Skip to content
Photo of Scott A. Freling

Scott A. Freling

Scott Freling divides his practice between representing civilian and defense contractors in traditional government contracts matters and guiding buyers and sellers—including a number of leading private equity firms—through the regulatory aspects of complex government contracts M&A deals. Scott co-chairs the firm’s Government Contracts practice.

Scott is sought after for his regulatory expertise and his ability to apply that knowledge to the transactional environment. Scott has deep experience leading classified and unclassified due diligence reviews of government contractors, negotiating transaction documents, and assisting with integration and other post-closing activities. He has been the lead government contracts lawyer in dozens of M&A deals, with a combined value of more than $79 billion. This has included Warburg Pincus and Berkshire Partners’ pending deal to acquire TRIUMPH for approximately $3 billion, Advent’s acquisition of Maxar Technologies for $6.4 billion, Aptiv’s acquisition of Wind River for $3.5 billion, and Veritas Capital’s sale of Alion Science and Technology to Huntington Ingalls for $1.65 billion.

Scott also represents contractors at all stages of the procurement process and in their dealings with federal, state, and local government customers. He handles a wide range of government contracts matters, including compliance counseling, claims, disputes, audits, and investigations. In addition, Scott counsels clients on risk mitigation strategies, including obtaining SAFETY Act liability protection for anti-terrorism technologies.

Scott has been recognized by Law360 as a MVP in government contracts. He is a past co-chair of the Mergers and Acquisitions Committee of the ABA’s Public Contract Law Section.

Contact:Read more about Scott A. FrelingEmail

On January 21, 2025, President Trump issued the Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity Executive Order (the “EO”), which revokes Executive Order 11246, a 60-year-old Civil Rights-era directive that prohibited federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, and required federal contractors to take affirmative action to provide equal opportunity in employment. The EO seeks to “end[] illegal preferences and discrimination” and “promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work” by ending the use of “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA)” programs. The EO does so by prescribing required contract provisions for federal contracts and by requiring specific reports from the heads of federal agencies, including identification of private entities for potential investigation, as described further below. The provisions of the EO do not apply to federal or private sector employment and contracting preferences for veterans. Federal contractors and grant recipients have until April 21, 2025 to comply with the EO’s revocation of affirmative action requirements. However, federal contractors, subcontractors, and grant recipients may become subject to the new contract provision requirements imposed by the EO without delay.1

Elimination of Federal Contractor Affirmative Action Requirements & DEI References

In addition to revoking Executive Order 11246, the EO requires the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”), which has been responsible for administering and enforcing Executive Order 11246 for many years, to “immediately cease” promoting diversity, enforcing affirmative action requirements, and allowing or encouraging federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in “workforce balancing” based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin. The EO explicitly prohibits federal contractors or subcontractors from considering race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin in employment, procurement, or contracting practices. Although OFCCP will no longer enforce affirmative action requirements, the EO delays implementation of this prohibition for current federal contractors through April 21, 2025, so contractors have until this date to sunset any affirmative action programs, absent judicial intervention.2

The EO also directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and the Attorney General to review and revise, as appropriate, all government-wide processes, directives, and guidance; remove references to DEI principles from federal acquisition, contracting, grants, and financial assistance procedures; and terminate “all DEI-related mandates, requirements, programs, or activities,” which the EO does not define.Continue Reading President Trump’s “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” Executive Order Targets Federal Contractors and the Private Sector

Yesterday, the FAR Council issued a proposed rule that would update the U.S. Government’s approach to organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs).  While the proposed rule is not finalized and may change in response to forthcoming comments from interested parties, the proposed rule contemplates major changes to the FAR’s existing framework in this area.  In this post, we summarize the background leading up to the proposed rule and highlight key areas of proposed change.

Background

The proposed rule is the latest installment in a years-long effort by Congress, GAO, and the FAR Council to update the OCI guidance in the FAR.  Many years ago, in 2011, the FAR Council issued a proposed rule to amend the FAR’s guidance on OCIs with a particular focus on OCIs related to unequal access to nonpublic information.  The 2011 proposed rule was motivated in part by a GAO report recommending that the FAR Council provide additional protections for contractors accessing sensitive information.  

The 2011 proposed rule was never finalized and was ultimately withdrawn in 2021.  Many of the key changes in the most recent proposed rule, however, were foreshadowed by the 2011 proposed rule.  For example, the 2011 proposed rule would have moved OCI guidance to FAR Part 3, allowed agencies to determine that a risk is acceptable in the context of impaired objectivity OCIs (without requiring a formal waiver), and provided standard solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

As previously discussed on this blog, in December 2022 Congress passed the ‘‘Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act” (the Act), which directed the FAR Council to issue new rules for OCIs.  The Act itself did not establish any new OCI standards but directed the FAR Council to: (1) provide definitions of the different types of OCIs; (2) provide illustrative examples of OCIs, including in situations where contractors’ other clients may have interests that potentially conflict with those of the contracting agency; and (3) provide solicitation provisions and contract clauses, but allow executive agencies to tailor them.  The proposed rule gives effect to each of these three mandates, and makes other significant changes as well.Continue Reading The Proposed FAR Rule on OCIs: Big Changes May Be Coming

Under a newly enacted law, beginning June 30, 2026, defense contractors risk losing all future contracts with the Defense Department if they engage outside consultants that lobby for certain Chinese companies. On December 23, 2024, President Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2025…

Continue Reading New Law Appears to Restrict Defense Contractors from Retaining Consultants Who Lobby for Chinese Military Companies

As part of the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), Congress has given the Department of Defense authority to pay defense contractors for increased costs due to inflation.  Section 822 of the NDAA amends Public Law 85-804 (50 U.S.C. 1431) to allow contractors to apply for adjustments, while also giving the DoD wide discretion to grant or deny requests.  President Biden is expected to sign the FY23 NDAA soon, and Section 822 has the potential to be welcome news for contractors who have been battling inflation under multi-year, fixed-price contracts. 

As readers of this blog know from prior posts, DoD has issued position papers over the last year that attempt to address inflation with existing legal tools, but as a practical matter, the Department has provided few options for contractors impacted by rising costs.  The new NDAA provision could finally provide DoD with the legal support it needs to aid contractors struggling with inflation.  However, many questions remain about how this law will work and whether it will actually meet the growing needs of the defense industrial base.  In particular, Congress has not yet appropriated money to fund applications for relief, and DoD must prepare guidance for implementing the statute.  Both of these things will need to happen before contractors can apply for and potentially receive inflation-based price adjustments under this amended Public Law 85-804 authority.

This post discusses the amendment and analyzes the hurdles that remain between defense contractors and inflationary relief.Continue Reading Congress Offers Greater Hope for Defense Contractors Battling Inflation; Actual Relief Is Still Not Clear

On the heels of the FTC’s opposition to Lockheed Martin’s acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne and Lockheed’s termination of the deal, the Department of Defense (DoD) released a report expressing concerns about the state of competition among its contractors.  Of particular note, the report encourages DoD action to (1) increase oversight…
Continue Reading DoD Signals Increased Scrutiny of Gov Con M&A and Renewed Interest in Background IP Rights

…
Continue Reading Targeting DoD’s Reliance on Russian Energy

On October 15, 2019, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced that foreign arm sales for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 totaled $55.4 billion.

This amount nearly matches the total from FY 2018 of $55.7 billion, continuing the significant increase in foreign arm sales under the Trump Administration and potentially signaling…

Continue Reading A New Normal for Foreign Military Sales? Total Sales for FY 2019 Nearly Matches FY 2018

This article was originally published in Law360 and has been modified for this blog.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a bid protest decision regarding the application of the Berry Amendment’s domestic sourcing requirement to a U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) solicitation for leather combat gloves with touchscreen capability. 

…
Continue Reading Domestic Sourcing Requirement Doesn’t Fit DOD’s Gloves

A recently proposed rule would update the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) to incorporate statutory changes to limitations on subcontracting that have been in effect since 2013. The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) has long since revised its own regulations to implement these changes, but some contracting officers have been reluctant to follow these changes in the SBA regulations because the FAR contains contradictory provisions.

The proposed rule is a sign of progress. In particular, it should add significant clarity to the current disconnect between the FAR and SBA regulations. However, the proposed rule is not perfect, and a number of recent developments highlight that outstanding questions remain.

FAR Changes to Limitations on Subcontracting

For the majority of contractors, the proposed rule is most relevant for its change to the way that limitations on subcontracting are calculated.

Specifically, the proposed rule would amend the FAR to recognize a simplified regime for contractor compliance and to expressly permit set aside recipients to subcontract any amount of performance to one or more “similarly situated” small businesses. These changes would significantly benefit small businesses that engage in teaming with other small businesses. In addition, these changes are important for contractors that do not qualify as small businesses—such as large businesses, nonprofit organizations, and certain non-U.S. entities—in that more subcontract spending under set asides can be made available to these types of entities when subcontracts to similarly situated small businesses do not count against limitations on subcontracting.

The FAR currently contains an outdated limitations on subcontracting framework, under which a small business that received a set aside was expected to track performance costs for either personnel or manufacturing, depending on whether a set aside was for services or supplies. A recipient was required to ensure that it performed work amounting to at least 50 percent of such costs, with an exclusion for materials under set asides for supplies. Similar frameworks with different percentages also applied to construction contracts.

Now, under the updated framework that has been in effect by statute since 2013 (and in SBA regulations since 2016), a small business that receives a set aside is only expected to ensure that no more than 50 percent of the amount paid under its prime award is paid to subcontractors that are not similarly situated. Corresponding updates have been made for construction contracts, and material costs continue to be excluded from limitations on subcontracting under set asides for supplies.Continue Reading Signs of Progress with the Limitations on Subcontracting, but Outstanding Questions Remain

Earlier this week, colleagues in our Government Contracts Group published an article about a recent Trump Administration memo regarding the “assessment and enforcement of domestic preferences in accordance with Buy American Laws,” and which follows the Administration’s April 2017 Buy American Executive Order.  In the article, Justin Ganderson,…
Continue Reading Key Takeaways from Trump Administration Memo on Buy American Laws