Why a clean name-match screen is no longer enough, and why the diligence meant to find hidden China exposure can create risk on the other side of the Pacific.
Picture the boardwalk version of supply-chain compliance. It’s August. Fingers are that odd combination of french fry-greasy and ice cream-sticky The arcade is humming. Someone hands
In a sharply worded order issued May 18, 2026, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) remanded the agency’s suspension of ATI Government Solutions, LLC, from the 8(a) Business Development (BD) Program, finding the administrative record so deficient that it could not meaningfully review whether the suspension rested on adequate evidence. The case is Matter of ATI Government Solutions, LLC, SBA No. BDPT-728 (2026), and the decision is a forceful reaffirmation of two bedrock principles of administrative law in the 8(a) suspension context: An agency must articulate its reasoning at the time it acts, and the record it submits on appeal must actually contain the materials the decision-maker relied on. It also arrives at a uniquely fraught moment for 8(a) firms—and ATI, a tribally owned participant suspended on the strength of a hidden-camera video, illustrates exactly the kind of fast, thinly supported enforcement action that seems to have become business as usual for the SBA in recent months.
Continue Reading OHA Remands 8(a) Suspension Built on Hidden-Camera Video
If your supply chain crosses a border, your FAR 52.222-90 flowdown is probably already wrong. Either it overpromises in ways an EU, UK, or South African supplier cannot sign without violating local law, or it underpromises and creates False Claims Act (FCA) exposure on the US side. Both versions of the problem land on the same desk, and they land on a clock.
As we covered in a prior post, FAR 52.222-90 is not a routine flowdown. It reaches subcontract administration, records access, reporting obligations, bilateral modifications, suspension and debarment, and FCA materiality. In cross-border scenarios, those same hooks meet a thicket of foreign equality, pay-transparency, sustainability, human-rights, privacy, and disclosure-blocking regimes. The result is predictable confusion, and confusion in this clause is expensive.
Continue Reading FAR 52.222-90 Goes Global: Cross-Border Supply Chains and the Limits of a US Flowdown
On April 7, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum establishing the National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED”) within the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Announced in a corresponding DOJ press release, the NFED is the Department’s first unified litigating division dedicated exclusively to investigating and prosecuting fraud against taxpayer dollars. For the government contractor community, the creation of the NFED represents a meaningful escalation in federal fraud enforcement.
Continue Reading DOJ Stands Up a New Fraud-Fighting Division: What Government Contractors Need to Know About the National Fraud Enforcement Division
Clear and precise recognition and treatment of intellectual property (IP) are critical in government contracting because the ownership and use of preexisting IP, so-called “Background IP,” turn on the timing of, and funding sources for, the development of the IP. Therefore, internal documentation and standardized procedures for tracking and marking IP are crucial in the event of a dispute regarding the development, use, or ownership of IP before, during, and after performance on a government contract.
Continue Reading Don’t Put Your Background IP into It: Protecting What’s Yours
Earlier this year, we addressed a growing sense of confusion and unease among federal contractors relating to shifting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) standards. Specifically, awardees had to take stock of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) newly launched Civil Rights Fraud Initiative. DOJ explained that it intended to pursue False Claims Act (FCA) cases against “any recipient of federal funds that knowingly violates federal civil rights law,” with an emphasis on unlawful DEI workplace programs. But given this year’s abrupt shift regarding DEI standards, contractors were left to guess which conduct could put them in DOJ’s crosshairs. On July 29, DOJ elaborated on what it considers “unlawful discrimination,” issuing Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination (“Guidance”) to all federal agencies. The Guidance outlines what DOJ deems “best practices” so that any organization that receives federal financial assistance—e.g., universities, local governments, and nonprofit organizations—can take practical steps “to minimize the risk of violations.”
Continue Reading New “Unlawful Discrimination” Guidance from DOJ Underscores Risks to Federal Grant Recipients
– Lewis Carroll: “Jabberwocky,” Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1872)
There is a growing sense of confusion and unease among many federal contractors and grant recipients in these early days of the second Trump administration. In a time when some agencies face dislocation and downsizing (or, as with USAID, effective disbandment), contractors may feel like Alice stepping through the Looking Glass into a world strangely inverted from the one they knew. This shift is especially evident in the administration’s rejection of seemingly all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies—long used to prevent discrimination, comply with civil rights laws, and foster inclusive environments in the American workforce.
Continue Reading Through the Looking Glass: Shifting DEI Standards Expose Contractors to False Claims Act Risk
The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) recently fined clothing retailer Todd Snyder almost $350,000 for two types of consumer privacy errors. Due to technical errors during a 40-day period, it was impossible for Todd Snyder website users to request to opt out of having their information sold or shared. When users clicked the button for the Cookie Preferences Center, the consent banner would appear but instantly disappear, thus making it impossible for anyone to actually opt out. For those who were able to actually access the preferences center, Todd Snyder over-collected information from its users who wanted to opt out of having their information sold or shared. Todd Snyder’s data request form required users to verify their identity by submitting a photograph of themselves holding their identity document, even when they wanted to opt out.
Continue Reading Check Your Process or Pay Your Fine: Recent 6-Figure Fines from the California Privacy Protection Agency
Amid the chaos of the past few weeks—sweeping executive orders, relentless cost-cutting, and an air of uncertainty that lingers like smoke after a fire—federal contractors have been left reeling, straining to hear what comes next through the deafening noise. In this storm, predicting the future is as futile as fortune-telling. And yet beneath the shouts of change and upheaval, one truth remains, a whisper through the screams—some things, especially those that serve the government’s interests, are not going anywhere.
Continue Reading Whisper Through the Screams: DOJ Commits to False Claims Act Enforcement in 2025
Just how broad is the scope of the False Claims Act (FCA)? That is the basic question posed in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Heath, No. 23-1127. Put more directly, the case addresses whether reimbursement requests under the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support program—better known as the E-Rate program—are actionable “claims” exposed to liability under the FCA. But when the US Supreme Court hears oral argument next month, the justices will grapple with broader questions with implications far beyond this case: (1) when does the government “provide” money in any transaction or program so that FCA liability attaches; (2) when is an independent government-sponsored enterprise (e.g., Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) acting as an “agent” of the United States for FCA purposes; and (3) to what extent do those who deal with private entities established or chartered pursuant to federal law need to watch this case to determine their potential exposure under the FCA and its panoply of enforcement mechanisms?
Continue Reading Wisconsin Bell: Testing the Elasticity of False Claims Act’s Scope