Government Contracts

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down an extensive series of tariffs imposed last year by President Trump, holding that they were not authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).  And on March 4, 2026, the United States Court of International Trade began the process of refunding certain of “the millions of entries that were subject to IEEPA,” through a process known in the international trade context as liquidating. 

These recent decisions by the Supreme Court and Court of International Trade may prompt federal contractors to consider seeking refunds of tariffs paid to import goods required to perform under their government contracts.  As we covered in a previous post, government contracts may contain clauses allowing for price increases following the imposition of a new federal tax.  These clauses can also work the other way and require a price decrease (or a credit to the Government under a cost-reimbursement contract) in the event of an after-relieved tax.  Continue Reading Tariff Takedown:  Implications of Tariff Refunds for Government Contractors

Introduction

Critical minerals have received a surge of attention recently, much of it tied to China’s dominance of extraction and processing and recent application of export controls on minerals with defense applications.  Policy discussions tend to focus on “critical minerals” collectively, but it is important to distinguish those needed for agriculture and transportation from those needed for national security.  Every mineral deemed essential for U.S. national security, economic security, and supply chain resilience and included on the official list of critical minerals maintained by U.S. Geological Survey list is important for its own reasons, but there are a few elements whose looming shortage now borders on an emergency, requiring extra focus from policymakers.  Certain “heavy” rare earth elements are among them.Continue Reading Heavy Rare Earth Elements: Rising Supply Chain Risks and Emerging Policy Responses

After passing the House the preceding week, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY 2026 NDAA) passed the Senate on December 17 by a vote of 77-20 and was signed into law by President Trump the following day. As is frequently the case, this annual “must pass”…

Continue Reading New Sanctions Authorities in the FY 2026 NDAA

Massachusetts aims to be the “cornerstone of the defense industry,” with Governor Maura Healey announcing nearly $47 million in government funding for defense-related projects.  Last year, the Department of Defense ranked Massachusetts ninth out of the top ten states in total Defense spending in FY2023, and the state is aiming…

Continue Reading Massachusetts Seeks to Expand Defense Footprint with Nearly $47 Million in New Projects

Now that the final Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program and Procurement Rules have been issued by the Department of War (DoW) (see our CMMC Toolkit for in-depth analysis of these Rules) and the CMMC Program is set to begin in earnest, there is some uncertainty in industry as to…

Continue Reading How Will DoW Determine Which Level of CMMC Applies to My Agreement?

On October 17, 2025, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) announced that it plans to issue a Mass Modification to GSA’s Multiple Award Schedule (“MAS” or “Schedule”) Solicitation[1] and Schedule contracts in November 2025 (“Refresh”).  Periodically, GSA may issue a Mass Modification to Schedule contracts to uniformly impose changes to the contract terms applicable to all Schedule contract holders, often as a result of changes in applicable law, regulation, or policy.  This approach also ensures that existing Schedule contracts have consistent terms, even though with the evergreen nature of the Solicitation those contracts have been entered into at different times and are at different stages of performance.

This Refresh (i.e., Refresh #30) will implement several significant changes with the goal to align the GSA Schedule with recent developments in the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (“RFO”).[2]  Although the full text of the Refresh is not yet available, GSA’s Refresh outline provides insight into the changes that are to come as GSA seeks to gain implementation experience with the RFO clauses, provisions, and ordering procedures through its Schedule contracts.  Given GSA’s leadership of the RFO process, and this year’s Executive Order to consolidate domestic procurement of common goods and services in GSA to the extent permitted by law,[3] it is no surprise that it has acted quickly to revise its long-term government-wide contracting vehicle according to these recent developments. 

Along with the Refresh announcement, GSA opened a 10 business day comment window on buy.gsa.gov, which we expect will close on October 31, 2025.  Schedules contractors will be expected to accept the Refresh no later than 90 days from its release which is expected sometime in November.  Below we discuss relevant background on the RFO process as it relates to the Schedule and anticipated changes to provisions and clauses in the Refresh.  We will continue to watch for updates as GSA’s implementation of the RFO unfolds.    Continue Reading Overhauling the GSA Schedule

Two cornerstone authorities for federal contracting quietly expired on September 30, 2025, creating ripple effects that contractors—small and large—cannot afford to overlook.  The Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (“SBIR/STTR”) programs, commonly known as “America’s Seed Fund” for their role in fueling early-stage innovation, and the Defense Production Act (“DPA”), the backbone of the government’s ability to prioritize contracts and strengthen the industrial base, both lapsed at the close of the fiscal year.  Although lawmakers have floated temporary or long-term fixes in pending legislation, nothing has yet been enacted.  The simultaneous government shutdown further complicates the picture, making new awards unlikely in the near term and magnifying uncertainty for contractors who rely on these authorities.Continue Reading Expired:  SBIR/STTR and DPA Authorities in Limbo

This blog previously covered the Federal Circuit’s decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, which addressed bid protest jurisdiction and standing at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”), and seemed to potentially open the door to a new category of protests.  Now, in an en banc ruling, the Federal Circuit vacated that decision and reached a different conclusion on bid protest standing.  The Federal Circuit left the jurisdictional questions unresolved, but even if future decisions construe COFC’s jurisdiction broadly, the Federal Circuit’s decision on standing will likely limit the universe of new protests that might otherwise result from such a broad construction of jurisdiction.    Continue Reading En Banc Decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States:  Federal Circuit Holds That Only Actual or Prospective Bidders or Offerors Have Bid Protest Standing Under Tucker Act

This blog post discusses the Department of Defense’s (“DoD”) new cybersecurity rule that imposes certain cybersecurity requirements on relevant DoD contractors and subcontractors. The post will be of interest to all DoD contractors, subcontractors, and possibly affiliates of contractors that may be impacted by the new rule’s cybersecurity requirements.

On September 10, 2025, DoD published the final version of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (“CMMC”) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) Procurement Rule (“Procurement Rule” or “Rule”) in the Federal Register.  This Rule imposes the contractual requirements associated with the CMMC Program Rule that was published in final form in October 2024.  The Procurement Rule will become effective sixty days after publication, on November 10, 2025 and will be implemented in a phased approach.  Continue Reading Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program Procurement Final Rule Announced

On August 29, 2025 the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced the launch of a cross-agency Trade Fraud Task Force (“TFTF”), a partnership between DOJ’s Civil and Criminal Divisions, as well as the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). On the same day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit…

Continue Reading Creation of the Cross-Agency Trade Fraud Task Force and the Future of Tariffs Enforcement