Litigation & Disputes

The Administration’s New Procurement Default and the Contractor’s Playbook

On April 30, 2026, President Donald Trump signed Promoting Efficiency, Accountability, and Performance in Federal Contracting, an executive order (EO) that rewires the default of federal procurement. Going forward, fixed-price contracting is the default. Cost-reimbursement, time-and-material (T&M), and labor-hour vehicles still exist, but contracting officers must justify them in writing, and agency-head approval kicks in at dollar thresholds that bite hardest outside the Department of War.

The political framing is familiar: “bloated overhead” and runaway consulting spend (the EO pegs FY 2024 cost-reimbursement consulting obligations at roughly $120 billion). The legal architecture is more interesting than the rhetoric. For contractors carrying significant cost-type, T&M, or labor-hour backlog, the day-one impact is real and asymmetric.

Continue Reading Cost-Plus Out. Fixed-Price In.

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

A contracting officer issues a solicitation amendment on a Friday afternoon, reverses course by Friday evening and demands a revised quotation by noon on Saturday, then changes the requirements again on both Sunday and Monday with a response window of as little as one hour. The agency’s own suggested solution? Ordering a refrigerator manufactured in Turkey, not available for purchase in the United States. If this sounds like a procurement that went off the rails, the GAO agrees.

Continue Reading When “Reasonable” Means More Than a Weekend: GAO Sustains Protest Over Compressed Response Times

As we move into spring—a season for tightening processes, clearing the backlog, and getting every detail right—a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protest decision delivers a timely reminder: in government contracting, a single compliance miss can be outcome determinative.

Last month, in Morrish-Wallace Construction, Inc. d/b/a Ryba Marine Construction Co., the GAO sustained a protest where the agency awarded a contract to a bidder that failed to acknowledge a material solicitation amendment. The decision is an instructive case study in why amendment acknowledgment is not just a box to check—it also is a binding legal act.

Continue Reading Spring Cleaning Your Proposals: GAO’s Latest Reminder That Compliance Is Critical

For federal grant recipients across diverse sectors ranging from humanitarian assistance to the environment, the disruption of established business practices and the upending of expectations have now become the new normal, as federal agencies announce abrupt shifts in policy and spending. As we have commented previously (here, here, and here), federal agencies now regularly reinterpret terms of contracts and agreements that appeared to have been settled, so that once-stable sources of federal funding change on short notice.

Continue Reading Gateway Project Litigation Latest Salvo in Struggle over Federal Grants

Congress has once again reshaped the protest landscape—this time with a narrow but consequential change targeted squarely at Department of Defense (DoD) procurements. The Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law by the president on December 18, 2025, includes a new provision designed to discourage meritless protests at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), particularly where an incumbent contractor continues performing work during the protest. Although the language is focused and does not overhaul the protest system more broadly, it introduces a real financial risk calculus that unsuccessful incumbent offerors will now need to consider before pulling the protest trigger.

Continue Reading Cracking the Kitchen Sink: FY2026 NDAA Brings Bid Protest Reforms for Defense Contractors That Lodge Meritless Protests

Over the past few months, the second Trump administration has taken quick actions to suspend and terminate federal awards predating the transition of power. Many of these actions have resulted in the termination of “federal financial assistance”—specifically, grants and cooperative agreements. Organizations that have seen their grants and cooperative agreements terminated have pushed back through the courts with varying success, contending that agencies have acted arbitrarily in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). While there are many cases, this post provides an overview of three recent decisions in this rapidly developing landscape:

Continue Reading In the Wake of High-Profile Terminations of Grants and Cooperative Agreements, Courts Begin to Weigh In

As much we all love Rihanna, it’s a real shame how many contractors have called me in the last few days with issues that remind me of her well-known “Pay Me What You Owe Me” lyrics. They’re brought to mind because contractors are – on an increasing basis – being denied payment on properly invoiced sums. In some cases, contractors have even been expressly advised by agency officials that they will not be paid at all for the foreseeable future. “Don’t submit any future invoices until you hear from us” is becoming a shockingly common refrain. And yet, the work being invoiced was properly performed. There is no allegation of delayed or deficient performance. Indeed, the amounts due are undisputedly owing to the contractor. So what is going on?!?

Continue Reading Pay Me What You Owe Me, Don’t Act Like You Forgot!

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