Dominique L. Casimir and David L. Bodner ●
On election night, Rep. Robert Garcia, the incoming Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, issued a two-word statement: “Lawyer up.” Sen. Ron Wyden, expected to chair the Senate Finance Committee, offered his own one-word forecast: “Subpoenas.” Democrats will control both chambers when the 120th Congress convenes on January 3, 2027. Information requests that minority members sent this year could then become the basis for subpoenas. Federal contracting appears on nearly every forecast of the new majority’s investigative priorities.
Why Contractors Should Pay Attention
Contractors may face questions about how they won and performed their awards. That line of inquiry builds on Rep. Garcia’s requests for information about how contractors on administration projects were vetted. A company does not need to be accused of wrongdoing to receive a letter. Holding contracts, communications, or other information relevant to Congress’s review of the administration can be enough. Committees also turn to private companies when executive agencies are slow to respond.
The stakes will outlast both the current and incoming Congress. The statute of limitations for false statements to Congress or obstruction of a congressional investigation is generally five years, meaning the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) could review a company’s conduct well after the 2028 election.
Where Scrutiny Is Likely to Land
Several themes have already emerged:
- Contributions and access. Lawmakers have focused on corporate donations to the White House ballroom project and whether those gifts connect to contracts or access. Rep. Jim Himes has warned defense industry members that he may seek documents, communications, and transcribed testimony on this issue.
- Homeland security and immigration. Detention and enforcement contracts are likely targets. Rep. Garcia has also named alleged pay-to-play contracting at the Department of Homeland Security.
- Defense and national security. Expect attention to be paid to defense procurement, government equity deals, and critical supply chains. Investigators may also ask whether the government awarded no-bid contracts tied to recent policy shifts.
- Politically connected awards. Democrats have already questioned contracts awarded to companies associated with family members of the administration.
Four government contract issues also warrant attention:
- Pricing. On October 21, 2026, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Grassley, Elissa Slotkin, and Joni Ernst wrote to the Pentagon about contractor price gouging. This is a longstanding investigatory theme. For example, following a May 15, 2019, House Oversight Committee hearing on sole-source spare parts, the company at issue repaid $16.1 million in excess profits.
- Sole Source Contracts. Sole source contracts may draw scrutiny, including whether no-bid contracts were tied to recent policy shifts. Contractors should be prepared to explain the basis for any justification and approval supporting such awards.
- Cyber, AI, and Personnel. The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (“CMMC”) regulatory picture landscape remains in flux, but that uncertainty does not relieve contractors of existing obligations. On November 3, 2026, DOJ announced that several defense and aerospace contractors have agreed to pay $13 million to resolve allegations that, from January 2018 to October 2024, they billed the Army, the Missile Defense Agency, and NASA while knowing they had not met their contracts’ cyber requirements.
- Conflicts of Interest and Contractor Integrity. In 2022, a House Oversight investigation found that consultants worked on Food and Drug Administration contracts while advising opioid makers and failed to disclose those conflicts. That investigation produced the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act (Pub. L. 117-324). The implementing Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) rule is nearly two years overdue. On July 21, 2026, Sens. Gary Peters, Chuck Grassley, Joni Ernst, and Maggie Hassan asked the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (“OFPP”) for a timeline. While OFPP has not issued a public response to the senators’ inquiry, Defense Department rulemaking logs indicate that an interagency team was tasked in August 2026 with drafting the final rule, with a report due in January 2027.
Because many of these topics fall within the jurisdiction of several committees in both chambers, contractors should expect overlapping requests. Productions and testimony must stay consistent across all of them.
A Different Kind of Investigation
Contractors who are familiar with audits, bid protests, and DOJ inquiries may assume they know what to expect from a congressional inquiry or investigation. In practice, the process can look quite different. Congressional committees are not bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence, and they do not need probable cause to issue a subpoena. Requests often demand a response within two to three weeks, and document production generally flows in only one direction. There is also no neutral judge to resolve disputes; instead, any objections go to the same committee chair who issued the request.
Privilege is another trap. Congress has long taken the position that common-law privileges, including attorney-client and work-product protection, do not bind it. Recent court decisions have questioned that view, but the law remains unsettled. Producing privileged material to a committee could also invite waiver arguments in parallel litigation or enforcement matters.
Finally, hearings generally take place in public. Committees broadcast them live and sometimes release produced documents without warning. A brief exchange with a member can prompt regulators to open their own inquiries or encourage private plaintiffs to sue.
Parallel Enforcement Risk
Congressional attention rarely stays exclusive to Congress. Issues raised in an oversight inquiry often draw interest from DOJ, other regulators, and shareholders. Statements companies make before a committee can also be used against them in a parallel proceeding. Meanwhile enforcement under the False Claims Act continues and the public disclosure bar only applies in qui tam cases. Contractors should coordinate any congressional response with their existing compliance and enforcement posture. The main downstream tracks are:
- IG investigation. Members can request Inspector General (“IG”) reviews, which may expand into broader examinations of contractor conduct.
- Defense Contract Audit Agency audit. Pricing testimony can shape or influence audits.
- False Claims Act relator action. The relator may be your own employee. Employees can call Congress directly: 41 U.S.C. § 4712 protects disclosures to Members and committee staff.
- Suspension or debarment proceeding. Adverse committee findings can come to the attention of the agency suspension and debarment officials.
- NDAA-driven legislative action. Findings can shape National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) provisions aimed at specific contract types, pricing practices, or contractor categories.
- DOJ referral. Committees can refer conduct to DOJ.
What Contractors Should Do Now
- Review recent awards. Inventory federal contracts and grants from the past two years and document how each one was awarded. Give special attention to sole-source and limited-competition awards.
- Prepare the narrative. Be ready to explain award terms, pricing, performance, and communications with government decision makers. Know who made key decisions and what senior management or the board knew.
- Examine contributions and contacts. Review political giving and interactions with the administration and with Congress.
- Preserve records. Confirm that retention protocols capture relevant documents and communications.
- Build a response team. Bring legal, government relations, communications, and senior leadership into one plan.
- Fix whistleblower hygiene. Whistleblowers often raise concerns with management first and turn to the Government only after concluding that their employer is not taking those concerns seriously. Take employee complaints and concerns seriously, and, if possible, make it clear to the employee that the company is doing so. If for any reason the company concludes that it should take any adverse action against a reporting employee, document the basis for doing so.
- Watch your peers. An inquiry aimed at a competitor can signal what is coming next.
- Classify response costs correctly. Review how investigation response costs are classified under FAR 31.205-47 and FAR 31.205-22. Costs of addressing government-initiated proceedings may be unallowable or capped depending on the outcome, and misclassification creates its own audit and False Claims Act exposure.
The Bottom Line
Letters and subpoenas could arrive early in the new Congress. Contractors that use the coming weeks to assess their exposure will be better positioned to respond from a position of strength. Those that wait will respond under deadline. Blank Rome’s Government Contracts and Aerospace, Defense & Government Services teams are available to help contractors evaluate their risk and prepare.