Regulatory & Statutory Developments

Given the slew of Executive Orders (EOs) last year focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and roiling the funding and operations of recipients of federal financial assistance such as universities and nonprofits, recipients may be forgiven for passing over EO 14398, dated March 26, 2026. As we’ve been covering (here and here), EO 14398 marks a second phase of the administration’s focus on “racially discriminatory DEI activities.” Where EOs from 2025 focused on broad policy shifts and internal agency operations, 2026 EOs seek prospective operationalization of the administration’s policy preferences by baking restrictions on DEI activities into federal contracts.

Continue Reading Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance Can Look to the New DEI Clause to Prepare for Potential Increased Scrutiny of Their Own Awards

The Department of Defense’s proposed rule implementing Section 847 of the FY 2020 NDAA could fundamentally reshape how foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) is monitored across the defense industrial base. Through proposed DFARS Part 240, the rule would extend recurring FOCI disclosure, National Industrial Security System (NISS) reporting, and Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) oversight far beyond the traditional facility-clearance context and into ordinary government contracting. For foreign-owned contractors, allied-country suppliers, private equity sponsors, and federal subcontractors, the proposal signals the emergence of a permanent compliance regime built around continuous visibility rather than one-time vetting.

Friends, Romans, contractors, lend me your ears;
I come to disclose your owners, not to debar them.
The FOCI that contractors do is oft assessed;
The clearances are oft interred with their bones.
So let it be with allies. The honorable rule
Hath told you that we treat all foreigners alike;
If it be so, it is a grievous form,
And grievously hath the SF-328 answered it.

The speech may be a little ridiculous, but in its way, it’s also a little accurate. The proposed DFARS rule implementing Section 847 of the FY 2020 NDAA is not unkind to allies. It is, as was Mark Antony, scrupulously polite to them, right up to the moment it asks them to register as suspects.

Continue Reading Section 847 and the New Era of DOD Continuous FOCI Monitoring

A 2026 federal executive order reshapes federal procurement policy by directing agencies to use fixed-price contracts as the default under FAR Part 16, while requiring written justification and higher-level approval for cost-reimbursement, time-and-material, and labor-hour contracts. The order also establishes agency approval thresholds, carve-outs for R&D and contingency work, and a phased implementation schedule through OMB guidance and FAR Council rulemaking. For government contractors, the change affects how agencies structure acquisitions, allocate risk, and modify existing and future contracts, with significant implications for federal procurement strategy and compliance in 2026.

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