Investigations & Enforcement

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

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite! The claws that catch!”

– 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

Johnny, rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard
’Cause Hell’s broke loose in Georgia and the Devil deals the cards
And if you win, you get this shiny fiddle made of gold
But if you lose the Devil gets your soul
~ The Charlie Daniels Band

Some might say there’s little difference between dealing with the devil and being a federal contractor. And for the unwary or unprepared, that may not be far off. Federal contracting comes with a litany of “fine print” that would make “Old Scratch” proud. However, as most savvy contractors recognize, it’s all hiding in plain sight, with the devil in the details. Take, for example, the cybersecurity requirements found in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) at 52.204-21 and the Department of Defense (DoD) FAR Supplement (DFARS) at 252.204-7012, -7019, and -7020. These requirements have been the topic of countless articles, trainings, webinars, whole conferences, etc., so it is surprising while simultaneously not surprising that they form the basis of a federal False Claims Act (FCA) claim the Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed in its complaint in intervention.

Continue Reading DOJ Went Down to Georgia: Lessons Learned from Recent Cybersecurity Enforcement Actions

On August 1, 2024, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Division introduced its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program (Program), which, like a modern-day Western posse, aims to bring justice to the wild frontier of corporate America. The DOJ is enticing anyone willing to saddle up and provide information on corporate outlaws—i.e., those involved in corruption, financial crimes, foreign corruption, bribery, and/or healthcare fraud. In sum, the Program closes the gaps left by existing whistleblower programs and bolsters the DOJ’s efforts to combat corporate crime. For those who decide to ride with it, the DOJ is promising substantial financial rewards—up to 30 percent of the loot recovered from those outlaws—to insiders, whistleblowers, and relators who come forward with information leading to significant criminal or civil forfeiture actions. As the Program unfolds over its three-year pilot period, it will—or should—be closely watched by False Claims Act defense counsel, plaintiff’s counsel, corporate leaders, and potential whistleblowers alike. If successful, it could permanently expand whistleblower incentives and further embolden an already aggressive DOJ (as if more encouragement were needed), signaling a new frontier in corporate governance and accountability in the United States.

Continue Reading A New Frontier in Corporate Accountability: The DOJ’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program