Raise Confirmed! DoD Finalizes Doubling of CPSR Threshold
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.10.20
Effective December 31, 2019, the DoD issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to establish a DoD contractor purchasing system review (CPSR) threshold of $50M at DFARS 244.302, doubling the existing $25M threshold at FAR 44.302(a). The final rule adopts the proposed rule (discussed here) without any substantive changes. In response to a comment, the final rule clarifies that contractors whose relevant sales have not reached the new threshold may opt to allow their approval to expire rather than incur the costs to maintain a system that meets the criteria for an approved system; in that case, the Government and contractor would continue with consent packages. But, if an approved purchasing system is necessary to support a particular program, the contractor can work with the contracting officer to obtain a CPSR based on risk or pressing need. The final rule also notes that it is a simple increase in the threshold, and does not impact any existing provisions or clauses.
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
