Is it speech or is it inefficient sourcing practices? The fed doesn't want to buy from a company engaging in boycotts because it's paying a premium to exclude a certain segment of the market. If the cheapest manufacturer of a part is a boycotted country then a more expensive one must be sourced.

If a country really should be excluded from trade pass a sanction.

That's the point of the bidding process for government contracts. If your boycott makes your services more expensive, then you're less likely to receive the contract, but it would still be your choice.

And it doesn't apply at all to e.g. Teachers who are being forced to sign waivers like this

> If your boycott makes your services more expensive, then you're less likely to receive the contract, but it would still be your choice.

The cheapest bid might be even cheaper absent the boycott. I, and plenty of other people, don't want to pay this premium because of a company's political agenda. Fulfill the contract with the most efficient supplies on the market, or don't both bidding at all.