On April 1, the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) announced that it received more than 200 applications, totaling over $8.9 billion in financing requests, across 38 states for the inaugural solicitation under OSC’s Domestic Manufacturing Loan Program. As covered in a prior post, under the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) released last fall, OSC plans to loan up to $984 million to eligible companies to expand the U.S. industrial base, with individual loans ranging between $10 million to $150 million. These OSC loans will support advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, decision science, edge computing, mesh networks, microelectronics, solar, and quantum computing technologies, and eligible investments must have both a defense and a commercial application.
Continue Reading DoD’s Office of Strategic Capital Reports Significant Interest in Domestic Manufacturing Loan Program
Executive Order Issued To Expand GSA’s Role in Acquisition of “Common Goods and Services” and Information Technology
On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued executive order (“EO”) Eliminating Waste and Saving Taxpayer Dollars by Consolidating Procurement, which will have significant effects on federal government contracting. The EO is intended to consolidate “domestic Federal procurement” within the General Services Administration (“GSA”) to “eliminate waste and duplication.”
The EO has two primary objectives:
- It grants GSA an increased role in the U.S. Government’s acquisition of “common goods and services”.
- It designates the GSA Administrator as “the executive agent for all Government-wide acquisition contracts for information technology” pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 11302(e).[1]
We have summarized key provisions and potential effects of the EO further below.
Continue Reading Executive Order Issued To Expand GSA’s Role in Acquisition of “Common Goods and Services” and Information Technology
FY2025 NDAA: Congressional Efforts to Bolster U.S. Resilience Against Chinese Tech and Influence
The FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) sustains Congress’s continued focus on countering China’s expanding influence and enhancing U.S. resilience in an era of great power competition. This year’s legislation reflects the practice of carrying the State Department and Intelligence Authorization Acts within the NDAA—marking the third consecutive year that these critical measures have been advanced in tandem. The Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees in both chambers of Congress have increasingly adopted the Armed Services Committees’ playbook, embedding China-focused legislation modeled on past defense measures in their respective authorizations. This blog examines key provisions designed to address what Congress views as strategic challenges posed by China while closing loopholes that could confer military, economic, or technological advantages to Beijing. We divide these provisions into the following five categories: (1) provisions that address potential security risks linked to Chinese-origin technology; (2) provisions that limit the transfer of U.S. technology or data to China; (3) so-called “time to choose” provisions that curtail Department of Defense (“DoD”) engagement with third parties that engage with China; (4) provisions that tackle a range of broader geopolitical concerns; and (5) studies and reports to identify emerging issues and concerns.
Continue Reading FY2025 NDAA: Congressional Efforts to Bolster U.S. Resilience Against Chinese Tech and Influence
Congress Attempts to Revitalize the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
Since 1986, the little brother to the civil False Claims Act, known as the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (“PFCRA”), has seen very little use. Section 5203 of the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) seeks to breathe new life into the law by renaming it
Continue Reading Congress Attempts to Revitalize the Program Fraud Civil Remedies ActPresident Biden signs the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025
This is the first blog in a series covering the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (“FY 2025 NDAA”). This first blog will cover: (1) NDAA sections affecting acquisition policy and contract administration that may be of greatest interest to government contractors; (2) initiatives that underscore Congress’s commitment to strengthening cybersecurity, both domestically and internationally; and (3) NDAA provisions that aim to accelerate the Department of Defense’s adoption of AI and Autonomous Systems and counter efforts by U.S. adversaries to subvert them.
Continue Reading President Biden signs the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025
Chips on the Table: FAR Council Releases Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement Prohibition on Purchase and Use of Certain Semiconductors
Today, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (“FAR Council”) released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “ANPRM”) describing the agencies’ plan to implement Section 5949 of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for FY 23 (Pub. L. 117-263).
Section 5949 prohibits the Federal Government from procuring certain semiconductor parts, products, or services traceable to named Chinese companies and potentially other foreign countries of concern. To that end, the ANPRM invites public comment on the proposed contents of an implementing FAR clause, to take effect December 23, 2027.
As discussed below, the FAR Council proposed applying the regulations broadly to all solicitations and contracts, including commercial item and commercially available off-the-shelf (“COTS”) contracts, subject only to a limited waiver. Although not set out in the statute, the clause would require contractors to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” into their supply chain to detect potential violations. It would also require both disclosure and the taking of corrective action in the event that nonconforming products or services are discovered.
More details are below, and our previous coverage of Section 5949 is available here.
Continue Reading Chips on the Table: FAR Council Releases Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement Prohibition on Purchase and Use of Certain SemiconductorsKey Supply Chain Provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2024
This post continues our ongoing coverage of the FY 2024 NDAA.
The FY 2024 NDAA includes numerous supply chain and stockpile management provisions aimed at addressing a host of perceived vulnerabilities and weaknesses in Department of Defense (“DoD”) supply chain networks used to secure goods and services for our national defense. Of particular note, this year’s NDAA seeks to address China’s and Russia’s continued dominance in the global supply chain for many critical materials and rare earth elements. Supply chain- and stockpile-related measures in the NDAA could present significant opportunities for contractors poised to support the U.S. Government’s efforts to on-shore and friend-shore U.S. and DoD sourcing and manufacturing, but Congress’s focus on increasing supply chain visibility could also herald new rounds of compliance and reporting requirements attached to federal procurements.
Continue Reading Key Supply Chain Provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2024Implications of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Amendment in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
On December 22, 2023, President Biden signed into law the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (“FY 2024 NDAA”). Sections 1841 through 1843 of the new law address Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (“UAP”).
The version of the FY 2024 NDAA enacted in the Senate in July of this year incorporated the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023—which would have mandated the Federal Government’s exercise of eminent domain over UAP-related material controlled by private persons or entities. As discussed in greater detail below, the eminent domain mandate was not included in the final version of the NDAA passed by both chambers of Congress. The newly enacted law requires only the establishment of a government wide UAP records collection; that government offices transfer UAP records to the collection; and that records be reviewed for disclosure (or not) against a set of criteria under which public release could be “postponed.” Nonetheless, the substance of these final UAP provisions and Congress’s renewed interest in UAP may be a harbinger of things to come for government contractors and research entities, especially those involved in defense, intelligence, and other national security projects. We expand on the background, evolution, and national security implications of the UAP amendment—and its potential impacts on contractors and other private entities—below.
Continue Reading Implications of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Amendment in the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)Tick-tock, the Court Starts the Clock: Deconflicting the FCA and Rule 4(m) of the FRCP
In keeping with the trend of increased attention on the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) qui tam provisions, the Second Circuit recently weighed in on a seeming conflict between the statute and the relator’s obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FCRP”). Under Rule 4(m) of the FRCP, the court generally must dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff fails to serve the defendant with a complaint and summons within 90 days of filing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). But a relator bringing suit under the qui tam provisions of the FCA may not serve a defendant until the complaint is unsealed and “until the court so orders.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). In cases brought under the qui tam provisions of the FCA, this creates the potential for questions regarding when the Rule 4(m) service-of-process clock begins to tick.
These questions seldom arise because courts ordinarily unseal a relator’s complaint and simultaneously order the relator to serve the defendant. In which case, the express order to serve the defendant plainly triggers the service-of-process clock under Rule 4(m). But what if the court unseals the relator’s complaint and then delays (or never issues) the order to serve the defendant? This was the question before the Second Circuit last month in U.S. ex rel. Weiner v. Siemens AG, No. 22-2656, 2023 WL 8227913, at 3 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2023).
Continue Reading Tick-tock, the Court Starts the Clock: Deconflicting the FCA and Rule 4(m) of the FRCPKey Cyber Security and Software Security Provisions of the House and Senate Versions of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
Following our recent overview of topics to watch in the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2024, available here, we continue our coverage with a “deep dive” into NDAA provisions related to cybersecurity and software security in each of the Senate and House bills. For the past three years, the NDAA has dedicated a separate Title to cyber and cybersecurity, reflecting the increased importance of these issues in Department of Defense (“DoD”) operations. As expected, both the Senate and House versions of the NDAA bill continue this tradition. Many of the cyberspace related provisions in both chambers’ bills would have direct or indirect impacts on DoD contractors and other members of the Defense Industrial Base (“DIB”). We summarize below the cyber-related provisions that are most likely to impact the DIB.
Continue Reading Key Cyber Security and Software Security Provisions of the House and Senate Versions of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)