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 KnowNDAA
Congress Considers Further FOCI Reforms as DoW Moves to Expand Disclosure Requirements for Unclassified Defense Contractors
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 ContractorsWhat the Updated 1260H List Means for Biotechnology Procurement
By Jennifer Plitsch, Jennifer Bentley & Eunsun Cho on
On June 8, 2026, the Department of War (“DoW”) published its updated list of “Chinese military companies” operating in the United States (“1260H List”), as required by Section 1260H of the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). The updated list includes, among other companies, WuXi AppTec Co.…
Continue Reading What the Updated 1260H List Means for Biotechnology ProcurementNew Restrictions on Defense Contractors Retaining Outside Consultants Set to Take Effect
In January 2025, Covington issued a client alert noting that the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2025, which sets annual spending and policy for the Pentagon, introduced new China-related prohibitions on defense contractors and their consultants. The provision is finally set to take effect on…
Continue Reading New Restrictions on Defense Contractors Retaining Outside Consultants Set to Take EffectBIOSECURE Act Moves Closer to Enactment with Inclusion in FY 2026 NDAA Text
By Jennifer Plitsch & Jennifer Bentley on
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 TextExpired: SBIR/STTR and DPA Authorities in Limbo
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 LimboForging a Modern Strategic Production Base: Senate Proposes Stand-Alone Defense-Production Powers for the Pentagon
By Stephanie Barna, Scott A. Freling & Nooree Lee on
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 PentagonPresident 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
November 2024 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order and National Cybersecurity Strategy
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 StrategyNDAA Increases Threshold for Task Order Protests and Directs Another Study on Whether Losing Protesters Should Pay
By Jay Carey, Kayleigh Scalzo & Victoria Skiera on
Posted in Bid Protests, NDAA
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