Regulatory & Statutory Developments

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.

Given recent world events and their attendant economic shocks, 2026 looks to be another year of supply chain gyration. Government contractors, besides having to cope with such shocks, must add semiconductors to the list of supply chain concerns. Semiconductors, as the U.S. Government states in a new proposed rule (2026-03065 (91 FR 7223)), are the “tiny electronic devices” essential to “consumer electronics, automobiles, data centers, critical infrastructure, and virtually all military systems.” Indeed, semiconductors “power tools as simple as a power adapter and as complex as a fighter jet or a smartphone. They are also essential building blocks of the technologies that will shape our future, including artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and clean energy.”

Continue Reading Semiconductors: Another Link to Ever-Extending Curation of the Federal Supply Chain

Organizations across industries are incorporating or evaluating AI to improve workflow, increase productivity, and reduce costs. The Federal Government is doing the same. The Department of Defense has taken an especially assertive approach, issuing an AI Strategy earlier this year that outlines seven “Pace-Setting Projects” to accelerate AI development and deployment in support of DoD missions.

Continue Reading Feature Comment: Flag on the Field: Artificial Intelligence and the State of Play in Federal Contracting

The Administrative False Claims Act of 2023 (AFCA), Pub. L. 118-159, § 5203, enacted December 23, 2024, substantially amended the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA). On March 19, 2026, the Small Business Administration (SBA) published a direct final rule conforming its regulations to those statutory changes. 91 Fed. Reg. 13217 (Mar. 19, 2026). Absent significant adverse comment, the rule becomes effective May 4, 2026. Together, the AFCA amendments and the conforming rule materially expand SBA’s enforcement reach, raise the jurisdictional threshold for administrative proceedings, extend the statute of limitations, and introduce reverse false claims liability. Contractors doing business with SBA—or whose programs touch SBA loans, grants, or set-aside contracts—should act now.

Continue Reading SBA Expands Administrative False Claims Act Enforcement: What Federal Contractors Need to Know

In every crisis, half the room runs in circles while the other half picks up a clipboard and starts taking stock. The Anthropic-Pentagon dispute is that crisis, and defense contractors are deciding which half they want to be in.

The short version: The government designated a FedRAMP-authorized, facility-cleared American AI company a national security supply chain threat, via social media, after the company refused to remove safety restrictions on autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. Anthropic sued days later, with the Pentagon’s own officials on the record stating the designation was “ideologically driven” with “no evidence of supply chain risk.”

Continue Reading Don’t Panic! How Federal Contractors Should Navigate the Anthropic Designation

In a previous posting, we flagged how the BIOSECURE Act (enacted as Section 851 of the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act) reflects a growing focus on biotechnology supply chains within federal procurement. The statute is designed around a simple premise: Biotechnology risks rarely appear at the level of the final product. Instead, the risks tend to emerge through tools, platforms, and service providers embedded in the performance of federally funded work.

Nowhere is that observation more apparent than in industries adjacent to biotechnology that rely heavily on biological data, specialized testing infrastructure, or outsourced research capabilities. Examples include pharmaceutical and biologics developers, medical device and diagnostics manufacturers, contract research organizations (CROs) and specialized laboratory providers, healthcare and academic research institutions participating in federally funded programs, and technology companies supporting biological data analytics or laboratory automation. For these sectors, biotechnology may not define the business model, but it plays a quiet yet significant operational role in how products are discovered, validated, and manufactured. The BIOSECURE Act brings those operational dependencies into sharper focus.

Continue Reading The BIOSECURE Act and the Expanding Life Sciences Supply Chain: Practical Considerations for Research-Driven Industries

“I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.”

When Obi-Wan Kenobi says this in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, he senses that something profound just changed in the galaxy. A powerful presence has vanished. The balance of power shifting in ways that will ripple far beyond the immediate moment. As Yoda later describes the Force: “Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us, binds us.” In this way, artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to play a role for the US Defense Industrial Base (DIB) not unlike the Force itself—quietly enhancing the capabilities of engineers, analysts, and compliance professionals across thousands of organizations supporting national defense programs.

So what could happen if a major AI player suddenly disappears from the board?

Continue Reading Orbiting A.I.-deraan? A Disturbance in the Force for the Defense Industrial Base

Remember in Coming to America when Eddie Murphy’s Prince Akeem shows up in Queens full of charm, optimism, and big dreams and somehow it all works out? Fast-forward 38 years (yes, it’s been that long) and European companies looking to sell into the US Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland Security supply chains will need much more than charm. Instead, they’ll need real strategy, a focused structure, and readiness for regulatory scrutiny that doesn’t end with an award notification. In the current climate, with a heightened domestic preference policy, new executive directives such as the “Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting” executive order, and renewed focus on supply chain security and performance, it is essential for foreign companies and their counsel to clearly understand the terrain before landfall.

Continue Reading Coming to America (the Government Contracting Edition): Ownership, Compliance, and Shifting Policy

Following a tumultuous start to fiscal year 2026, including a government shutdown that lasted 43 days, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2026 (NDAA 2026), Pub. L. 119-60, was passed by Congress and signed into law on December 18, 2025. NDAA 2026 is a critical legislative act, setting acquisition reforms and policies and authorizing appropriations and funding levels for the Department of Defense (DoD). With $900.6 billion in funding for the DoD, NDAA 2026 contains a plethora of acquisition reform provisions and critical updates impacting defense contractors. Title XVIII of NDAA 2026 significantly increased certain acquisition thresholds, including triggers for the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act (formerly the Truth in Negotiations Act) and Cost Accounting Standards application, which you can read about here. Additionally, NDAA 2026 increases the thresholds for noncompetitive acquisitions and when information technology requirements qualify as a major system.

Continue Reading FY2026 NDAA: Major Increases to Critical Acquisition Thresholds

The FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) became law on December 18, 2025, enacting a tidal wave of the Trump administration’s priorities with respect to Department of Defense (DoD) procurement. One key priority reflected in the NDAA is reducing compliance burdens so that (i) established DoD contractors are incentivized to pursue awards and (ii) more companies opt in to being a DoD contractor to grow the industrial base. Importantly, Section 1804 and Section 1806 of the NDAA take action on this priority by raising the dollar thresholds for complex domains of government contracting: the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) and submission of certified cost or pricing data. While these changes are welcome developments, companies should be cognizant that a steady stream of compliance requirements remains even with these increased thresholds.

Continue Reading Swept Away: FY2026 NDAA Updates to CAS and Certified Cost or Pricing Data Thresholds