DOD Issues Final OCI Rule For Major Programs
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.30.10
In its much anticipated final OCI rule, issued December 29, 2010, DOD limited the new provisions to changes required by the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 for major defense acquisition programs ("MDAPs") and pre-MDAP programs, in contrast to the proposed rule, which would have been applicable to all DOD acquisitions. Additional key changes from the proposed rule include: (i) making clear that this final rule takes precedence over FAR subpart 9.5, to the extent that there are inconsistencies; (ii) adding an explanation of the basic goals to promote competition and preserve DOD access to the expertise of qualified contractors; (iii) removing the formal preference for mitigation as the preferred resolution strategy; (iv) tightening the System Engineering and Technical Assistance ("SETA") contractor exception for domain experience and expertise to require a head of the contracting activity determination; and (v) refining definitions of major subcontractor and systems engineering and technical assistance.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
