False Claims Act

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

Federal contractors looking for the “DEI issue” in FAR 52.222-90 may be looking in the wrong place. Yes, the clause is about what Executive Order 14398 calls “racially discriminatory DEI activities.” But that’s only the starting point. The new clause also reaches subcontract flowdowns, records access, reporting obligations, bilateral modifications, suspension and debarment, and False Claims Act (FCA) risk. This isn’t just an HR issue, and it isn’t just a DEI issue. It is a contract-administration issue, a supply-chain issue, and an invoice issue all at once.

Continue Reading Everything Everywhere All at Once: The Contractor DEI Clause Hits HR, Supply Chains, Invoices, and Subcontracts

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

The biggest danger may be misreading the order—and creating new exposure in the process.

On March 26, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) titled “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors.” Read at the headline level, the order can sound like another broad anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) pronouncement. Read as a procurement directive, however, it is something more concrete and more consequential: a command to federal agencies to begin inserting a mandatory clause into covered contracts and contract-like instruments, including subcontracts and lower-tier subcontracts, within 30 days. That shift, from messaging to mechanics, is the real story.

Continue Reading Beyond the Headlines: The Real Contractor Risks in the New DEI Executive Order

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

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that False Claims Act (FCA) settlements and judgments exceeded $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2025. This massive haul is the largest annual recovery in the statute’s storied history. Although health care enforcement continues to account for the majority of recoveries, DOJ’s annual statistics confirm that procurement fraud, cybersecurity compliance, pandemic-program enforcement, and trade-related fraud remain core enforcement priorities that government contractors should not ignore. The FY 2025 numbers reinforce a familiar message: FCA enforcement remains one of DOJ’s most powerful tools for policing federal spending, and contractors should expect continued scrutiny of their certifications, representations, and contract compliance systems.

Continue Reading Now That’s a Lot of Money: DOJ’s Record-Setting FCA Year Reflects Intensifying Enforcement Pressure on Government Contractors

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

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

When Abraham Lincoln signed the False Claims Act (FCA) into law in 1863, it was a legislative reaction to a series of sensational congressional investigations into war profiteers’ sale of phony provisions and useless equipment to the U.S. government during the Civil War. Contractors who agreed to provide 100-pound bags of flour filled many of the bags with sand. Munitions suppliers demanded full payment (at exorbitant, wartime prices) for rusted, nonfunctioning weapons gleaned from scrap heaps. It was not a leap to find claims that sand was flour, or that a rusted flintlock was an Army rifle, were objectively false; these were not just breaches of contract, but out-and-out frauds. Congress stepped in to stop this “plundering of the public treasury,” and the FCA imposed penalties on those who sought to defraud the U.S. government and its taxpayers.
Continue Reading Honest Abe Would Demand “Objective Falsity” for FCA Liability. Will the Supreme Court?