Insights

On September 4, 2025, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) granted an appeal challenging SBA’s determination that a service-disabled veteran did not control an entity applying for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) status based on a minority owner’s ability to block certain actions in the matter of VSBC Appeal of: Blue Skye Foods, LLC, SBA No. VSBC-442-A.

On September 9, 2025, GSA released version 1 of the FAR Companion, a living resource guide aimed primarily at assisting federal acquisition professionals. The FAR Companion is designed to provide guidance and recommendations to acquisition professionals to better understand the FAR and related procurement principles for planning, awarding, managing, and closing out contracts. It consolidates practitioner insights, innovation and vendor engagement strategies, handbooks, training materials, and problem-solving ideas into one source.

On September 10, 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) published a final rule (CMMC Clause Rule) that will apply its much-anticipated Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program (CMMC) to DoD contractors and subcontractors. Under the CMMC Clause Rule, starting on November 10, 2025, DoD can include CMMC requirements—potentially including third-party cybersecurity assessments—in contracts that require the handling of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or Federal Contract Information (FCI).

The System for Award Management (SAM, available at sam.gov) is set to incorporate Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) changes as early as the first quarter of 2026. The RFO process, which began earlier this year, will trigger matching changes to representations and certifications in SAM.gov.

On August 29, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force to expand efforts to target importers and other parties committing trade-related fraud. As stated in a press release issued on August 29, the Task Force will augment the existing coordination mechanisms within the DOJ and DHS, for instance through partnerships with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations, to “aggressively” take enforcement measures against parties that commit tariff evasion or attempt to smuggle prohibited goods into the U.S.

On August 22, 2025, the Small Business Administration (SBA) published a proposed rule that would raise the receipts-based small business size standards across 259 industries and the asset-based size standard across 4 industries. The proposed rule aims to provide greater opportunity for growing small businesses to retain their small business status longer and continue to benefit from SBA loan programs and federal contracting opportunities reserved for small businesses.

In our latest Bloomberg Law article about the growing range of antitrust concerns facing government contractors, Crowell lawyers Michelle D. Coleman and Lauren Fleming explore best practices for contractors who are navigating antitrust investigations involving classified information. 

On July 31, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Illumina, Inc. will pay $9.8 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by selling genomic sequencing systems with software containing cybersecurity vulnerabilities to federal agencies. This is the first FCA settlement involving claims that a medical manufacturer failed to incorporate adequate product cybersecurity into its software design and development.The allegations were first made in United States ex rel. Lenore v. Illumina Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00372 (D.R.I.), a qui tam action filed by Illumina’s former Director for Platform Management, On-Market Portfolio in September 2023. The relator alleged that, between February 2016 and September 2023, Illumina knowingly sold genomic sequencing systems to government agencies without adequate security programs or quality systems to identify and address software vulnerabilities. The complaint further alleged that Illumina failed to properly resource personnel and processes responsible for product security, did not remediate design features introducing cybersecurity risks, and misrepresented the software’s adherence to required cybersecurity standards.According to the government, Illumina’s actions included:

On August 25, 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued the Final Rule implementing Section 812 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 (P.L. 118-31).  The Final Rule will take effect on October 24, 2025 via a new solicitation provision, DFARS 252.209-7012 (Prohibition Relating to Conflicts of Interest in Consulting Services – Certification).

On August 14, 2025, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued draft revisions to FAR Part 8 and FAR Part 12 (as well as to FAR Parts 4 and 40). These are the latest rewrites under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) initiative pursuant to Executive Order 14275, “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement,” which we previously reported on here.

On August 18, 2025, the Small Business Administration (SBA) published a notice of tribal consultation to be held in Michigan on September 17, 2025. In addition to seeking input from the Native American community on the management and operation of SBA’s Capital Access and Government Contracting and Business Development programs, SBA is focusing on the nonmanufacturer rule (NMR).

GAO’s recent sustain of the protest filed by emissary LLC provides valuable lessons for potential offerors with respect to organizational conflict of interest (OCI) mitigation plans (and their impact on technical approach), as well as their descriptions of key personnel qualifications.

Earlier this year, we highlighted a notable Court of Federal Claims (CFC) decision recognizing that an energy savings performance contract (ESPC) contractor may be able to recover proposal preparation costs under the CFC’s bid protest jurisdiction. Now, in Siemens Government Technologies, Inc. v. United States, another CFC decision has reaches a similar conclusion and goes even further — also highlighting the potential to recover under the Court’s Contract Disputes Act (CDA) jurisdiction.  

On August 7, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled, “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” setting out the framework for sweeping changes to the grantmaking process.  The order purports to address the Administration’s concerns about federal grants supporting controversial or ineffective programs and incurring excessive administrative costs.  The EO implements three key changes to federal grant requirements. 

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.

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.

On July 29, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued new guidance to all federal agencies entitled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” (“Guidance”). The Guidance purports to “clarif[y] the application of federal antidiscrimination laws to programs or initiatives that may involve discriminatory practices, including those labeled as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (‘DEI’) programs.” It declares that “[e]ntities receiving federal funds . . . must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics,” and identifies a series of “‘Best Practices’ as non-binding suggestions to help entities comply with federal antidiscrimination laws and avoid legal pitfalls.” The Guidance is the most comprehensive articulation of the Administration’s view of what constitutes unlawful DEI released since President Trump’s Executive Order, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, issued on January 21, 2025.

A recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision provides useful guidance on when the government may (or may not) waive its defense that a contractor’s claim failed to state a sum certain. In GE Renewables US, LLC, the contractor had submitted a claim to the contracting officer for a determination that the contractor had the right to an economic price adjustment (EPA) due to an inflation-related price increase. Notably, the contractor did not provide the value of its requested adjustment in its claim. The contracting officer denied the claim, and the contractor appealed to the Board.

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.”