Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) Section 3610 — Billing and Contractual Relief for Government Contractors When Employees Cannot Work due to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.27.20
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), passed by Congress today, offers relief specifically targeted to federal contractors whose employees (1) cannot perform work on a “site that has been approved by the Federal Government ” during the COVID-19 public health emergency due to facility closures or other restrictions and (2) cannot telework because their job duties cannot be performed remotely. Section 3610 of the CARES Act authorizes agencies to use any available funds to modify affected contracts – without consideration – to reimburse paid leave, including sick leave, that a contractor provides to keep its employees or subcontractors in a ready state. The authorized reimbursements may cover an average of 40 hours per week, “at the minimum applicable contract billing rates.” The maximum reimbursement must be reduced, however, by the amount of any credit the contractor is allowed pursuant to Division G (“Tax Credits for Paid Sick and Paid Family and Medical Leave”) of the recently enacted Families First Coronavirus Response Act, and by any other applicable credits that the contractor is allowed under the CARES Act.
The authorization of this relief is congressional acknowledgement of the critical role that contractors play in supporting the federal government and the need to ensure the availability of that support going forward. However, the CARES Act grants authority rather than mandating relief, which could lead to inconsistent application among various agencies. Affected contractors should watch for any forthcoming agency guidance and be prepared to educate government customers about this Congressional authorization.
Please Join Us for a Government Contracts Webinar
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
