1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Deliver Uncompromised – or Else? DoD Considers Elevating Security in its Procurement Process

Deliver Uncompromised – or Else? DoD Considers Elevating Security in its Procurement Process

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.14.18

Contractors may soon need to recalibrate their approach to DoD procurements. The Department recently announced that it is reviewing a strategy dubbed “Deliver Uncompromised,” which lays out recommendations for how it can better secure its vast and varied supply chain. Central to the strategy is an increased focus on security in the procurement process. A contractor’s overall security would join cost, performance, and schedule as key evaluation pillars – marking a significant shift in how contractors compete for work. The strategy recognizes, however, that its success would likely require increased incentives for the contracting community to invest in risk mitigation, including liability protections and tax incentives. Although only a proposal for now, the strategy is yet another indicator of the government’s broader emphasis on supply chain security. Just yesterday, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 was signed into law in record time, with several provisions focused on the same issue.  

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....

View All Insights