Commercial Items

On 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

On November 7, 2025, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth used a speech at the National War College to unveil a Department of War (“DoW”) memorandum titled “Transforming the Defense Acquisition System into the Warfighting Acquisition System to Accelerate Fielding of Urgently Needed Capabilities to Our Warriors.”  This memorandum, referred to throughout as the “WAS Memo”—formally redesignates the Defense Acquisition System (“DAS”) as the Warfighting Acquisition System (“WAS”), places the acquisition enterprise on a “wartime footing,” and sets forth the governance, structural, and process reforms that will shape how DoW capabilities are acquired and fielded. 

This post is the second in a three-part series analyzing these reforms.  In our first post, we examined the WAS Memo’s new emphasis on commercial products and offerings as the preferred acquisition approach.  This post turns to the broader restructuring initiatives contained in the WAS Memo and its accompanying Acquisition Transformation Strategy.

Continue Reading From DAS to WAS:  Secretary Hegseth’s Acquisition Overhaul and What It Means for Industry

Last week, Secretary Hegseth delivered a speech at the National War College introducing transformations to the defense procurement process.  Among them, the Secretary discussed awarding companies bigger and longer contracts for proven systems; removing “excessive and burdensome” requirements (for example, acquisition rules, accounting standards, and testing oversight); and empowering program leaders with authority to direct program outcomes, move money, and adjust priorities.  Overall, the speech outlined a vision for a more agile defense procurement process that leans heavily on practices already proven and featured in the commercial sector.

Continue Reading Contractors Should Not Overlook the Administration’s Call to Action on Commerciality

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals has published its annual report for FY 2023, providing data regarding the number of appeals and contractor success rates at the Board.  The data illustrated a number of noteworthy points — and a few welcome trends — for the contracting community.

Continue Reading Contractors Had a Strong Success Rate Before the CBCA in FY 2023

Earlier today, the FAR Council issued a final rule revising the FAR definition of “commercial item.”  The final rule effectively splits the prior definition of “commercial item” into separate definitions for “commercial product” and “commercial service,” without making substantive changes to the existing definitions.  The final rule also replaces references to “commercial items” throughout the FAR with corresponding references to “commercial products,” “commercial services,” or both, as appropriate.
Continue Reading New Final Rule Replaces “Commercial Item” Definition and Implements Definitions for “Commercial Products” and “Commercial Services”

On May 12, 2021, the Biden Administration issued an Executive Order on Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity (the “EO”).  The EO sets out a list of deliverables due from a number of governmental entities in June 2021 and successive months.  Our overall summary of the EO and its deliverables can be found here, and our discussion of the EO deliverables that were due in June 2021 can be found here.  This blog addresses the EO deliverables in July 2021.
Continue Reading July 2021 Developments Under the Executive Order on Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity

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

Companies in a range of industries that contract with the U.S. Government—including aerospace, defense, healthcare, technology, and energy—are actively working to assess whether or not their information technology systems comply with significant new restrictions that will take effect on August 13, 2020.  These new restrictions prohibit the use of certain Chinese telecommunications equipment and services, and a failure to comply can have dramatic consequences for these companies.  The new restrictions also will have an immediate impact on mergers and acquisitions involving a company that does—or hopes to do—business with the Federal government.  In this article, we highlight some key considerations for M&A practitioners relating to these restrictions.

Background

On July 14, 2020, the U.S. Government’s Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (“FAR Council”) published an interim rule to implement Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (“FY19 NDAA”).[1]  When the new rule takes effect on August 13, it will prohibit the Department of Defense and all other executive branch agencies from contracting—or extending or renewing a contract—with an “entity” that “uses” “covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential part of any system.”  The restrictions cover broad categories of equipment and services produced and provided by certain Chinese companies—namely Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hangzhou Hikvision, Dahua, and their affiliates.[2]

The new rule will be applicable to all contracts with the U.S. Government, including those for commercial item services and commercially available-off-the-shelf products.[3]  Companies with a single one of these contracts will soon have an ongoing obligation to report any new discovery of its internal “use” of certain covered telecommunications equipment and services to the Government within one business day with a report of how the use will be mitigated ten business days later.[4]  Further, although companies can seek to obtain a waiver on a contract-by-contract basis from agencies, these waivers must be granted by the head of the agency, and may only extend until August 13, 2022 at the latest.[5]

The new rule is the second part of a two-stage implementation of Section 889’s restrictions on covered telecommunications equipment and services in Government contracting.  It builds on an earlier rule that implemented Section 889(a)(1)(A) of the FY19 NDAA on August 13, 2019 by prohibiting an executive branch agency from acquiring certain covered telecommunications equipment or services that is a substantial or essential part of any system.[6]

The new rule is expansive in scope, and its effects will be felt far beyond the traditional defense industrial base.  Thus, mergers and acquisitions practitioners are well advised to become familiar with the rule and consider how it might impact any future transaction where an acquisition target does at least some business with the Government or has aspirations to do so in the future.Continue Reading M&A and Section 889: Due Diligence and Integration Considerations

On Friday, the General Services Administration (“GSA”) announced that it had awarded three contracts to develop online shopping portals for commercially-available off-the-shelf (“COTS”) items.  The awardees are Amazon Business, Fisher Scientific, and Overstock.com.
Continue Reading GSA Awards First Contracts to Develop an Online Shopping Platform, and the White House Seems to Be Paying Attention

Following up on our post earlier this week giving a general overview of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA”), 50 U.S.C. §§4501 et seq., this post comments on President Trump’s March 18, 2020 Executive Order on Prioritizing and Allocating Health and Medical Resources to Respond to the Spread of COVID-19 (the “COVID-19 E.O.”) and provides some key considerations that companies should keep in mind if they are concerned about receiving prioritized or rated contracts or allocation orders or directives under the DPA.
Continue Reading The Defense Production Act and the Coronavirus Executive Order: Key Considerations

As a followup to our recent post on the implications of the PREP Act for government contractors working to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, this post will provide an overview of the Defense Production Act—including its key powers that the federal Government might invoke to counter the pandemic.
Continue Reading A Coronavirus Contractor’s Guide to the Defense Production Act