Insights

On August 21, the Supreme Court, in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, granted the government’s application for a stay of the district court’s order vacating NIH’s termination of various research grants. The Court denied the government’s application with respect to the district court’s vacatur of related internal guidance documents. The Court’s order impacts federal government grantees who wish to challenge grant terminations in federal court.

On August 7, 2025, the FAR Council issued a final rule amending FAR 52.204-7 to clarify that, effective immediately, an offeror’s failure to maintain continuous System for Award Management (SAM) registration between proposal submission and contract award does not render the offeror ineligible for award, so long as the offeror was registered in SAM at the time of proposal submission and is registered at the time of contract award. The final rule should address situations like TLS Joint Venture, LLC, B-422275, Apr. 1, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 74, where an offeror’s SAM registration lapsed for a single day between the proposal submission and award dates, and GAO found the offeror ineligible for award.

Last week, we wrote that concerns about excessive, unchecked executive branch power resulting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA—which declared universal/nationwide injunctions likely exceeded district courts’ equitable authority under FRCP 65—felt premature, because there were a number of other levers district courts could pull to deliver the equivalent of nationwide injunctive relief. We discussed how Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is one such lever. That section authorizes courts to “postpone the effective date” of a challenged agency action pending judicial review utilizing the same four-factor test applicable to requests for injunctive relief.

On July 11, 2025, the Department of Education issued a new interpretive rule entitled “Clarification of Federal Public Benefits under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.” The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) generally limits “eligibility for ‘federal public benefits’ to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and certain categories of qualified aliens.” The Department concluded that certain postsecondary education programs, “including adult education programs authorized under Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, [and] postsecondary career and technical education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006,” constitute “Federal public benefits under the PRWORA and thus are subject to PRWORA’s citizenship verification requirements.”

The deadlines for filing a GAO protest are short and strictly enforced.  In post-award protests, the general rule is that a company must file its protest within ten days of when the protester knows, or should have known, of its basis of protest.  However, GAO’s regulations provide an exception to this rule for “protests challenging a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required”—in such a situation, “[the] protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester, but shall be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held.”  4 CFR §21.2(a)(2).

Underscoring the Administration’s intention to eradicate DEI preferences and mandates, the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched a new Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (Initiative) to be co-led by DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and Fraud Section. In response, Crowell launched its own DEI and Civil Fraud Initiative to support clients in managing the heightened risks associated with this new enforcement landscape.

A string of GAO protest sustains this spring, most recently in Owl International Inc., d/b/a Global, a 1st Flagship Company, B-423281, B-423281.2, April 25, 2025, demonstrates that the evaluation of professional employee compensation remains a successful post-award protest argument. 

On May 7, 2025, GAO issued a decision in Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, B-423447, warning the bid protest bar that artificial intelligence (“AI”)-based tools utilized without proper oversight may result in severe consequences, including dismissal of the protest and sanctions.

On May 2, 2025, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (“OFPP”) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (“FAR Council”) issued the first round of promised FAR rewrites—to Parts 1, 34, and 52—alongside a guidance memorandum for agencies subject to the FAR, Deviation Guidance to Support the Overhaul of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR Council Deviation Guidance”). The Office of Management and Budget also released a guidance memo, Overhauling the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“OMB Guidance”), that addresses the proposed implementation roadmap for the FAR overhaul. These initial FAR revisions follow the April 15, 2025 Executive Order (“EO”), Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement, which we previously reported on here.

On February 24, 2025, in Raytheon Company v. United States, Judge Bonilla of the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) submitted the latest—and perhaps most definitive—entry in a growing body of jurisprudence confirming the CFC’s Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction encompasses challenges to awards made under the Department of Defense’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) authority. Upon establishing a framework for considering its ability to review OTA awards, the CFC declared itself “the de facto forum for bid protests involving ‘other transactions’ and ‘other transaction agreements.’” 

Late on Friday, a federal judge in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction pausing certain elements of the Trump Administration’s two recent executive orders (“EOs”) addressing “illegal DEI programs.” The two EOs, Exec. Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (the “J20 Order”) and Exec. Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (“J21 Order”), contain a number of provisions that, among other things, direct the federal government to dismantle “illegal DEI programs” within federal agencies and federal contractors. Please refer to our prior alert on these EOs for a full breakdown of the provisions in each.

On February 13, 2025, Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order in two combined cases—one filed by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors, a second by USAID grant recipients—challenging Executive Order 14169, “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” which paused almost all foreign assistance funding. 

In MVL USA, Inc. et al. v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) held that the provisions of FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34 (collectively, the “PLA mandate”), which required the use of project labor agreements (“PLAs”) on large-scale federal construction projects valued above or at a certain threshold, violated the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”). As we previously reported here, former-President Biden issued Executive Order 14063 in February 2022, instructing federal agencies to require construction contractors and subcontractors on projects valued at $35 million or more to “agree, for that project, to negotiate or become a party to” a PLA. A few months later, the FAR Council promulgated a final rule implementing the executive order in FAR 22.505, 52.222-33 and 52.222-34. 

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid, aimed at ensuring U.S. foreign assistance is “fully aligned” with the administration’s foreign policy goals. The Order called for an immediate 90-day pause on all foreign development assistance, applicable to all assistance funding for foreign countries, NGOs, international organizations, and federal contractors.

On January 15, 2025, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued a Proposed Rule that would implement changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) rules as required by the 2022 Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act (P.L. 117-324).  Comments on the Proposed Rule are due on March 17, 2025.  (Note that pursuant to President Trump’s January 20, 2025 “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” Executive Order, the Proposed Rule is subject to further review, which may result in revisions and an extension of the 60-day comment period.)

On December 23, 2024, the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 (FY 2025 NDAA) (P.L. 118-159) was signed into law.  The final FY 2025 NDAA takes a narrower approach to acquisition policy and supply chain changes than watchers expected, but it still makes some consequential changes for contractors.  Read on as Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts group discusses the FY 2025 NDAA’s new supply chain restrictions and requirements, changes to bid protest jurisdiction, cybersecurity requirements, and more.

On November 22, 2024, the Federal Circuit granted the United States’ petition for panel rehearing en banc of its June 2024 decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States (litigation we have extensively discussed here, here, and here).  In its June decision, the Circuit held Percipient had standing to challenge a National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) procurement action—whether NGA had complied with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act’s (FASA) commercial-item mandate at 10 U.S.C. § 3453—nested within the performance of a previously awarded NGA task order upon which Percipient had not bid.

 On November 12, 2024, the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will issue an interim rule amending FAR 52.204-7 to clarify that an offeror’s failure to maintain System for Award Management (SAM) registration during the period between proposal submission and contract award does not render the offeror ineligible for award.  Providing welcome relief to agencies and contractors alike, the interim rule requires only that an offeror be registered in SAM at the time of offer submission and at the time of contract award.

In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, the Federal Circuit considered Percipient.ai Inc.’s (Percipient) protest arising out of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s (NGA) SAFFIRE procurement, for the improvement of the agency’s production, storage, and integration of geospatial intelligence data.  Percipient’s protest was unusual—filed in 2023, it related to a task order NGA awarded to CACI, Inc. (CACI) two years earlier, for which Percipient did not (and could not) bid.  But Percipient’s protest did not challenge the award to CACI.  Instead, Percipient challenged NGA’s (and CACI’s) alleged failure, during task order performance, to conduct sufficient market research as to the commercial availability of AI software—for which Percipient already had a commercial offering that purportedly met NGA’s needs—before CACI began developing its own software at significantly higher cost.  Percipient alleged this failure violated 10 U.S.C. § 3453, which establishes a preference for commercial items/services and instructs agencies to procure them “to the maximum extent practicable.”

Now more than ever, federal contractors find themselves at the intersection of innovation and regulation, particularly in the realm of Artificial Intelligence (AI).  AI is now incorporated into a broad range of business systems, including those with the potential to inform contractor employment decisions.  For that reason, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has issued new guidance entitled “Artificial Intelligence and Equal Employment Opportunity for Federal Contractors” (the “AI Guide”).  OFCCP issued the AI Guide in accordance with President Biden’s Executive Order 14110 (regarding the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence”), which we reported on here.  The AI Guide provides answers to commonly asked questions about the use of AI in the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) context.  The AI Guide also offers “Promising Practices,” which highlight a number of important considerations for federal contractors.  Focusing on federal contractors’ obligations and attendant risks when utilizing AI to assist in employment-related decisions, the AI Guide also provides recommendations for ensuring compliance with EEO requirements while harnessing the efficiencies of AI.