NDAA

On September 1, 2026, the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) Board published two final rules implementing seismic changes to cost accounting requirements for federal government contractors.  The most significant change implements a requirement in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), doubling the dollar value threshold for full coverage under CAS. …

Continue Reading CAS Board Rolls Out Two Changes with Significant Impact on Federal Contractors

Last December, we previewed the significant cost accounting and pricing data disclosure changes contained in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), including Section 1804(c)’s increase to the threshold governing the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Statute (formerly the Truth in Negotiations Act, and still commonly called “TINA”).  That change is no longer on the horizon: it is here.  The FY 2026 NDAA was signed into law on December 18, 2025, and the higher TINA threshold has taken effect for contracts entered into after June 30, 2026. This post focuses on what that means, in practical terms, for prime contractors and subcontractors.

Continue Reading The $10 Million TINA Threshold Is Now in Effect: What Contractors and Subcontractors Need to Know

The public comment period for the long-awaited Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) proposed rule, “Mitigating Risks Related to Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence” (the “proposed DFARS FOCI rule”), closed on July 6, 2026. But recent activity in Congress suggests that the Department of War (“DoW”)’s proposed rule may be only one part of a broader effort to expand the government’s visibility into and mitigation of foreign ownership, control, or influence (“FOCI”) risks across the defense industrial base. Taken together, the proposed DFARS FOCI rule and pending provisions in the House and Senate versions of the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) could substantially extend FOCI-related scrutiny beyond the traditional universe of cleared contractors performing classified work.

Continue Reading Congress Considers Further FOCI Reforms as DoW Moves to Expand Disclosure Requirements for Unclassified Defense Contractors

On February 17, 2026, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing amendments to the FAR to implement Section 5949 of the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”).  Section 5949 prohibits executive agencies from obtaining semiconductor parts, products, or services traceable to certain named Chinese companies – currently, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (“SMIC”), ChangXin Memory Technologies (“CXMT”), and Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp (“YMTC”) – subject to limited exceptions.  In accordance with the statute, the proposed amendments to the FAR would become effective on December 23, 2027.  The proposed rule is not yet final and is open for public comment until April 20, 2026. 

Continue Reading FAR Council Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement Prohibition on Acquisition of Certain Semiconductors

Among the most challenging areas of regulatory compliance for federal contractors are cost accounting and cost and pricing data disclosure requirements.  Indeed, many companies place guardrails on the nature and scale of their business relationships with the U.S. government precisely to avoid the application of these requirements.  In a move that seems consistent with the federal government’s push towards expanding the defense industrial base and working with more commercial companies, Congress recently released the final negotiated language of the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”).  The draft text, currently awaiting a full Senate vote, contains impactful changes to reduce the applicability of federal Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) and the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Statute (formerly the Truth in Negotiations Act, commonly referred to as “TINA”). 

Continue Reading FY26 NDAA Aims to Raise the Dollar Thresholds for the Applicability of CAS and TINA

After failing to be included in the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) or passed as a standalone piece of legislation, the BIOSECURE Act has moved closer to finally being enacted after it was included in the final FY 2026 NDAA text released by Congress on December 7, 2025.  Section 851 of the FY 2026 NDAA is titled “Prohibition on Contracting with Certain Biotechnology Providers,” but includes in substance what was previously introduced and considered in Congress as the BIOSECURE Act. 

The bill has the potential to impose significant restrictions on the use of certain Chinese companies in the supply chain for products procured by the U.S. Government and accordingly has been of interest to industry over the last few years.  This blog post summarizes the scope of the bill, highlights the changes in the FY 2026 NDAA text as compared to prior iterations of the bill, and flags key considerations for government contractors in the life sciences space.

Continue Reading BIOSECURE Act Moves Closer to Enactment with Inclusion in FY 2026 NDAA Text

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