The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) has extended the comment periods for its proposed overhaul of small business size standards and its accompanying Revised Size Standards Methodology by 60 days, from September 21 to November 20, 2026.
As we discussed in our prior post, SBA’s proposed rule would
Continue Reading SBA Extends Comment Period on Proposed Small Business Size Standards to November 20On September 14, 2026, Deputy Secretary of War Stephen Feinberg issued a memorandum and an accompanying appendix focused on strengthening the defense industrial base by reforming acquisition requirements related to a wide range of issues, including accounting standards, efficiency, government oversight, procedural requirements, audits, pricing, and more. Building on prior policymaking, including Executive Order 14402 (April 30, 2026), this memorandum directs agency actions aimed at making defense acquisition more commercially oriented and less dependent on government-unique accounting and oversight regimes.
Among other things, the memorandum directs the Department of War (“DoW”) to shift away from the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) and increase its reliance on the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), including by advancing CAS coverage reform at the CAS Board. The memorandum further directs a number of other reforms related to accelerating acquisition transformation, scaling advance market commitments, improving efficiency, reducing administrative burden, limiting audits, streamlining business system reviews, and increasing the use of commercial contracting and other transaction authority (“OTA”) agreements.
Continue Reading Department of War Issues Memorandum Aimed at Strengthening the Industrial Base Through Acquisition ReformOn August 26, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order 14421, Declaring a National Emergency to Secure the United States Bulk-Power System. The Order establishes a new national security regulatory framework for a broad range of equipment, software, services, and supply chain relationships associated with the U.S. electric grid. Although the Order is framed as a grid security measure, its implications extend well beyond utilities.
Equipment manufacturers, project developers, utilities, contractors, lenders, investors, data center operators, and others participating in the energy sector may all be affected. The Order introduces new restrictions and uncertainty into energy infrastructure procurement and supply chains and, critically, it represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government approaches security risks in the energy sector.
Continue Reading The Electric Grid’s ICTS Moment? New National Security Executive Order Targets Foreign-Sourced Energy EquipmentA recent decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) serves as an important reminder that forum selection under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) can have consequences that extend beyond a single appeal. In Gilbane Federal v. United States, 182 Fed. Cl. 177 (2026), the Court transferred a contractor’s claim to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) even though the contractor could no longer have filed that claim directly at the ASBCA because the CDA’s 90-day appeal period had already expired. The Court concluded nonetheless that transfer was appropriate because a separate appeal related to the same contract was pending before the ASBCA.
The decision highlights two often-overlooked features of CDA litigation. First, forum selection is not simply a matter of choosing between the COFC and the Boards of Contract Appeals for a particular claim. Second, when multiple claims arising from the same contract are litigated in different forums, the COFC has broad authority to consolidate or transfer those disputes in the interest of justice and efficiency.
Continue Reading The Forum You Chose Yesterday May Control the Claim You File TomorrowThe Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA” or the “Board”) recently issued a stark reminder that discovery misconduct can be case-dispositive. In Venergy Group, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Board dismissed a contractor’s $4.2 million affirmative claim after finding that financial statements produced during discovery had been intentionally manipulated to support larger damages calculations.
Continue Reading Discovery Fraud Comes at a Price: CBCA Dismisses Contractor’s Monetary Claim as a SanctionOn August 20, 2026, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) issued a proposed rule that would reset small-business size standards across the economy and a companion white paper proposing a new methodology for calculating them. The proposed rule—Small Business Size Standards, 91 Fed. Reg. 53,741—would establish new size standards for 338 industry groups and industries. The accompanying white paper—Revised Size Standards Methodology, 91 Fed. Reg. 54,096—supplies the analytical framework SBA used to derive the standards in the proposed rule. Notably, SBA calculated the proposed standards using a methodology that is itself out for notice-and-comment, with both comment periods closing the same day, September 21, 2026.
Continue Reading SBA Proposes Overhaul of Size Standards That Would Reclassify Tens of Thousands of Contractors as “Small”The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “ASBCA” or “Board”) recently rejected an unprecedented request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) to withhold publication of a Board decision on the merits in a construction delay appeal brought by KiewitPhelps. In a decision issued on June 25, 2026 (released publicly on July 16, 2026), the Board held that it was bound by the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and its own rules to publish the decision, and that the Corps had not demonstrated a basis for overcoming that requirement. This decision is noteworthy not only because the Board found no legal basis to suppress the opinion, but also because, as the Board observed, such a request had never before been directly presented to the Board.
Continue Reading ASBCA Denies Unprecedented Request to Keep Decision Out of Public ViewAs part of the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul, the FAR Council has issued a proposed rule to revise FAR Part 49, Termination of Contracts, that would significantly accelerate the timeline for submitting termination settlement proposals following a termination for convenience. Under the proposed rule, contractors would be required to submit termination settlement proposals to the contracting officer within 90 days after termination—nine months earlier than the current one-year deadline. According to the FAR Council, the change is intended “to improve the efficiency of the settlement process by addressing delays experienced under the current framework.”
Continue Reading FAR Council Proposes 90-Day Deadline for Termination Settlement ProposalsOn April 29, 2026, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told the House Armed Services Committee that the Pentagon will “shortly announce a sub-unified command of autonomous warfare.” The announcement came as the Department of War (DoW) unveiled its fiscal year (FY) 2027 budget request, which proposes approximately $54 billion for the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG)—a dramatic increase from the roughly $226 million the DAWG received previously. When all DoW drone and counter-drone related budget lines in the FY 2027 budget request are aggregated, the total approaches $74 billion—an amount Pentagon officials have described as the largest investment in such technologies in U.S. history.
Beyond the headline numbers, Secretary Hegseth’s reference to a “sub-unified command” is institutionally significant. It raises fundamental questions about how the DoW intends to organize autonomous warfare inside the joint force and warrants a closer look at what a sub-unified command actually is.
Continue Reading The Pentagon’s New Sub-Unified Command for Autonomous Warfare: What It Means and Where It Might Land
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals’ (ASBCA) decision in Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., ASBCA No. 63621, reinforces a critical principle for government contractors: contract performance requirements operate independently of cost accounting classifications. Contractors cannot avoid substantive FAR and DFARS obligations—here, U.S.-flag transportation requirements—by treating costs as
Continue Reading Indirect Doesn’t Mean Exempt: ASBCA Rejects Cross‑Motions Over U.S.-Flag Transportation Costs