1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Setting the Floor: New FAR Rule Defines Minimum Contractor Information System Safeguarding

Setting the Floor: New FAR Rule Defines Minimum Contractor Information System Safeguarding

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.17.16

Shifting approaches, on May 16, 2016, the FAR Council concluded a long-running rulemaking with a final rule and a new clause, FAR 52.204-21, that will establish minimum security controls pulled from NIST Special Publication 800-171 over contractor information systems that may process, store, or transmit “Federal contract information,” defined as information provided to or generated under any government contract (except for COTS) that is not intended for public release. Future rules will address more specific controls applicable to more sensitive information such as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), but this rule focuses instead on establishing those baseline controls the FAR Council believes any prudent business would implement in relation to its information systems and does not replace more stringent security requirements like those in the DFARS Safeguarding Rule.

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