1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO Rules that DoD May Not Require a Small Business Joint Venture Itself to Hold Facility Clearance

GAO Rules that DoD May Not Require a Small Business Joint Venture Itself to Hold Facility Clearance

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.08.21

In InfoPoint LLC, the Government Accountability Office ruled that the Department of Defense could not require a small business joint venture offeror to itself hold a facility clearance when the individual joint venture members themselves both hold the necessary facility clearances.  GAO ruled that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, implemented in the Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)(4), unambiguously prohibits the DoD from requiring that a joint venture hold a facility clearance if the members do.  Read more about this decision here.

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