Cost, Compliance & Risks

As the potential for a Government shutdown gets closer to reality with each passing minute, United States Government contractors and subcontractors may soon find themselves in a confusing position as to what actions they should take in light of their existing contract obligations. In an effort to resolve that confusion, the Department of Defense has released guidance to be used by its elements and contracts in the event of a Government shutdown tonight. While directly applicable to Defense activities and constituent contracts, the guidance may assist other non-Defense contractors in addressing some of their questions or concerns.
Continue Reading Bracing for Impact: How Contractors Can Manage Their Risk During a Government Shutdown

If your company sells products or services to the U.S. Government, there’s a substantial likelihood that you’ve read or heard the acronym “NIST” in connection with various cybersecurity related obligations that the Government is imposing on contractors with a seemingly unceasing vengeance. NIST refers to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is a…

On August 2, President Trump signed into law the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATS). What is the significance of the law?

Zlatko Hadzismajlovic: Many things stand out, but here are three that are foremost. First is the sheer number of members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who supported the legislation.

It’s surprising how often the simplest phrases can provide the most salient advice. The 6 P’s,for example: Proper prior planning prevents poor performance. While the phrase may be a bit of a tortured alliteration, the truth and simplicity of its sentiment can’t be denied: When you want a good outcome, you have to think it through. Simple.
Continue Reading Your Biggest Cybersecurity Threat: Failing to Plan

If you are aware of German Christmas folklore (and really, who isn’t?), you know that Belsnickel is a legendary companion of St. Nick who carries a switch with which to punish naughty children and a pocketful of sweets to reward good ones. This holiday season, many are feeling the sting of a switch of another kind, this one involving the December 20, 2016, issuing by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of a preholiday revision of Special Publication 800-171 (SP 800-171), Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations. If SP 800-171 sounds familiar, it is because the publication is the source of the cybersecurity controls that defense contractors must follow and flow down to subcontractors pursuant to DFARS Subpart 204.73 and its operative clauses (e.g., DFARS 252.204-7008 and DFARS 252.204-7012). Essentially accompanying St. Nick (perhaps Santa Clause may be more appropriate) this season, the NIST’s revised publication may resemble Belsnickel’s switch (pun intended) to contractors who already have existing SP 800-171 controls in place (as the controls have been required, in various forms, since November 2013) or who have started down the road toward SP 800-171 adherence in advance of the DFARS-directed December 2017 deadline. With that in mind, let’s take a quick look at the implications that switch (pun still intended) brings to the security requirements for protecting the confidentiality of CUI in nonfederal systems and organizations:
Continue Reading Switches and Sweets: Belsnickel Brings Defense Contractors and Subcontractors New Cybersecurity Controls in Preholiday Revisions of NIST Cybersecurity Publication

Etymology, particularly the Greek or Latin roots of words, aids our understanding in much the same way as root cause analysis does. The Greek word for disclosure is αποκάλυψη, transliterated to apokálypsi, or “apocalypse.” Nomen est omen. This came to mind while reading the pronouncements proffered by various agencies this year – each of which influences voluntary disclosures of export control violations.
Continue Reading Apocalypse Soon? Permanent Disqualification From Department of Defense Contracts May Result From Voluntary Disclosures of Export Violations

Colleges and universities receive billions of dollars in federal funds, whether through research grants or student financial aid, or even by billing Medicare or Medicaid for services rendered at academic medical centers. As a result, institutions of higher education must be vigilant to ensure that their receipt of federal funding does not implicate the broad scope of the civil False Claims Act (FCA), a federal statute that seeks to combat fraud against the government. Those found liable of violating the FCA by submitting false claims to the government face treble damages and penalties ranging from $10,781 to $21,563 per violation. In recent years, there has been an unprecedented and steady rise in the number and types of cases brought under the FCA. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recovered more than $4.7 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases involving fraud against the government under the FCA, a $1.2 billion increase over the $3.5 billion recouped last year in 2015.
Continue Reading Universities Are Prime Targets for False Claims Act Liability

Carrier. UTC. Boeing. Swamp-draining rhetoric. While many ponder what America can expect from the next administration, one thing is clear – it appears to have its eyes on government contractors. However, it is important for those eyes to study the volumes of acquisition regulations under which the government is required to operate when contracting with commercial companies. Accordingly, we thought it would be helpful to describe – through a series of explanations of 140 or fewer characters – why recent tweets about Boeing’s Air Force One contract do not reflect the current state of government contracts law and, in particular, the provisions governing termination of contracts.
Continue Reading Government Contractors Should Not Fear Contract Termination Over Twitter #ComplicatedRegulations #CostlyTerminationProvisions

New FAR Rules and U.S. Department of Labor Guidance Implement the Long-Anticipated (and Much-Dreaded) Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order

Burdensome disclosure obligations, pay transparency, and other affirmative requirements as a condition of doing business with the federal government continue. Sound familiar? The trend continues with new Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) rules and accompanying U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) guidance issued on August 25, 2016, implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order. In a nutshell – boiling down over 800 pages of rulemaking materials – the rules will soon require:Continue Reading Federal Contractors and Subcontractors Subject to yet More Mandatory Disclosure Requirements