1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Less Risk, More Reward: DoD Proposed Rule on Operational Contract Support Expands Overseas Contracting Opportunities

Less Risk, More Reward: DoD Proposed Rule on Operational Contract Support Expands Overseas Contracting Opportunities

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.22.21

On the heels of a 2019 Government Accountability Office report that recognized the Department of Defense’s (DoD) efforts in reducing risks associated with overseas operational contract support (OCS), DoD issued a proposed rule updating its OCS policies and procedures. The proposed rule continues DoD’s focus on enhancing its ability to effectively oversee, manage, and account for contractors supporting U.S. military operations to reduce the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. This proposed rule seeks to:

  • Broaden the types of overseas operations for which contracted support may be used, to include non-contingency operations, such as humanitarian assistance or peace operations, or overseas military exercises;
  • Clarifies contractors’ responsibilities for deploying personnel in support of overseas operations, including medical and dental fitness standards;
  • Details the services that DoD is authorized to provide contractors; and
  • Promotes efficiency and transparency by removing internally-facing information requirements.

If adopted, this proposed rule will broaden the scope of military operations for which contractor support could be deployed. It would also provide clarity and consistency to other OCS procedures to allow contractors to better plan for compliance and the DoD to more effectively oversee contractors’ OCS performance. Comments on the proposed rule are due March 8, 2021.

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....