Claims Feed

Government Contracts Legal Round-Up | 2021 Issue 6

Welcome to Jenner & Block’s Government Contracts Legal Round‑Up, a biweekly update on important government contracts developments. This update will offer brief summaries of key developments for government contracts legal, compliance, contracting, and business executives.

Regulatory Update

1. Class Deviation 2021-O0003: DFARS 252.239-7098 Prohibition on Contracting to Maintain or Establish a Computer Network Unless Such Network is Designed to Block Access to Certain Websites – Representation (Apr. 2, 2021)

  • This Class Deviation sets out a new representation for contracts to maintain or establish a computer network that are funded under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260) (the Act), or extensions to the Act.
  • For covered solicitations, by submission of an offer, the offeror represents “that it is not providing as part of its offer a proposal to maintain or establish a computer network unless such network is designed to block access to pornography websites.” 
  • Contracting officers will include the provision at 252.239-7098, in all solicitations, including solicitations for the acquisition of commercial items under FAR part 12.
  • Funding under the Act may be still used by law enforcement to carry out activities related to criminal investigations, national defense, and intelligence. 

Contractors anticipating submitting proposals that include maintaining or establishing a computer network will want to ensure compliance with this new “porn blocking” representation and evaluate any needed changes to supply chain representations.

2. Implementation of the Government Furnished Property Module (Mar. 24, 2021)

  • As of January 2021, and in accordance with DFARS subpart 245.102(5), contractors are required to report the loss of Government property in the GFP Module in lieu of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Property Loss eTool. 
  • Training resources on how to use the GFP Module are available at the DoD Procurement Toolbox and live webinars are posted here.

Contractors should note increased oversight of Government property. DoD describes its GFP Module as “an important step” in addressing “DoD’s material weakness in better accounting for Government Property” in contractors’ possession. The tool supports DoD’s strategic plan for defense-wide procurement financial and audit improvements. Documentation and data for completed loss cases in the GFP Module will be saved, allowing greater insight into loss patterns.

3. Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain: Licensing Procedures (Mar. 29, 2021)

  • On January 19, 2021, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published an interim final rulemaking, ‘‘Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain,’’ which became effective on March 22, 2021. 
  • This rule allows the Secretary of Commerce, in accordance with Executive Order 13873, to prohibit certain information and communications technology and services transactions (ICTS Transactions) to address national security threats.
  • ICTS Transactions include provision of services. The term includes all transactions that occurred on or after January 19, 2021, by any person owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary. Providing services, such as software updates, to US persons may provide a foreign adversary an opportunity to engage in activities that may threaten US national security.
  • In its January 19 notice, the Department stated it would implement a licensing process by May 19th for entities seeking pre-approval before engaging in or continuing to engage in ICTS Transactions.
  • Because additional public input is needed and the Department no longer expects to meet its May 19 deadline, the Department seeks public input through April 28, 2021, on such a licensing or other preclearance process.

In this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department of Commerce seeks public input by April 28, 2021 on all aspects of a future ICTS licensing process, including potential models for creating a process that would provide entities seeking to engage in an ICTS Transaction greater certainty that the transaction will not be prohibited.

Protest Cases

1. TekSynap Corp., B-419464; B-419464.2 (Mar. 19, 2021)

  • GAO sustained a protest challenging the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s (NGA) evaluation of proposals and decision not to hold discussions.
  • Specifically, GAO found the agency unreasonably assigned only a “slight weakness” to the awardee despite one of its key personnel failing to meet a mandatory qualification. In a cascading effect, this meant the management plan subfactor rating of “outstanding” was unreasonable, and the overall “outstanding” rating for the technical/management factor was unreasonable.
  • GAO also held that the assignment of a “moderate strength” rather than a “significant strength” to the protester’s proposal was unreasonable when the evaluators positively described numerous merits of the proposal in detail and used language associated with a significant strength.
  • Based upon these errors, GAO concluded that NGA’s decision not to enter into discussions with TekSynap—because the agency had determined the awardee’s proposal was technically superior—was necessarily unreasonable.

2. IAP World Services, Inc., B-418566.2 et al., Aug. 20, 2020 (published Mar. 24, 2021)

  • GAO denied a protest alleging that awardee Vectrus-J&J Facilities Support, LLC (VJFS) materially misrepresented its management structure by failing to disclose an imminent sale. One of VJFS’s joint venture members (J&J Maintenance) was subject to a stock purchase several weeks after it was awarded the contract.
  • As a general matter, an offeror’s material misrepresentation in its proposal can invalidate an agency’s evaluation, and serve as a basis to cancel any contract award.
  • Here, GAO agreed with the contracting agency (the Navy) that even if there had been a misrepresentation, it did not invalidate the agency’s evaluation. While the Navy cited VJFS’s experience and past performance in its best value determination, the stock purchase did not impact VJFS’s stated experience or past performance as J&J’s operations, management team, and resources remained the same.
  • Notably, GAO also explained that even assuming that VJFS had a duty to notify the agency about the potential future stock transaction and failed to do so, the protester was not prejudiced by any failure to notify.

Where an offeror’s proposal represents that it will perform a contract in a manner materially different from the offeror’s actual intent, an award based on such proposal cannot stand, since both the offeror’s representations, and the agency’s reliance on such, have an adverse impact on the integrity of the procurement process. But GAO will not sustain a protest alleging a misrepresentation unless the protester can demonstrate competitive prejudice from the awardee’s failure to notify the contracting agency of any changes to its proposal.

Claims Cases

1. Appeal of L3 Technologies, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 61811, 61813, 61814 (Mar. 1, 2021)

  • L3 appealed multiple contracting officer’s final decisions (COFDs) disallowing costs, including for “other direct costs” and overhead expenses.
  • The COFDs were based on DCAA incurred cost audits for 2011-2014, which employed cost sampling and then extrapolated the questioned cost amounts across the entirety of the sample pool.
  • During discovery, the contracting officer withdrew the COFDs, stating that the government would no longer challenge the costs. The government moved to dismiss the appeals.
  • L3 sought to continue the appeals over the government motion to dismiss, desiring a decision on the merits. L3 argued that the government had engaged in a pattern of asserting and then withdrawing such incurred cost disallowance claims.
  • The board dismissed the claims, holding that they were moot and not subject to any exception to the mootness doctrine.
  • Judge Clarke dissented, noting that “The majority decision subjects L3 (and other contractors) to the unfortunate chain of events discussed below until DCAA and DCMA resolve whatever their differences are.”

The painful pattern seen here is familiar to many government contractors: delayed DCAA audits result in rushed COFDs to avoid the statute of limitations. Contractors must then defend against a government claim, often seeking millions of dollars in previously paid amounts. Unfortunately, this decision gives contractor’s little hope of relief and highlights the need to pay close attention to all DCAA audits and disallowances.

2. Appeal of SRA International, Inc., CBCA Nos. 6563, 6564 (Mar. 19, 2021)

  • SRA appealed COFDs disallowing $29 million in costs on two State Department contracts following DCAA incurred costs audits.
  • After a structured negotiation process, SRA secured a complete withdrawal of the COFDs and dismissal of the government claims with prejudice.

Continuing the theme of government cost disallowance claims, this case demonstrates the benefit of engaging experienced outside counsel to assist in dealing with DCAA audits, disallowances, and any resulting COFDs or government claims.


Government Contracts Legal Round-Up | 2021 Issue 5

Welcome to Jenner & Block’s Government Contracts Legal Round‑Up, a biweekly update on important government contracts developments. This update summarizes key developments for government contracts legal, compliance, contracting, and business executives.

Regulatory Activity

1. Withdrawal of Several FAR Cases on March 19, 2021

The change in administration has resulted in the review and withdrawal of several rules pending for years. Because of the passage of time, the FAR Council favors further consideration under new FAR cases, if at all. One FAR case (2018-002) was withdrawn as it was tied to a now-revoked executive action. The rules withdrawn include:

  • FAR Case 2011-001: Withdrawal of Organizational Conflicts of Interest 
  • FAR Case 2012-015: Withdrawal of Small Business Set Asides for Research and Development Contracts
  • FAR Case 2013-022: Withdrawal of Extension of Limitations on Contractor Employee Personal Conflicts of Interest 
  • FAR Case 2018-002: Withdrawal of Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance

2. Request for Comments on Semiconductor Manufacturing by US Department of Commerce

  • In response to President Biden’s Executive order on “America’s Supply Chains,” the Secretary of Commerce must submit a report within 100 days that: (1) identifies risks in the semiconductor manufacturing and advanced packaging supply chains; and (2) proposes policy recommendations to address these risks.
  • The FY 21 NDAA also includes a provision to incentivize the production of semiconductors for the US, and mandates several actions to secure the semiconductor-related supply chain.
  • This notice requests comments by April 5, 2021 to assist the Commerce Department in preparing its report to the White House.Publish

3. Department of Labor Plans to Rescind Two Rules Related to Independent Contractors and Joint Employers Finding They “Weaken” Protections to Workers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

  • The first Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes the withdrawal of the Independent Contractor Final Rule issued on Jan. 7, 2021. This rule adopted a new “economic reality” test that narrowed or minimized other factors considered by courts traditionally, making it less likely a worker will be found an employee subject to FLSA protections. Independent contractors have no FLSA protections, but employees are eligible for the federal minimum wage and overtime.
  • The second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks to rescind a current regulation on joint employer relationships under the Fair Labor Standards Act, effective March 16, 2020. On September 8, 2020, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated portions of the Joint Employer Rule, stating that the rule was contrary to the FLSA and was “arbitrary and capricious” due to its failure to explain a shift from prior guidance or to consider the effect of the rule on workers.
  • The Department of Labor invites comments on both proposed rules by April 12, 2021.

Protest Cases

1. People, Technology and Processes, LLC, B-419385, B-419835.2 (Feb. 2, 2021) (published Mar. 15)

  • GAO found unobjectionable the General Services Administration’s (GSA) rejection of a late-submitted proposal.
  • The request for proposals (RFP) required that offers be submitted by October 13, 2020, via the agency’s online proposal submission portal, “GSA ASSIST.” The RFP warned that proposals received after the closing data and time would not be considered.
  • The protester had trouble with the online portal—it uploaded materials but was unable to click submit—so it emailed the proposal to the contracting officer instead.
  • Even though the protester had uploaded proposal materials prior to the deadline, GAO noted that the protester maintained the ability to revise its proposal by uploading new, modified attachments until the moment it pressed the “submit” button. Thus, GAO found that the uploaded materials were never under the government’s control.
  • GAO also found that the use of email to submit the proposal was not authorized by the RFP.

Late is late. It is an offeror’s responsibility to deliver its proposal to the government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified, and an agency is not required to consider a proposal where there is no evidence that the proposal was actually received.

2. HVF West, LLC v. United States, CAFC No. 2020-1414, 2020-1583 (Feb. 19, 2021)

  • The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Court of Federal Claims decision, finding that the successful protester actually lacked standing to bring its COFC protest.
  • HVF protested the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) award of a “sales contract” for the purchase and destruction of surplus Government military equipment. Given that DLA technically was selling the property to the contractor, DLA awarded the contract to the highest bidder, Lamb Depollution, Inc. HVF was fourth in line for the contract.
  • First at the agency-level, then at GAO, and eventually at COFC, HVF raised numerous “detailed allegations” to challenge the award to Lamb, and HVF also questioned the experience of the two intervening bidders. COFC sustained the protest, finding that HVF showed that DLA erred in finding Lamb satisfied all non-price criteria in the solicitation.
  • On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that HVF’s challenges to the intervening offerors were “based upon conjecture,” which was insufficient for HVF to establish that it had a substantial chance of winning the award such that it qualified as an interested party. More specifically, HVF alleged only that the intervening bidders “failed to meet the standards for a successful pre-award survey,” a conclusory statement deemed insufficient to question the eligibility of the intervening bidders.

To have standing to bring a bid protest, a losing bidder must be an interested party; that is, an actual or prospective bidder whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by failure to award the contract. The Federal Circuit clarified that “even when an agency assesses price-ranked bidders together for technical compliance to select the bid most advantageous to the Government, . . . the least favored price-ranked bidder has standing only upon mounting a credible challenge to the technical acceptability of the better price-ranked bidders in line and in front of the protesting party.”

3. Peraton, Inc., B-416916.11 (Feb. 8, 2021) (published Mar. 16)

  • Following a series of protests and corrective action over two years, GAO dismissed as untimely the protester’s new allegation that the RFP no longer reflected the agency’s requirements.
  • Under GAO’s timeliness rules, protests challenging the terms of a solicitation must be filed prior to the proposal due date unless no due date has been established, in which case the protester is required to raise any issues within ten days of when it knew or should have known about the defects in the solicitation. An agency’s alleged failure to amend a solicitation based on changed requirements is a challenge to the terms of the solicitation.
  • Here, on October 30, the agency set a deadline for proposal submission. While Peraton protested prior to the due date, the company knew about the issues it raised between April 27 and October 30, when no closing time had been established for this procurement. GAO thus concluded Peraton’s protest was untimely.
  • In a rare admonishment, GAO also noted that this procurement had been subject to six protests by Peraton, the incumbent contractor that had continued performance throughout, and “permitting a protester to, in effect, hold solicitation challenges in reserve until it becomes clear that they are unlikely to prevail in a competition is antithetical to the idea that allegations of solicitation improprieties should be resolved as early as possible in the procurement process.”

When challenging the terms of a solicitation—including an agency’s failure to amend a solicitation based on changed requirements—the key question for timeliness is whether the date for proposal submissions (or resubmissions) has been set. In situations where no due date has been established, the protest must be filed within ten days of when the basis for protest was known. Failure to protest on time will result in a dismissal.

4. Mission 1st Group, Inc., B-419522 (Mar. 15, 2021)

  • GAO denied a protest challenging the company’s elimination from the competition based on a “go/no-go” evaluation factor for ISO 9001:2015 certification.
  • Offerors were required to show that they possessed a current/valid certificate, and also that they had possessed one during the period two years prior to the deadline for submitting proposals (October 5, 2020). The protester provided a current certificate, issued on December 27, 2019, but did not submit its prior certification. Based on missing the RFP requirement, the agency said “no-go.”
  • GAO found this result unobjectionable, because there was nothing ambiguous about the terms of the RFP, and had the agency requested the company submit additional documentation, that would have amounted to discussions.

A good reminder that contractors must pay close attention to RFP documentation requirements, particularly on “go/no-go” factors, as failure to provide the necessary information will likely result in elimination from the competition.

Claims Cases

1. Creative Mgmt. Servs., LLC v. United States, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No. 2020-1449 (Feb. 26, 2021)

  • Creative held a GSA contract to host the annual GovEnergy conference. Under the contract, it was to maintain a separate bank account with all proceeds from the conference and from which it could receive payment. When GSA cancelled the conference in 2012, GSA requested by letter that Creative return the entire amount in this account. Creative responded that it was entitled to keep any remaining funds and submitted a termination for convenience settlement. Eventually the government issued a final decision with a settlement amount and sought return of any difference remaining in the account.
  • Creative failed to appeal this Contracting Officer’s Final Decision (COFD) within 12 months, and the Court of Federal Claims found its appeal time barred by the Contract Disputes Act.
  • On appeal, Creative argued that the COFD was not proper as it did not state a sum certain.
  • The Federal Circuit upheld COFC’s dismissal, holding that a COFD need only be based on a claim stating a sum certain. Even then, the “sum certain” only needs to be “readily ascertainable to the party against whom the claim was made.” The court held that the government’s prior demand letters for the balance of the account constituted a sum certain despite containing different amounts and the word “approximately.” The court held the amount was readily ascertainable to Creative by simply checking the balance in the account.

This case is a reminder to pay close attention when dealing with any government demand for payment or any letter that identifies itself as a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision. Time limits under the Contract Disputes Act are a trap for the unwary. Creative gets credit for making creative technical arguments to attempt to avoid them, but it couldn’t get around its failure to timely appeal the COFD.

Investigations and Enforcement

O'Fallon Building Co. Settles Fraud Claims, USAO-SDIL, Department of Justice

R&W Builders, Inc., agreed to pay $400,000 to resolve allegations that it fraudulently obtained construction contracts reserved for 8(a) businesses. R&W had graduated from the 8(a) program, then stood up a new joint venture and, upon award of a new contract, stepped forward and managed the contracts using its own employees to perform nearly all the work in violation of 8(a) rules.

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) Agrees to Pay $6.9 Million To Settle Allegations That It Performed Procurement Fraud by Engaging in Collusive Behavior and Misconduct on Programs Funded by the United States Agency for International Development, USAO-DC, Department of Justice

International Rescue Committee agreed to pay $6.9 million to settle False Claims Act allegations related to USAID funds for humanitarian assistance for displaced persons in Syria. The allegations involved collusion and kickbacks for goods purchased by USAID funds.


Government Contracts Legal Round-Up | 2021 Issue 4

Welcome to Jenner & Block’s Government Contracts Legal Round‑Up, a biweekly update on important government contracts developments. This update summarizes key developments for government contracts legal, compliance, contracting, and business executives.

Executive Actions

Executive Order on America’s Supply Chains (Feb. 24, 2021)

  • This order sets out a policy to ensure resilience in US supply chains through robust US manufacturing capacity and the availability and integrity of critical products and services.
  • Within 100 days, members of the National Security Council (NSC) and heads of agencies will identify supply chain risks in key areas, including:
    • Semiconductor manufacturing and advanced packaging supply chains;
    • Critical minerals and other identified strategic materials, including rare earth elements; and
    • Pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients.
  • Within one year, DoD, among other agencies, must report on respective industrial bases, including identifying:
    • Critical materials and gaps in any US manufacturing capabilities; and
    • Any contingencies that may disrupt, strain, compromise, or eliminate the supply chain.

This order addresses concerns regarding exclusive or dominant supply of needed goods and materials through nations that are, or are likely to become, unfriendly or unstable. Within one year, agencies must supply recommendations regarding sustainably reshoring and building redundancy into US supply chains, enlarging stockpiles, developing workforce capabilities, and expanding research and development. Contractors should expect future regulatory changes that may be “necessary to attract and retain investments in critical goods and materials and other essential goods and materials.”

Audits

Weapon Systems Cybersecurity: Guidance Would Help DoD Programs Better Communicate Requirements to Contractors (Mar. 4, 2021)

  • GAO concluded that DoD has struggled to ensure its weapons systems can withstand cyberattacks, although some improvements have been made since 2018. 
  • DoD programs are not always incorporating cybersecurity requirements into contract language. Some contracts had no cybersecurity requirements when they were awarded, with vague requirements added later.

As a result of GAO’s recommendation that DoD components do better at incorporating cybersecurity requirements into contracts, contractors should expect to see new guidance from the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps on “tailored weapons systems cybersecurity requirements, acceptance criteria, and verification processes.” 

Protest Cases

1. Spartan Medical, Inc., B-419503 (Feb. 26, 2021)

  • GAO dismissed a protester’s challenge to an Air Force other transaction agreement (OTA) procurement for COVID-19 testing supplies.
  • The protester waited until after its response was rejected to challenge both the agency’s use of its OTA authority and the agency’s basis for eliminating the firm from further consideration.

OTAs are not procurement contracts covered by the Competition in Contracting Act, and GAO generally does not review protests of the award or solicitations for the award of an OTA. The only exception is where an agency is exercising its OTA authority and the protester files a timely, pre-closing date protest alleging that the agency is improperly exercising that authority. Here, GAO dismissed Spartan’s protest because its objection to the use of OTA authority was filed too late and because its challenge to the rejection of its submission was outside of GAO’s jurisdiction.

2. Anduril Industries, Inc., B-419420 (Feb. 22, 2021)

  • GAO denied a protest arguing that an Air Force task order competition for “tactical edge node support” was outside the scope of the underlying indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, or otherwise unduly restrictive of competition.
  • The Air Force’s advanced battle management systems (ABMS) IDIQ contract covered several categories and pools of contractors, and while the protester held an ABMS IDIQ contract for certain categories, its ABMS contract did not cover the category in which the “tactical edge node support” was being procured—“secure processing.” Anduril argued the competition should be conducted in the “transmission of data” category or that it should be permitted to compete.
  • GAO concluded that the tactical edge node support requirement was logically connected with the broad scope of work described in the ABMS program’s “secure processing” category.
  • Jurisdictional note: Even though the task order was valued below GAO’s $25 million jurisdictional threshold for DoD task order competitions, GAO had jurisdiction over the assertion that it was outside the scope of the IDIQ category. GAO did not have jurisdiction to consider the protester’s second argument that the solicitation was unduly restrictive of competition.

In determining whether a proposed task order is outside the scope of the underlying contract, GAO examines whether it is materially different from the original contract, as reasonably interpreted. Where there is a logical connection between a broad scope of work in an IDIQ contract and the services to be procured under a subsequent task order, the task order is within the scope of the IDIQ contract.

3. Microgenics Corp., B-419470 (Feb. 2, 2021)

  • GAO dismissed a protest challenging an award made by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) that was filed more than 10 days after the protester learned of its basis of protest.
  • AOUSC is a judicial branch agency not bound by the statutory requirement for a post-award debriefing that applies to executive branch agencies, and a debriefing mandated by internal agency policy guidance was not a “required debriefing” for purposes of GAO’s timeliness rules.
  • Thus, the debriefing exception did not apply, and the debriefing did not toll the protest filing deadline.

GAO’s strict rules for the timely submission of protests can be a trap for the unwary. In preparation for award notifications, offerors should ensure they understand the relevant deadlines in the event they are disappointed by the outcome and elect to protest.

Claims Cases

1. Appeal of BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 62416 (Feb. 10, 2021)

  • BAE Systems submitted three letters to the US Army related to environmental fines assessed on ammunition production facilities in Virginia. Each letter identified itself as a request for equitable adjustment (REA), referenced the DFARS REA clause, and contained the DFARS REA certification. None of the letters requested a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision (COFD) or contained the FAR claim certification language.
  • After failed negotiations, BAE Systems converted the REAs to certified claims through a document requesting a COFD and containing the FAR claim certification. The Army failed to issue a COFD by the date it identified, and BAE Systems appealed the deemed denial to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA).
  • The Army moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that BAE Systems’ earlier letters were “claims” under the Federal Circuit’s 2019 decision in Hejran Hejrat and, thus, the contractor’s appeal was untimely.
  • The ASBCA acknowledged that the holding in Hejran Hejrat made this case a “closer call” than it would have been, but concluded the REAs did not cross the “Rubicon” into CDA claims. The Board focused on BAE’s lack of explicit or implicit request for a COFD and the lack of substantive change in the “posture between the parties” during the REA information exchanges.  

The government frequently attempts to argue jurisdictional and procedural bars to claims. In BAE Systems, the Army attempted to use case law that traditionally helped contractors as a weapon against them: arguing that a document intended by the contractor to be a REA should be treated as a claim and trigger the 90 day clock for appeal to the ASBCA. The Board rejected the argument, but the warning is clear: the government may insert ambiguous language in its contractual correspondence (e.g., "Contracting Officer’s Final Determination") and then attempt to use it in a jurisdictional argument. Remember to develop a clear strategy for pursuing REAs and converting them to claims, be careful in drafting each, and pay close attention to government correspondence in response.

2. Appeal of Central Diversified Contracting, LLC, ASBCA No. 62585 (Jan. 6, 2021)

  • Central Diversified Contracting, LLC received an Army Corps of Engineers contract to remove a floating fish collector from a reservoir in Oregon. The government had informed bidders the fish collector weighed 15,000 pounds, but it actually weighed 81,000 pounds. As a result, Central Diversified had to use a different crane and method of performance. 
  • The Army Corps and Central Diversified entered into a bilateral modification increasing the contract amount by $29,530, but Central Diversified later sought additional damages through contract claims.
  • The Army Corps argued that the modification’s release covered all additional effort resulting from the larger fish collector.
  • The ASBCA held that the modification’s description of its purpose as “mobilize a 400-ton crane to the site” was not all-inclusive, and Central Diversified was entitled to additional cost related to the larger fish collector.

This case is a reminder to pay close attention to the release language in any contract modification. Much like any good fish story, the government will often attempt to claim the release was bigger later on.

FCA Priorities

The annual Federal Bar Association's Qui Tam Conference, held last month (and featuring Jenner & Block Partner David Robbins in the "Defense Strategies" panel), saw an important keynote session from Sen. Chuck Grassley (a career-long champion of the False Claims Act) and Brian Boynton, acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. They outlined FCA enforcement priorities for 2021 and signaled future amendments to the FCA to counter efforts to, in Sen. Grassley's words, "undermine the law as written." Enforcement priorities include combatting COVID-19/stimulus-related fraud, cybersecurity-related fraud, and fraud related to opioids.


Government Contracts Legal Round-Up | 2021 Issue 3

Welcome to Jenner & Block’s Government Contracts Legal Round‑Up, a biweekly update on important government contracts developments. This update will offer brief summaries of key developments for government contracts legal, compliance, contracting, and business executives.

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Rules

1. Class Deviation 2021-O0004 - DFARS 252.225-7987 Requirements for Contractor Personnel Performing in the US Southern Command Area of Responsibility (Feb. 22, 2021)

  • The new deviation is to be used in lieu of the clause DFARS 252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Supporting US Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States, in solicitations and contracts that require performance in US Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM). 
  • Designed to implement the President’s March 13, 2020, “Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak,” this new class deviation adds the following requirements for contracts supporting USSOUTHCOM, as follows:
    • Recertification of medical fitness for medical suitability screening;
    • Requirements for Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker data for contractor personnel support and tracking; and 
    • Personnel recovery requirements.

Contractors operating in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility should note this new class deviation, which rescinds and supersedes class deviation 2014-O0016. It includes new medical and tracking requirements in response to COVID-19 outbreak, in addition to continued operational requirements.

DoD Implements New Contracting Certification Program for DoD Acquisition Professionals

1. Restructuring of the Certification Program for the Contracting Functional Area (Feb. 18, 2021)

  • The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)), has released a plan for a new certification program for its workforce as part of its phased implementation of a Back-to-Basics (BtB) talent management framework.
  • A Contracting Certification Taskforce has designed a new Contracting Professional Certification Program for DoD’s Contracting Functional Area.
  • Effective October 1, 2021, DoD will be adopting a single level of certification with foundational training and an examination designed to verify competency.
  • The certification is based on the American National Standards Institute / National Contract Management Association (ANSI / NCMA ASD 1-2019) accredited Contract Management Standard.
  • A “significant undertaking,” the deployment of the new certification program and credentials is designed to enable “an improved talent development approach for a professional, capable, and mission-focused contracting workforce.”

Training DoD’s acquisition workforce has long been a key issue. This new Contracting Competency model is designed to comply with section 861 of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 116-92). That provision requires DoD contracting professionals to earn a professional certification based on standards developed by a third-party accredited program.

DoD Audits 

1. Audit of Contracts for DoD Information Technology Products and Services Procured by DoD Components in Response to the Coronavirus Disease–2019 Pandemic (DODIG-2021-050) (Feb. 12, 2021)

  • DoD’s Office of Inspector General concluded that DoD has complied with the CARES Act and other Federal and DoD requirements in procuring approximately $81.5 million in information technology products and services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic at reasonable prices and at a reduced risk of cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
  • Contractors should note that DoD will continue to focus on compliance with the CARES Act and cybersecurity to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities, each of which could potentially jeopardize the DoD’s missions, information, and assets.

2. Audit of Cybersecurity Requirements for Weapon Systems in the Operations and Support Phase of the Department of Defense Acquisition Life Cycle (DODIG-2021-051) (Feb. 10, 2021)

  • The objective of this audit was to determine whether DoD Components took action to update cybersecurity requirements for weapon systems in the Operations and Support (O&S) phase of the acquisition life cycle, based on publicly acknowledged or known cybersecurity threats and intelligence-based cybersecurity threats.
  • For the five DoD weapon systems assessed, DoD IG concluded that program officials followed the Risk Management Framework requirements and updated cybersecurity requirements to account for additional countermeasures implemented or needed to protect the weapon systems from the identified threats.
  • Contractors should be prepared for cybersecurity requirements to evolve during an O&S phase of a program if threats are identified.

Protest Cases

1. Coventry Healthcare Workers’ Compensation, Inc., B-417237.5 (Jan. 29, 2021)

  • GAO denied a protest asserting that a price-technical tradeoff was flawed because the agency failed to assign a monetary value to savings that purportedly would be realized from the protester’s technical solution.
  • GAO rejected the argument because nothing in the solicitation’s evaluation scheme contemplated that the agency would “monetize” any aspect of an offeror’s technical approach.

An agency is not required to take into account monetary savings that could be realized during performance unless the solicitation contemplates an analysis or consideration of the potential cost savings associated with an offeror’s technical approach.

2. FreeAlliance.com, LLC; Radus Software LLC/Radus CTA; Mobomo, LLC, B-419201.3 et al. (Jan. 19, 2021)

  • GAO sustained a protest where the evaluation record did not explain why the strengths and weaknesses assigned to each quotation merited a particular adjectival rating. Apart from a recitation of the definition for the adjectival ratings, the record did not explain the agency’s basis for assigning the ratings.
  • GAO was unable to conclude that the agency’s evaluation was administered on an even-handed basis because quotations with the same strengths were assigned different ratings without any explanation.

GAO will sustain a protest where the evaluation record is insufficient to conclude that differences in evaluation ratings assigned to quotations stemmed from differences between the quotations.

3. DynCorp International, LLC v. United States, No. 20-cv-1293 C (Feb. 16, 2021)

  • COFC dismissed a protest on the basis that it was “connected to the issuance of the task order” and did not fit into the jurisdictional exception for task orders that exceed the scope of the IDIQ contract.
  • The protest alleged that an Army task order was improperly awarded to CACI, Inc. because, following CACI’s conversion from Inc. to LLC, CACI, Inc. no longer held a GISS IDIQ contract.
  • Because DynCorp could not show that the statement of work described in the task order Performance Work Statement (PWS) was beyond the PWS for CACI’s GISS IDIQ contract, the scope exception did not apply.
  • In addition, the Court explained that the protest would have been denied on the merits, because the conversion from CACI, Inc. to CACI, LLC was completed in accordance with the FAR, with full government awareness, and did not affect the Army’s award to CACI in any way.

This decision highlights two important issues for contractors. First, protesting a task order at COFC is only available in the narrowest of circumstances, and GAO is generally a contractor’s only recourse. Second, when a contractor takes any action that affects the company’s corporate identity, it is vital to engage the federal customer and follow appropriate practices to ensure that any awards made are to the correct entity.

Claims Cases

1. Appeals of Harry Pepper and Associates, ASBCA Nos. 62038-42 

  • Harry Pepper and Associates encountered numerous changes while performing a $36.5 million contract to restore and reinforce a rocket booster support tower at NASA’s Stennis Space Center.
  • Pepper submitted 12 claims asserting a variety of changes, including to the contract performance method and welding procedures, and alleging defective design by the government.
  • In addition, Pepper argued in the alternative that the contract had been constructively changed by pervasive out-of-scope work, increased performance time, different equipment requirements, and increased labor demands.
  • The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) held there was no cardinal change because, despite a great number of alterations made in the work, the changes were not out of character with the work contemplated in the contract and were foreseeable by the contractor.

As contract changes begin to balloon on a contract, it is tempting to assume the cumulative effect will equal a cardinal change. But this case is a reminder that cardinal change is very difficult to demonstrate through voluminous changes to the work or significant increase in performance time. Courts and Boards are loath to find the government in breach and will seek to redress changes—no matter how voluminous—under the contact’s changes clause. Thus, as changes mount and performance time increases, it is especially important to engage in developing comprehensive requests for equitable adjustment to ensure you can fully capture cost and schedule impact.

2. Appeal of SkyQuest Aviation, LLC, ASBCA No. 62586 

  • SkyQuest received an Air Force contract to provide test pilots and flight engineers. During performance, the Air Force asserted that the pilots must have specific Air Force certification paperwork. SkyQuest responded to a cure notice disputing that the certification paperwork was required by the contract. The Air Force terminated SkyQuest for default.
  • SkyQuest filed a pro se complaint at the ASBCA seeking $429,000 in payment, revocation of the default termination, and adjustment of its CPAR rating.
  • SkyQuest did not obtain a contracting officer’s final decision on any of these items prior to its appeal, and the Air Force asserted the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear SkyQuest’s appeal.
  • The ASBCA held that, although it did not have CDA jurisdiction over the monetary claim or the CPAR adjustment, the termination for default was a government claim for which a contracting officer’s final decision was not necessary. In addition, because SkyQuest disputed the termination only based on compliance with the contract terms, it was not required to obtain a COFD to proceed.

Challenging government claims, including termination for default or claims for liquidated damages, implicates nuanced procedural questions. The Maropakis case required that affirmative defenses must be the subject of a COFD. SkyQuest Aviation reflects evolution of the Maropakis line of cases in recent years to clarify that submission to the contracting officer is not required where the defense is merely that the government has not met its burden of proof for an element of its claim.

3. Appeals of San Point Services, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 61819, 61820 

In another example of government contracting and surety industries colliding, the ASBCA quashed a government subpoena seeking information relating to a payment bond claim filed by a subcontractor. In a rather odd case, NASA sought to defend against an ASBCA claim by arguing that a separate payment bond case, filed by a subcontractor, contained admissions concerning fraud. NASA served a subpoena duces tecum on the surety, which successfully moved to quash based on undue burden. The Navy’s arguments that the contractor had been less than forthcoming were not compelling—in the eyes of the ASBCA—to justify placing the burden of a subpoena on the surety.

There are a number of ongoing lawsuits and/or investigations alleging that sureties owe the government certain duties to prevent fraud (see, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Scollick v. Narula), but here the ASBCA limited the government’s reach into the surety business while upholding the ASBCA’s periodically announced practice of not letting the government’s blanket assertion of fraud divest the Board of jurisdiction over an appeal.

Investigations and Enforcement

There have been a number of cases dealing with recovery of attorney’s fees in False Claims Act cases lately:

  • Beware the parallel proceeding. Where civil settlement funds were seized by the government investigating a separate criminal matter, the court denied motions by the plaintiff’s lawyers to release a third of those funds to satisfy the contingent fee earned by those attorneys on the civil case. U.S. ex rel. Glasser v. Boykin Contracting, Inc. (Civil Action No.: 3:14-cv-00224-JMC, D.S.C. Columbia Division)
  • And a court refused to permit double dipping by qui tam plaintiffs, shaming a relator for not removing from its fee requests amounts for unsuccessful claims and failing to account for prior recoveries. U.S. and State of New York ex re. Nichols v. Computer Sciences Corp. and City of New York (S.D.N.Y)

And the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminding qui tam plaintiffs that fraud must be pled with particularity, dismissing the complaint in U.S. ex rel. Noreen Lanahan v. County of Cook for failure to plead relevant details about alleged false statements and certifications, such as who made them, when they were made, and how much money was involved.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s rejection of a False Claims Act retaliation claim in Hickman v. Spirit of Athens, holding to the standard that an objectively reasonable belief that the individual was attempting to prevent a violation of the False Claims Act was necessary to support a retaliation claim. A sincere belief is not enough—that belief must be objectively reasonable.

Suspension / Debarment Summary

The World Bank released its debarment/sanctions results. The Bank debarred 267 companies and individuals, which was a substantial increase over prior years. The Bank also announced, that beginning in 2021, it would state the reason for debarments / sanctions in the future. By comparison, the US suspension / debarment system is less transparent, and does not release the causes for suspensions and debarments in the annual Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee Report to Congress (which is a trailing publication, the most current edition published in early 2021 only covered Fiscal Year 2019 activities).


Government Contracts Legal Round-Up | 2021 Issue 1

Welcome to Jenner & Block’s Government Contracts Legal Round‑Up, a biweekly update on important government contracts developments. This update will offer brief summaries of key developments for government contracts legal, compliance, contracting, and business executives.

Executive Actions

1. Thirty Executive Actions in President Biden’s First Three Days in Office

  • In his first three days of office, President Biden signed 30 executive actions on a variety of subjects, including COVID-19 relief, immigration, environment protections, and defunding the border wall. 
  • Among other orders, President Biden has mandated masks on federal property, directed a report on a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour, and sought to reinforce and strengthen domestic preferences for products manufactured in the US.
  • President Biden has also revoked numerous Trump-era executive orders, including the recent Executive Order 13950 of September 22, 2020, Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, which had been halted by a preliminary injunction and deemed inoperable pursuant to this revised Class Deviation
  • President Biden issued a “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” to allow review of any new or pending rules, and asked the Office of Management and Budget to “identify ways to modernize and improve the regulatory review process” in his “Modernizing Regulatory Review” Order. Biden also revoked President Trump’s “one in, two out” rule, among others designed to limit Federal regulation

Contractors should anticipate a number of immediate and long-term regulatory changes under the new Biden administration. Whereas President Trump issued several orders on deregulation, the Biden administration seeks to modernize the regulatory process to enable “swift and effective Federal action” to address the pandemic, the economy, systemic racial inequality, and climate change. For a more detailed look at the executive orders, see this advisory.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Rules

1. FAR Case 2019-106: Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials, Final Rule, Issued Jan. 19, 2021, Effective Jan. 21, 2021

  • This rule implements Executive Order 13881, which creates a new higher standard for iron and steel products. 
  • To meet the definition of “domestic construction material” or “domestic end product,” the cost of foreign iron and steel for iron and steel products must be less than 5 percent of the cost of all components in the products. 
  • For all else, the domestic content requirement increases from 50 percent to more than 55 percent of the cost of all components. 
    • The domestic content test has been waived for acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, except a product that consists wholly or predominantly of iron, steel, or a combination of both (excluding COTS fasteners).
  • The Buy American statute imposes a price preference for domestic end products and construction material. This rule increases the price preference from 6 to 20 percent for large businesses and from 12 to 30 percent for small businesses. Price preference for domestic end products for Department of Defense (DoD) procurements remain unchanged, at 50 percent for both large and small businesses.

Contractors should re-evaluate their materials and end products to determine if they meet the new higher standards of 95 percent domestic cost content for iron/steel materials, and more than 55 percent for non-iron/steel materials to qualify for domestic price preferences, which vary for civilian and defense procurements.

2. FAR Case: 2018-016, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process, Final Rule, Issued Jan. 14, 2021, Effective Feb. 16, 2021

  • This rule finalizes similar but not identical restrictions on the use of lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection for civilian agencies. These rules are already in place for DoD contracts at DFARS 215.101-2.
  • The rule amends FAR 15.101-2 to outline when LPTA may be used; e.g., where minimum requirements can be clearly described in terms of performance objectives, measures, and standards and where the agency would realize no or minimal value from exceeding the minimum requirements.

This rule supplies contractors with a potential protest ground for civilian agency solicitations that improperly use LPTA in situations where the agency would realize value from exceeding minimum requirements.

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Rules

1. DFARS Case 2018-D022: Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services, Final Rule, Effective Jan. 15, 2021

  • Increases the security of systems and critical technology used to carry out the nuclear deterrence and homeland defense missions of DoD by prohibiting the use of telecommunications equipment or services from certain Chinese entities, and from any other entities owned or controlled by China or Russia.
  • Converts DFARS 252.204-7018, Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services into a final rule, with two minor changes.
  • The changes extend (1) the reporting timeframe for the discovery of covered defense telecommunications equipment or services from one day to three days, and (2) the reporting timeframe to submit information about mitigation actions undertaken from 10 days to 30 days.

In the finalization of this existing interim rule, contractors should note the extension of separate reporting timeframes of discovery and mitigation actions of covered defense telecommunications equipment.

Protest Cases

1. Raytheon Company, B-419393.5, B-419393.6, Dec. 22, 2020

  • The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) dismissed as premature a protest challenging the scope of the Space Development Agency’s corrective action because the agency had not yet taken any concrete actions that supported the protester’s allegations. 
  • Raytheon had asserted in its prior protest that the agency’s technical requirements had changed during the competition and that the agency’s public statements suggested that budget constraints were an unstated evaluation criterion. Raytheon protested when the agency failed to amend the solicitation and solicit revised proposals as part of its corrective action. 
  • GAO explained that the agency’s public statements were not probative evidence that the solicitation failed to accurately reflect the agency’s requirements such that a solicitation requirement was required.

Until an agency takes some official, concrete action during its reevaluation effort—such as actually evaluating proposals using unstated evaluation factors—a protester’s challenge to the agency’s proposed corrective action is at risk of being deemed premature.

2. World Wide Technology, Inc., B-417909.2, B-417909.3, Dec. 14, 2020 (publicly released Jan. 4)

  • GAO found unobjectionable an agency’s decision not to raise pricing issues during discussions where the protester’s price was not evaluated as unreasonably high.
  • The protester’s proposed price was 180 percent higher than the awardee’s, but the Defense Information Systems Agency deemed the protester’s price to be reasonable (based on a comparison of all proposed prices and the government estimate), and so the agency did not raise the protester’s pricing during discussions.

An agency is not required to inform an offeror during discussions that its proposed price is high in comparison to a competitor’s proposed price, even where price is the determinative factor for award, unless an offeror’s proposed price is so high as to be unreasonable or unacceptable.

3. Innovative Management & Technology Approaches, Inc., B-418823.3, B-418823.4, Jan. 8, 2021

  • GAO sustained a protest because the Patent and Trademark Office permitted an awardee to remove a proposal assumption that took exception to the solicitation terms, but it did not provide the protester an opportunity to revise or improve its proposal.
  • The awardee’s proposal included an assumption that it would be entitled to a price adjustment if the volume of service desk requests supported under the contract exceeded the solicitation’s historical estimates by 10% or greater. The awardee removed the assumption at the selection authority’s request.

A proposal that takes exception to a solicitation’s material terms and conditions should be considered unacceptable and may not form the basis for an award. If an agency permits the offeror to remedy its deficient proposal, it must provide all offerors an opportunity to revise their proposals as well.

4. Perspecta Enterprise Solutions LLC v. United States, COFC No. 20-814, Dec. 17, 2020 (publicly released Jan. 15, 2021)

  • The US Court of Federal Claims (COFC) held that a protester had waived its conflict of interest allegations by not raising the claims prior to submitting a proposal. 
  • Perspecta argued awardee Leidos received an unfair competitive advantage in the Navy’s Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN) competition through the hiring of a former Navy official, but the COFC rejected this argument as untimely since the former official’s involvement as a member of the Leidos capture team was “clearly a matter of public record.”
  • The decision follows the Federal Circuit’s 2020 decision in Inserso Corp. in which the Circuit Court confirmed that the Blue and Gold waiver doctrine applies to conflicts of interest. Note that Judge Reyna penned a strong dissent in Inserso objecting to the validity of the Blue and Gold doctrine altogether.

The decision reflects the Court’s extension of the Blue and Gold waiver rule to conflict of interest allegations that are based on public information. The Blue and Gold waiver rule requires contractors to protest patent solicitation errors prior to submitting a proposal.

Claims Cases

1. Appeal of Granite Construction Company, ASBCA No. 62281 (Dec. 8, 2020)

  • When Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) suspended work for 49 days on Granite Construction Company’s dam repair contract.
  • After the suspension expired, Granite sought costs for the 49 days of delay. The USACE agreed to pay costs for only 30 days of delay, arguing that 19 days of adverse weather delay were specified in the contract’s adverse weather clause and included in Granite’s schedule.
  • The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) held that the contract’s adverse weather clause was unrelated to its suspension of work clause and USACE was not permitted to exclude anticipated weather delays from the suspension period.

The government often fails to properly acknowledge delay events, including those caused by severe weather. The government may also argue that schedule float is for the benefit of the government instead of the contractor. This case is a reminder to pay close attention to contract and schedule treatment of weather-related delays, and to engage promptly and fully whenever severe weather impacts contract performance. 

2. Boeing Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force, No. 2019-2147 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2020)

  • Boeing marked unlimited rights technical data with a “Non-U.S. Government Notice” proprietary legend, which stated that “non-U.S. Government entities may use and disclose only as permitted in writing by Boeing or by the U.S. Government.” 
  • The contracting officer rejected technical data marked with that legend, finding it nonconforming because it is not one of the legends specifically authorized by DFARS 252.227-7013. 
  • Boeing argued its legend was not nonconforming because it did not restrict the Government’s rights, but rather the rights of third parties.
  • The Federal Circuit overturned the ASBCA, holding that such a legend is consistent with the standard DFARS data rights clause so long as the legend does not restrict the rights of the government.

The government has traditionally objected to inclusion of any legend outside of those specified in the DFARS. In this case, the Federal Circuit rejected that approach. Thus, when delivering unlimited rights data, consider including a proprietary legend asserting rights against third parties not acting under the government’s authority.

Investigations and Enforcement

Procurement fraud investigations, False Claims Act (FCA) cases, prosecutions, and government recoveries are all on the rise. The government’s procurement fraud remedies organization is also coordinating heavily to respond to economic stimulus fraud. This will further increase risks for contractors. These developments are designed to make contractors aware of ongoing and emerging risks so ethics and compliance programs may be updated, and to better manage any investigations that may be necessary.

1. Procurement Fraud Recoveries on the Rise for the US Department of Justice (DoJ)

On January 14, DoJ announced its FCA recoveries for FY2020. While the lion’s share of recoveries continued to flow from healthcare contracts, the recoveries reflect continuation of a multi-year emphasis on procurement fraud cases. 

2. First Civil Settlement for CARES Act Fraud Announced

On January 12, DoJ announced the nation’s first civil settlement for the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) fraud. SlideBelts, Inc., and its CEO agreed to pay a combined $100,000 in damages and penalties to resolve fraud allegations. The settlement resolved multiple allegations, including civil FCA allegations. 

3. United States v. Strock, No. 19-4331, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Dec. 3, 2020)

Materiality is a required element under the FCA to show that, among other things, had the government known the facts, the government would not have paid. Here, the Second Circuit discussed materiality in a fraudulent inducement case in depth, and emphasized the impact of continued government payment after knowledge of contract violations on a materiality defense. 

4. Materially False Cost and Pricing Data Drives FCA Liability

On January 12, DoJ announced a $25 million FCA settlement ending an inquiry into alleged knowing overcharges on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle contracts. The qui tam case alleged that drone prices were based on inflated cost or pricing data for new parts, when the defendant intended to use recycled or refurbished parts available at substantially lower prices. 

5. Bribery and Kickbacks Still Draw Criminal Enforcement

On January 15, DoJ announced a 70-month sentence to an individual for paying bribes to Army contracting officials in order to steer contracts worth at least $19 million to his employer. The individual also accepted more than $700,000 in kickbacks from a company in exchange for subcontract work.

Legislative Developments

1. Summary of Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

  • The William M. (Mac) Thornberry NDAA for Fiscal Year 2021—filled with thousands of provisions—provides a roadmap of acquisition policies that will drive future regulatory changes for government contractors of all types, sizes, and customer bases. 
  • Perennial topics, including cybersecurity, foreign influence, domestic sourcing, data rights, Other Transaction Authority, commercial item contracting, ethics, and small business participation continue to dominate. Joining these subjects are newer topics, including expediting US Space Force acquisition.

We highlight some of the key developments and offer guidance on what contractors should anticipate in the coming months and years in this client advisory. We will be closely tracking the reports to Congress and anticipated regulatory changes.