Section 809 Panel Releases Volume 1 Report and Recommendations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.06.18
In the FY2016 NDAA, Congress created the “Section 809 Panel” to review and streamline DoD acquisition regulations to “improv[e] the efficiency and effectiveness of the defense acquisition process and maintain defense technology advantage.” On January 31, the Panel released its Volume 1 Report, which includes recommendations on a number of topics, such as commercial buying, contract compliance and audit, defense business systems, and services and small business contracting. (The Panel’s Volume 2 and 3 Reports will be released in June 2018 and January 2019, respectively.)
Many of the Panel’s recommendations are deep in the legislative and regulatory weeds, but could have far reaching effects—e.g., implementing a single definition of “subcontractor” to replace the 27 different definitions currently scattered throughout various statutes and regulations; bifurcating commercial items into commercial products and commercial services; etc. The full Volume 1 Report is worth a read for those interested in (and impacted by) DoD acquisition reform.
We will also be providing further analysis on our blog in the coming weeks.
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
