1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |COVID-19 Effects on Cleared Contractors

COVID-19 Effects on Cleared Contractors

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.02.20

On March 30, 2020, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) published COVID-19 NISP Guidance to describe for cleared industry how DCSA will conduct its oversight mission during the pandemic. That guidance includes, among other things:

  • DCSA has suspended all enhanced security vulnerability assessments (ESVA) and other on-site activities. DCSA Industrial Security Representatives (ISR) will instead conduct continuous monitoring engagements through virtual outreach.
  • Cleared contractors with safeguarding remain responsible for ensuring classified material remains appropriately secured, even in areas implementing mandatory quarantines. DCSA provides guidance regarding handling end-of-day checks of security containers, approved closed areas, and special access program facilities during the pandemic.
  • Cleared contractor personnel furloughed or not in pay status should be removed from access in JPAS and need not complete annual refresher training. Overdue training must be completed within 60-days of returning to normal operations.
  • DCSA will extend all information systems’ Authorizations to Operate (ATO) expiring before April 18, 2020 for an additional 90 days. Security Control Assessment (SCA) activity will continue, but the on-site portion will be deferred.
  • DCSA will continue to process facility clearance (FCL) actions. However, the inquiries telephone line is suspended, and contractors seeking status updates or other assistance may instead leave detailed voicemail messages on the Knowledge Center line at 888-282-7682 or e-mail the Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at dcsa.fcb@mail.mil.
  • The Department of Defense (DoD) Consolidated Adjudication Facility (CAF) call center is temporarily suspended. Inquiries may be e-mailed to whs.meade.dodcaf.mbx.dodcaf-callcenter@mail.mil, and an agent will follow up.


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25

File First, Facts Later? Eleventh Circuit Says That Discovery Can Inform False Claims Act Allegations in Amended Complaints

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending.  Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss.  And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit.  Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage.  Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending.  While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss....

View All Insights