Photo of Emma Merrill-Grubb

Emma Merrill-Grubb

Emma Merrill-Grubb is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and member of the Government Contracts practice group. Emma advises clients on a broad range of issues related to government contracting across multiple regulatory regimes, including traditional government procurement contracts, federal grants, and cooperative agreements at both the prime contract and subcontract levels. She has experience assisting clients with the unique issues that arise in government contracts transactions, including small business, the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), and data rights issues, among others. Emma maintains an active pro bono practice.

As part of the Trump Administration’s Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (“RFO”), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Council has been releasing streamlined Parts of the FAR on a rolling basis.  We have been closely monitoring the RFO and its effects on the acquisition landscape, and publishing updates on the progress.  To date, 25 streamlined FAR Parts have been released on the RFO page of acquisition.gov, the most recent of which were released earlier today: Part 9 – Contractor Qualifications; Part 33 – Protests, Disputes, and Appeals; Part 46 – Quality Assurance; and Part 49 – Termination of Contracts.  Along with the streamlined Parts, revised definitions and contract clauses have been added to Parts 2 and 52, respectively.  And, a host of non-regulatory resources and commentary, from Practitioner Albums to Smart Accelerators is growing.

Notably, FAR Part 42 – Contract Administration and Audit Services, which includes Subpart 42.12 – Novation and Change-of-Name Agreements, has yet to be overhauled, and we wanted to take this opportunity to renew our call for reform of the existing novation process.Continue Reading Time To Overhaul FAR Part 42?  The Novation Process Can Use An Upgrade

On August 7, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14332, “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” (“EO 14332” or “the EO”) to “strengthen oversight and coordination of, and to streamline, agency grantmaking” and “ensure greater accountability for use of public funds.”  Sec. 1.  Among other things, the EO:  (1) directs agencies to review discretionary funding opportunities for consistency with agency priorities; (2) provides principles for agencies to use in assessing discretionary awards; (3) directs the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to revise the Uniform Guidance applicable to federal financial assistance; and (4) requires agencies to include terms and conditions in their discretionary grant agreements allowing for termination for convenience and preventing recipients from drawing down funds without prior written explanation and approval.  Through these methods, EO 14332 focuses on increased political oversight of discretionary funding, ensuring broad termination for convenience rights, and limiting indirect costs.  The EO arrives at the intersection of recent efforts by the Trump Administration both to cancel, terminate, or otherwise pause federal funding viewed as inconsistent with the Administration’s policy priorities and to streamline federal procurement regulations.Continue Reading White House Issues Executive Order Focused on “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking”

On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”), “Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation In the Defense Industrial Base,” that may have significant implications for federal government contractors doing business with the Department of Defense (“DoD”), and particularly those with touchpoints to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (“MDAPs”).

The EO requires DoD to take a number of actions, including:

  • Within 60 days (i.e., June 8th), the Secretary of Defense must submit to the President a plan to reform the DoD acquisition process to eliminate inefficiencies.  The plan must prioritize commercial solutions and the use of Other Transactions Authority (“OTA”) agreements and Rapid Capabilities Office mechanisms.  The plan must also eliminate redundant tasks and approvals, centralize decision-making, and incorporate effective risk management for all acquisition programs through a governance structure referred to as a Configuration Steering Board. 
  • Under no specified timeline, DoD is generally directed to revise internal regulations and implementation guidance — including the DoD Financial Management Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement — utilizing the principle from the “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” EO (Jan. 31, 2025) that for every new regulation proposed, ten existing regulations should be repealed.
  • Within 90 days (i.e., July 8th)the Secretary of Defense must review all MDAPs and consider for “potential cancellation” programs that are: (1) more than 15% behind schedule; (2) more than 15% above cost; (3) “unable to meet key performance parameters”; or (4) otherwise not aligned with DoD mission priorities.  Following this review of MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense will conduct a similar review for all remaining major systems.
  • Within 120 days (i.e. August 7th)the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Military Departments, must propose a plan to overhaul the defense acquisition workforce by restructuring performance metrics, assessing workforce sizing requirements, and deploying expert-led field training teams to enhance familiarity with innovative acquisition authorities.  These reforms are intended to incentivize prudent risk-taking and expand the workforce’s fluency in commercial solutions and adaptive acquisition strategies.  
  • Within 180 days (i.e., October 6th), the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, must complete a comprehensive review of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (“JCIDS”), with the aim of streamlining and accelerating acquisition.[1] 

We address the EO’s directives for acquisition process reform and MDAP review in greater detail below. Continue Reading Trump Administration Issues Executive Order Aimed At Modernizing Defense Acquisitions And Spurring Innovation

On December 22, 2021, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced the Fiscal Year 2021 transaction figures for the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program, reporting $34.8 billion in total transaction value.  FMS declined for the second consecutive year, down 31 percent from $50.8 billion dollars in transactions in FY 2020.  The 2021 figure represents the lowest volume of FMS transactions since FY 2016.

As recently as FY 2019, FMS program sales totaled $55.4 billion, with a $51 billion average transaction value from 2017-2019.  FMS transactions slipped slightly in FY 2020 to $50.8 billion but then cratered this past year.  Because FMS program sales figures fluctuate annually due to a few, high-value transactions, DSCA includes three-year rolling averages in their annual reports rather than only single year fluctuations.  For example, FMS sales declined 28 percent in FY 2016 before recouping most of those losses the next year.  Therefore, the significant 2021 decline may be an anomaly.  Even though 2021 FMS numbers may recover quickly, several notable takeaways remain.

First, the steep decline in FMS in FY 2021 may not signal a decrease in America’s commitment to its global allies.  Indeed, even though FMS declined by 31 percent, the United States increased funding to the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program from $3.3 billion to $3.8 billion.  In addition, U.S. contributions to the Building Partner Capacity programs remained relatively steady, declining slightly from $2.69 billion to $2.34 billion.  The decrease in overall FMS figures was driven by a 36 percent fall in foreign government-funded transactions.

Second, Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) arrangements between U.S. defense contractors and foreign governments dropped 16.8 percent in FY 2021, from $124.3 billion in FY 2020 to $103.4 billion.  FMS involve the U.S. government directly procuring defense materiel or services before transferring materiel or services to a foreign defense ministry.  In contrast, DCS do not involve the U.S. as a contractual party.  The U.S. government oversees DCS, and U.S. export controls laws govern all DCS.  But, compared to its direct involvement in FMS, the U.S. government’s oversight of DCS is primarily indirect.  Therefore, the decline in DCS may indicate that the budgetary concerns of America’s allies drove the contemporaneous decline in FMS more than the Pentagon’s shifting priorities did.

Third, certain critical factors may impede FMS figures from rebounding quickly in FY 2022.  Besides the COVID-19 pandemic’s ongoing impact on national defense budgets, the country-by-country figures published by DSCA reveal areas for potential regression in FY 2022.  For example, the FY 2021 figures included approximately $1.26 billion in sales to Afghanistan, an amount that likely will decrease given the recent regime change.  The FY 2021 numbers include a $1.5 billion allocation to France, which appears to have been boosted by an unusually large $1.3 billion transaction to supply aircraft launch and recovery equipment for France’s naval carrier program.  In FY 2022, U.S. sales to France may regress closer to $220 million, the average for transactions with France from the preceding four years.  Germany also entered into an unusually large $1.7 billion FMS contract for P-8A aircraft and accompanying services and equipment.

On the other hand, the United States’ recent commitment to support Australia’s submarine program may offset decreases in U.S. arms sales to countries like Afghanistan, France, and Germany in the long term.  The 2021 agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom to deliver nuclear submarines to Australia will likely have a lasting impact on U.S. defense exports.  Still, the budgetary impact of those commitments on DSCA programs remains uncertain.
Continue Reading U.S. Foreign Military Sales Down Over Thirty Percent in FY 2021