Insights

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.”

Current political priorities in Congress will continue to push many industries under the microscope of Congressional investigations, including universities, tech companies, entities that receive federal funds, and energy-sector companies. When the chambers of Congress and the executive branch are controlled by the same party, Congressional oversight of the executive branch is less intense and instead public and private sector, state, and local entities are more likely to find themselves in the crosshairs. If a chamber of Congress changes hands in the midterm elections, the focus of the oversight may shift to reflect the policy priorities of the moment and include more executive branch oversight, but even the executive branch is often contending with requests for information that may implicate their dealings with third parties; for example, there is a risk that agency oversight triggers requests for privileged material belonging to a government contractor or grantee. The topics and industries of highest interest may play musical chairs, but entities across sectors would do well to incorporate a few best practices that will mitigate their risk should they end up in the hot seat, either directly or through a government partner.

Government contractors face a growing range of antitrust concerns that are unique to the industry—from how the FTC, DOJ, and DOD analyze defense mergers, to managing information sharing in prime/sub relationships, to navigating antitrust investigations involving classified information. Join us over the coming months for a new series on contractors and competition, where we will explore best practices for in-house counsel and procurement teams to reduce risk in this complex area.

A recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) reinforces the FAR part 49 provisions governing terminations for convenience, which provide that contractors are entitled to fair compensation and that settlements for such terminations should not rigidly rely on cost and accounting data. In D-STAR Eng’g Corp., ASBCA Nos. 62075, 62780 (Apr. 28, 2025), the government had terminated the contractor’s cost-plus-fixed-fee research and development contract for convenience. Following the contractor’s submission of its termination settlement proposal (TSP), the government questioned certain costs claimed, disputed the fee owed to the contractor, determined it had overpaid the contractor, and issued a debt demand claim for disallowed costs. The contractor then submitted its own, affirmative claim incorporating its TSP and seeking additional costs and interest. The most interesting portion of the ASBCA’s decision is its discussion of the methods available to the parties to calculate the amount of fee to which the contractor was entitled following the termination for convenience, which we describe below. However, the ASBCA also addressed the allowability and allocability of various cost types that may be of interest, including termination settlement costs, direct labor, engineering overhead, and G&A.

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).

On June 23, 2025, the DoD issued a memorandum, “Implementation of Department of Government Efficiency Cost Efficiency Initiative,” to establish a new DOGE approval process for unclassified IT consulting and management services (ITC&MS) contracts or task orders (TOs), and advisory and assistance services (A&AS) contracts or TOs.  The memorandum establishes a formal approval process, which directs DOGE to review and provide input for certain contract requirement packages included in Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s May 27, 2025 directive, “Implementation of Executive Order 14222 – Department of Government Efficiency Cost Efficiency Initiative” (“Contract Guidance”). 

On June 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in Island Industries Inc. v. Sigma Corp. affirming a $26M False Claims Act (“FCA”) judgment against the defendant importer.  Sigma had appealed the judgment after a jury found the company violated the FCA by failing to pay customs duties owed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”).  The Ninth Circuit’s decision addresses an important jurisdictional issue and illustrates the significant financial exposure importers can face under the FCA at a time of increased tariffs and enforcement by the government.  

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.

On June 9, 2025, the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) quietly announced that Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) would be exiting “pilot” status; under Refresh 27 to the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS), TDR will be mandatory for all eligible Special Item Numbers (SINs), effective beginning in the next sales reporting quarter after each contractor accepts the modification, with remaining SINs to be added in future refreshes.  

On May 29, 2025, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that it will begin a “phased pause in operations at contractor-operated Job Corps centers nationwide.” The pause is anticipated to occur within a month—by June 30, 2025. To effectuate this pause, DOL has suspended operations at approximately one hundred contractor-operated Job Corps centers.  DOL instructed centers to suspend program activities, transition students home, and implement other transition plans. According to DOL’s Frequently Asked Questions, the Department anticipates that  students will transition to “state and local workforce partners” including American Job Centers and the Labor Exchange system in their home state.

On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. In a five-justice majority opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) does not require review of the environmental impacts of “upstream” or “downstream” related projects, and reiterated: “The bedrock principle of judicial review in NEPA cases can be stated in a word: Deference.”[1] This decision comes as the federal government works to expedite what over the years have become lengthy NEPA review processes, and not long after the White House Council on Environmental Quality rescinded its NEPA regulations.

GAO’s recent dismissal of a protest filed by A2A Integrated Logistics, Inc. provides an important reminder regarding the strict timeliness rules that apply to bid protests. Quoters were required to electronically submit quotations and A2A experienced difficulty doing so. After contract award was announced, A2A emailed the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) stating that it had been unable to submit its quotation. Twenty days later, the VA responded, confirming that A2A’s quotation had not been received; A2A filed an agency-level protest the same day, which the VA dismissed as untimely. A2A then filed a GAO protest.

The Supreme Court last week blessed a broad reading of the federal wire fraud statute, resolving a circuit split over whether economic loss is an element of fraudulent inducement and bolstering the Government’s future enforcement of procurement fraud. In Kousisis et al. v. United States (unanimous in judgment), the Court upheld the conviction of a government contractor for falsely representing compliance with disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) requirements in contracts awarded by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), despite completing the contracts to PennDOT’s satisfaction. The Court held that a material misrepresentation used to deceive someone into parting with money or property is sufficient for a federal wire fraud conviction, regardless of whether the victim suffered any economic loss.

On May 19, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a Memorandum creating the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative that will “utilize the False Claims Act to investigate and . . . pursue claims against any recipient of federal funds that knowingly violates federal civil rights laws.” According to the Memorandum, though racial discrimination has “always been illegal,” the Administration posits that “many corporations and schools continue to adhere to racist policies and preferences—albeit camouflaged with cosmetic changes that disguise their discriminatory nature.” In an effort to prevent federal funds from being used in connection with or support of these purportedly racist policies and preferences, the Initiative will wield the power of the False Claims Act, the government’s most powerful tool to fight fraud, waste, and abuse.

On May 15, 2025, U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE” or the “Agency”) issued a memorandum outlining the Agency’s new policy for evaluating financial assistance awards (e.g., grants, cooperative agreements, and technology investment agreements) to identify waste, fraud, and abuse. Businesses, universities, non-profit organizations, and other entities that have received DOE financial assistance awards now face increased risk of investigation and potential award termination, withholding of funding, and project modification.

On May 12, 2025, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) released a new SF-328[1] consisting of 9 questions and 6 pages of instructions that detail the types of supporting documentation requested and identify information required by different responding entities (e.g., corporate, non-profit, academic, etc.). With this SF-328, DCSA is seeking certain frequently requested information and documents with initial SF-328 submissions rather than obtaining these documents through communications or revised SF-328 submissions. Additionally, when completed, the new SF-328 is considered Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).

A recent Court of Federal Claims decision addressed a novel fact pattern involving a bid protest (seeking bid preparation costs) relating to an energy savings performance contract (ESPC) and has the potential to expand contractor recovery opportunities in both areas of law.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has released a memorandum establishing the DoD Organization-Defined Parameters (ODPs) for use in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 Revision (Rev) 3. Currently, DoD’s cybersecurity regimes require government contractors to comply with NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2. However, the release of this memorandum may indicate DoD’s intention to soon incorporate Rev. 3 into DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (DFARS 7012) as well as the forthcoming Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC).

On May 13, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an interim final rule in the Federal Register to extend the deadline for manufacturers and importers of products containing perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to report to EPA on their past activities.