Insights

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.

Generally, a GAO protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is timely if filed within 10 days after the denial of an agency-level protest, “even if filed after bid opening or the closing time for receipt of proposals.”  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(3).  Accordingly, the salient consideration for determining when that 10-day clock begins to run is when the agency denies the agency-level protest.  But in Marathon Medical Corp., B-422168.2, February 14, 2024, GAO held that if an agency has not ruled on a pre-award agency-level protest as of the closing date for receipt of proposals, then the protest is deemed denied as of that date—and the protester’s clock for filing a GAO protest begins to run—even if the agency later issues an actual decision denying the protest. 

Subject to limited exceptions, GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction over Department of Defense (DoD) awards of task orders under multiple-award contracts is limited to those “valued in excess” of $25 million.  While that seems straightforward enough, GAO’s recent decision in ELS, Inc., B‑421989, B‑421989.2, Dec. 21, 2023, highlights the complexities that can arise in calculating a task order’s value.

Good news for potential protesters at the Court of Federal Claims (CFC).  On May 10, 2023, in CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States, No. 2022-1488, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a sweeping decision holding questions of protester standing and prejudice are merits issues that do not implicate the CFC’s jurisdiction.  In so doing, the Federal Circuit declared decades of prior jurisprudence holding the opposite “no longer good law.” (For a more in-depth discussion of CACI, you can listen to Crowell’s latest All Things Protest podcast.)

Last week, on March 9, 2023, in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims held that Percipient.ai, Inc. (“Percipient”) had standing to protest a National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (“NGA”) procurement called “SAFFIRE” intended to improve the agency’s production, storage, and integration of geospatial intelligence data.  Percipient’s complaint, filed in January of this year, argued that SAFFIRE violates the statutory mandate at 10 U.S.C. § 3453 to procure commercial items “to the maximum extent practicable.”  The Court’s conclusion that Percipient had standing to protest is notable because (1) NGA issued the SAFFIRE solicitation in January 2020 (over three years ago); (2) NGA awarded the SAFFIRE contract to CACI, Inc.—Federal (“CACI”) in January 2021 (over two years ago); and (3) Percipient never submitted a proposal in response to the solicitation. 

On December 27, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act (S.3905) to strengthen the current rules relating to identification and mitigation of organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) in federal acquisition. The Act focuses on updating the current FAR provision, Subpart 9.5, to provide clear definitions, examples, and guidance on potential OCIs and to consider expanding the Subpart to cover certain commercial and foreign relationships.