Among other things, the COFC found that K2’s proposal made a series of intentional material misrepresentations regarding its past performance on which the evaluators and agency relied. Accordingly, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for an injunction regarding the award decision and disqualified K2 from performance of the challenged award.
When K2 learned what had occurred at the COFC, including the judicial findings and injunction, K2 belatedly moved to intervene in the bid protest proceedings. The court denied K2’s motion as moot and untimely. To compound K2’s problems, during the trial court proceedings, the agency apparently recognized issues with K2’s performance and initiated termination proceedings on an existing contract, which later resulted in a termination for default.
Key Takeaways for Contractors
K2’s reliance on the agency and DOJ to litigate the bid protest in a way that also protected its interests proved to be a critical error. This case raises important issues and potential problems that government contractors must understand and guard against.
Government and Intervenor Interests Can Diverge
Although an awardee’s interests in defending an award decision are generally similar to the government’s, the government’s interests are not identical. Agency and DOJ counsel are required to balance defending the agency’s decision-making in a specific protest with protecting the government’s interests in the integrity of public procurement. Simply put, agency counsel do not represent an awardee and cannot be relied on to focus on what is best for the awardee.
Redaction Requirements and Transparency Rules Are Different at GAO and COFC and Are Not Always Strictly Enforced
In a bid protest at GAO, the protester must file a redacted version of its protest within one day of the original filing (4 C.F.R. § 21.1(g)). The rule does not specify the deadline for redacted supplemental protests, which are subject to agreement among the parties. Importantly, GAO’s electronic docket is only accessible to parties, and a non-intervening awardee must request information regarding filings (and redacted filings) from the agency during the bid protest. If no party (or GAO) requests preparation of a redacted version of a filing, such a redaction likely will not be prepared. As a result, the only way for an awardee to ensure it receives all permissible information regarding an ongoing protest regarding its awarded contract is to retain counsel and intervene.
The COFC has a different rule regarding redactions. Paragraph 12 of the court’s standard protective order requires any party filing a sealed document to “promptly” serve on the other parties a proposed redacted version. Once all parties agree, the redacted version is supposed to be filed publicly. But as shown in the Global K9 case, parties do not always prepare public, redacted copies, and there is no strict enforcement mechanism that consistently enforces this rule. As a result, a non-intervening awardee may (like K2) not learn about critical issues until it is too late.
Ways To Intervene and Reduce Resource Requirements
Finally, it is important to know that an awardee can retain outside counsel to intervene and protect its interests without devoting the level of resources necessary to engage in all-out litigation. Instead, an intervenor can work with counsel to participate with the understanding that counsel will primarily rely on government counsel’s briefing. Under such an approach, the intervenor can focus primarily on analyzing supplemental protest grounds or amended complaints and inform the awardee’s/intervenor’s personnel of the issues and risks (to the extent permissible under the protective order) and brief issues only to the extent necessary to defend the intervenor’s award.
The Global K9 Appeal
We refer to the appeal as Global K9 because that party appears first in the Federal Circuit caption. However, Global K9, the government, and the other protester from the COFC proceeding are all appellees at the Federal Circuit. Only K2, which was not a party at the trial court (given COFC’s denial of K2’s intervention motion), is appealing to the Federal Circuit, and K2’s appeal necessarily focuses primarily on the denial of its motion. As noted above, the appeal is still pending.
During the oral argument, the appeals court panel raised a series of interesting issues regarding K2’s failure to pursue and obtain a redacted copy of the amended complaint. In addition, the panel addressed several problematic aspects of Global K9’s failure to comply with the protective order’s requirements and prepare and file on the public docket a redacted copy of the amended complaint. The Federal Circuit traditionally (and appropriately) has expressed concern regarding judicial transparency that is compromised when materials are excessively redacted or (as here) when no redacted copies of filings in a judicial proceeding are made available to the public.
At bottom, K2 lost the contract it was awarded and more when the protester failed to file a redacted copy of the amended complaint (and K2 failed to seek such a copy then intervene in a timely manner)—and the parties litigated and resolved K2’s “misrepresentation” and problematic performance issues without K2 receiving clear notice or presenting a timely defense in response to those attacks in the litigation. Although K2’s problems were, in part, its own fault as it chose not to intervene and actively protect its interests, there are substantial fairness concerns raised by the impact of Global K9’s failure to comply with COFC’s redaction rules and the fact that none of the parties to the protest did anything to timely inform K2 that its proposal and past performance had become substantial issues in the protest. These are some of the issues the Federal Circuit may address in its decision, and we will follow and discuss these matters when the appeal is resolved.
[1] A second disappointed offeror protested its non-selection based on a previous determination that it had failed to mitigate an organizational conflict of interest, but its grounds are not relevant to this post and are not discussed further.
Healthcare Spotlight: VA FSS Issues Notice on Need to Complete OIG Preaward Examinations
The VA Federal Supply Service issued a notice on GSA Interact emphasizing the need to complete OIG pre-award examinations in a timely manner. Please see the VA FSS notice below for guidance on preparing and submitting the required documentation.
The proposal must include:
- Preliminary Examination Materials including, but not limited to: FSS and domestic non-FSS sales (other Government, commercial) transactions (direct and indirect), including chargeback data, if applicable for the 6-month period before the submission date of the proposal package to the FSS Service. The data should overlap with the commercial sales practices’ disclosure data timeframe.
- Request for Electronic Data with name, phone number and email of person(s) responsible for creating the file(s).
- Signed (by certifying official) Certificate of Records and Data which is required for OIG’s official engagement.
- Offeror’s Signed Written Assertion detailing auditing standards.
- Contractor Representation Letter including signature, name, title and date.
Please keep in mind that failure to cooperate with the OIG during the official preaward examination could result in contract cancellation in accordance with General Service Acquisition Manual Clause 552.238-79, Cancellation. Cooperation means providing requested documentation and data in a timely manner as stipulated by the OIG. Pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.404-2(d) Deficient proposals, if the data provided is so deficient as to preclude an examination, or if the offeror has denied access to any records considered essential to conduct a satisfactory examination, the Contract Specialist shall take appropriate action. Furthermore, the OIG may recommend no award or cancel the preaward examination.
While preparing the proposal for the FSS Service’s consideration and preparing for an OIG examination, vendor will have the opportunity to request a meeting(s) with the FSS Service and OIG to help provide any necessary guidance. For this support, please contact FSS SERVICE CONTRACT SPECIALIST with any questions and a pre-examination engagement meeting can be established.
SELF-DISCLOSURE (reminder-it is incumbent on the vendor to ensure they are complaint with all Terms & Conditions)
Instructions: How to Submit a Self-disclosure for Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Non-Compliance or Pricing Errors
Purpose: Provides the contractor with a process for making a self-disclosure of any FSS contract non-compliance or pricing errors that occurred during any period the contractor was subject to FSS contract terms and conditions. The vavoluntarydisclosurefss@va.gov (linked mailbox) will route self-disclosures to the VA National Acquisition Center for disposition to the VA OIG.
Examples of non-compliance or pricing errors requiring disclosure include the following FSS contract terms and conditions (but are not limited to): price reductions clause; price adjustment clause; industrial funding fee and sales reporting clause; trade agreements clause; and negotiated contract terms (shipping, rebates, etc.).
To make a self-disclosure, a contractor should prepare a letter that states the non-compliance error, what caused the error, what FSS contract item number(s) were impacted by the error, specific date ranges when the error(s) occurred, and what remedial action the contractor is proposing or has taken.
1. Estimated overcharges owed to the Government, if known. If not known, please state this fact in the disclosure letter and explain why an estimated overcharges amount cannot be provided.
2. Provide supporting documentation for the disclosure including the detailed methodology used in overcharge calculations.
3. Provide the contractor’s point(s) of contact (include name, official title, and email) for VA OIG to contact if a postaward review is needed.
4. Send the disclosure letter via e-mail notification to vavoluntarydisclosurefss@va.gov (linked mailbox) with the email Subject and contents as shown below. A templated email has also been embedded below.
CISA Launches Town Halls on Cyber Incident Reporting Requirements
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) will host a series of virtual town halls to gather stakeholder feedback on implementation of the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA). CIRCIA directs CISA to establish reporting requirements for critical infrastructure owners and operators, including reporting “covered cyber incidents” within 72 hours and ransom payments within 24 hours.
The two-hour sessions will focus on how CISA can effectively implement these statutory requirements. The schedule includes:
March 9, 2026 — Chemical; Water and Wastewater; Dams; Energy; Nuclear Reactors, Materials, and Waste
March 12, 2026 — Commercial Facilities; Critical Manufacturing; Food and Agriculture
March 17, 2026 — Emergency Services; Government Facilities; Healthcare and Public Health
March 18, 2026 — Communications; Transportation Systems; Financial Services
March 19, 2026 — Defense Industrial Base; Information Technology
CISA will also hold two general sessions:
March 31, 2026 — General Session 1
April 2, 2026 — General Session 2
CISA officials note that stakeholder input is critical as the agency finalizes the rule. However, a potential DHS funding lapse could affect the town halls and delay issuance of the final CIRCIA rule.
Town hall attendees must register in advance. Registration can be found here.
Imaging Equipment Committee Meeting with GSA, March 11
The Coalition’s Imaging Equipment Committee will host a meeting with GSA’s Greg Rollins, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Office of Policy and Compliance, Steven Hutchinson, Chief of MAS Policy, Office of Policy and Compliance, and Paula Hance, Procurement Analyst, General Supplies and Services, to discuss the implementation of Transactional Data Reporting, with a focus on addressing issues TDR presents for highly configurable items. The meeting will be held virtually on March 11 at 10:00 AM ET.
Please submit questions to be discussed at the meeting to Joseph Snyderwine at JSnyderwine@thecgp.org.
To register, click here. For assistance with registration, please contact Mady Whiting at mady.whiting@thecgp.org
This is a members-only event. If you see a message that says “Registration Not Available” below, please log in using your member account.
Cyber & Supply Chain Security Committee Meeting: Cyber Update, April 8
The Coalition’s Cyber & Supply Chain Security Committee will host a meeting with Townsend Bourne, Partner at Sheppard Mullin, and Michael Gruden, Partner at Crowell & Moring. Townsend and Michael will provide the latest updates on federal cybersecurity policy developments and what they mean for contractors. The meeting will be held virtually on April 8 at 12:00 PM ET.
To register, click here. For assistance with registration, please contact Mady Whiting at mady.whiting@thecgp.org
This is a members-only event. If you see a message that says “Registration Not Available” below, please log in using your member account.