NDAA

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

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…

Continue Reading Expired:  SBIR/STTR and DPA Authorities in Limbo

The Defense Production Act (DPA) has long been viewed as the primary federal mechanism for managing and supporting defense production.  Since it was enacted in September 1950—just months after the Korean War began—the DPA has armed the President with wartime-style powers to prioritize contracts, allocate scarce materials, and finance surge defense production capacity.  These DPA industrial authorities are subject to periodic reauthorization, with the current sunset set for September 30, 2025.  While the reauthorization of the DPA remains pending, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has advanced a new NDAA provision that would convert the extant Industrial Base Fund (IBF) (10 U.S.C. section 4817) into a Pentagon-controlled toolkit that closely mirrors—but is not identical to—DPA’s Title III authorities.  The introduction of section 849A of the FY 2026 NDAA suggests that the SASC is no longer willing to entrust the re-armament of the Pentagon and revitalization of the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) solely to reauthorization of the DPA—a process that lives or dies in other committees’ jurisdictions. Continue Reading Forging a Modern Strategic Production Base:  Senate Proposes Stand-Alone Defense-Production Powers for the Pentagon

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

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 Act

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

This is part of a series of Covington blogs on the implementation of Executive Order 14028, “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” issued by President Biden on May 12, 2021 (the “Cyber EO”).  The first blog summarized the Cyber EO’s key provisions and timelines, and the subsequent blogs described the actions taken…

Continue Reading November 2024 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order and National Cybersecurity Strategy

In what has become an annual tradition, this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) — just passed by the Senate and sent to the President for signature — contains a provision addressing bid protests at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”).

Likely of greatest interest to contractors is that Section 885 contains language increasing the dollar threshold for protests of task order awards under a Department of Defense indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (“IDIQ”) contract, from $25,000,000 to $35,000,000.  The increased threshold would further limit the universe of task orders that can be protested under DoD IDIQ contracts. 

Section 885 also requires GAO to prepare a “Proposal for Payment of Costs for Certain Government Accountability Office Bid Protests.”  This provision is likely part of the Department of Defense’s years-long campaign to impose a “loser pays” penalty on protesters in an effort to curb what it says is a problem of frivolous protests — even though GAO’s annual bid protest statistics show that the majority of protests result in relief to the protester, as evidenced by an effectiveness rate of 52%.  DoD’s effort has dated back at least to the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA, which included an analogous pilot program proposal. More recently, as discussed in our August 21, 2023, post entitled “Should Bid Protest Losers Pay?” Section 804 of the House-enacted NDAA for Fiscal Year 2024 included a pilot proposal for a “loser pays” program.Continue Reading NDAA Increases Threshold for Task Order Protests and Directs Another Study on Whether Losing Protesters Should Pay

On November 15, 2024, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) entitled “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Disclosure of Information Regarding Foreign Obligations.”  The Proposed Rule would impose new disclosure obligations on “Offeror[s]” (pre-award) and “Contractor[s]” (post-award) that are triggered in certain…

Continue Reading Department of Defense Publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Disclosure of Computer and Source Code to Foreign Entities

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 Semiconductors