Blank Rome LLP, Author at Government Contracts Navigator

Time for Compliance with DOD’s Cybersecurity Regulations is NOW

Michael Joseph Montalbano and Samarth Barot ●

On February 19, 2024, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) notified the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia that it would intervene in a False Claims Act (“FCA”) case filed against Georgia Tech Research Corporation and Georgia Institute of Technology (collectively “Georgia Tech”) for not complying with the requirements of DFARS 252.204-7012 and National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-171 (“NIST 800-171”).

All Department of Defense (“DOD”) solicitations and contracts contain DFARS clause 252.204-7012. DFARS 252.204-7012 requires a contractor to assess its compliance with 110 cybersecurity controls set out in the NIST 800-171 if the Company has controlled unclassified information. Specifically, pursuant to DFARS 252.204-7012, contractors must implement all of the NIST 800-171 requirements and upload the results of that assessment to the Department of Defense’s Supplier Performance Risk System (“SPRS”), or have a plan of action and milestones in place for any requirement the contractor has not yet implemented.

OMB Issues Guidance on Application of Section 889 to Federal Assistance Recipients—and Confirms No Part B “Use” Prohibition

Robyn N. Burrows ●

On April 22, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued final guidance regarding the application of the Section 889 telecommunications ban to federal grants, loans, and cooperative agreements under 2 C.F.R. § 200.216. As a quick recap, Part A of Section 889 prohibits contractors from providing the federal government covered telecommunications equipment and services from certain Chinese manufacturers, whereas Part B prohibits contractors from using covered equipment and services. Section 889 also applies to grant, loan, and cooperative agreement recipients and subrecipients through 2 C.F.R. § 200.216, with certain differences. Most notably, OMB recently clarified that the Part B “use” prohibition does not apply to recipients and subrecipients, meaning they may use covered telecommunications equipment and services as long as they are not purchased with federal funds.

DOE OIG Cites Need for Data Analytics to Combat Fraud

Robyn N. Burrows ●

Last month, the Department of Energy (“DOE”) Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued a special report on the DOE’s use of data analytics to reduce the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse within DOE programs. As noted in our prior post (“More Cases and Expanded Data Analytics: A Closer Look at DOJ’s FY 2023 False Claims Act Statistics”), the Department of Justice has successfully used data analytics to identify and develop fraud cases, and the DOE OIG appears poised to adopt a similar approach—despite several implementation challenges.

Citing the significant influx of funds DOE has received through recent spending bills, the OIG report emphasized a need for the DOE to adopt data analytics and data-driven management to conduct oversight—moving away from a “pay and chase” model to a predicative, proactive approach to combatting fraud. However, the OIG found that DOE generally lacks the ability to perform comprehensive and timely analytics given that relevant data is maintained in a multitude of systems across the DOE complex. Without a coordinated approach for data standards, the OIG found that DOE’s ability to monitor contract costs and manage fraud risks is likely to be hampered.

Justin A. Chiarodo and Elizabeth N. Jochum Named to Law360’s 2024 Editorial Advisory Boards

Blank Rome LLP is pleased to announce that Government Contracts partners Justin A. Chiarodo and Elizabeth N. Jochum have been named to Law360’s 2024 Editorial Advisory Boards. As board members, the partners will provide feedback on Law360’s coverage and share insights on how to best shape future coverage.

Justin, who serves as chair of our firm’s Aerospace, Defense & Government Services industry team and Government Contracts practice group, has been named to Law360’s Aerospace & Defense Editorial Advisory Board for the second time.

Elizabeth has been named to Law360’s 2024 Government Contracts Editorial Advisory Board.

Learn more about other Blank Rome partners serving on Law360’s 2024 Editorial Advisory Boards on our website.

DOJ Looks to Incentivize Whistleblowers with New Pilot Program

Robyn N. Burrows ●

On March 7, 2024, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is designing and launching a pilot program to pay monetary rewards to whistleblowers who report significant corporate or financial misconduct. The pilot program, which will roll out later this year, is intended to encourage individuals to report misconduct and for companies to further invest in their internal compliance and reporting systems.

Several agencies have already established similar programs that reward whistleblowers financially, including the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). Those programs, however, are limited in scope to each agency, resulting in what Monaco referred to as a “patchwork quilt” that does not address the full range of corporate and financial misconduct. The new pilot program is intended to fill these gaps.

Key Aspects of Pilot Program

Over the next 90 days, DOJ will be engaging in a “policy sprint” to gather information, consult with stakeholders, and design the pilot program. DOJ’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (“MLARS”) will lead the development and administration of the program.

The program’s core concepts will include the following:

Award Thresholds: DOJ expects to establish a monetary threshold to focus its resources on the most significant cases. Both the SEC and CFTC whistleblower programs limit rewards to cases in which the agency orders sanctions of one million dollars or more. DOJ may end up adopting a similar threshold.
Victim Compensation: Whistleblowers will only receive payment after all victims have been compensated.
“First in the Door”: Eligibility is limited to whistleblowers who provide truthful information not already known to the government. The information cannot be in response to any government inquiry, pre-existing reporting obligation, or imminent threat of disclosure. As Monaco emphasized, “you have to tell us something we didn’t already know.”
No Criminal Involvement: Whistleblowers cannot be involved in the criminal activity itself.
No Existing Incentive Programs: The program applies only in cases where there is no existing disclosure incentive, including qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act or another federal whistleblower program.

Enforcement Priorities

Although DOJ seeks information about any violation of federal law, Monaco clarified that the government is primarily interested in:

Criminal abuses of the U.S. financial system;
Foreign corruption cases outside the SEC’s jurisdiction; and
Domestic corruption cases, especially involving illegal corporate payments to government officials.

What to Expect from the Pilot Program?

Increase in voluntary disclosures

The new whistleblower program builds on DOJ’s prior efforts to strengthen corporate enforcement by encouraging voluntary disclosures. With the new pilot program offering monetary rewards to those “first in the door,” companies assessing whether to self-report potential misconduct must consider whether a whistleblower might get to DOJ first (thereby preventing the company from reaping the benefits of a voluntary disclosure). This may encourage companies to self-report misconduct earlier and more often. As Monaco stated, “[O]ur message to whistleblowers is clear: the Department of Justice wants to hear from you. And to those considering a voluntary self-disclosure, our message is equally clear: knock on our door before we knock on yours.”

More referrals to DOJ—and potentially fewer internal whistleblower reports

With the prospect of potentially significant financial rewards, we can expect more employees to report wrongdoing directly to DOJ, rather than going through corporate whistleblower channels. Companies should therefore ensure employees are aware of and have easy access to whistleblower hotlines to encourage internal reporting.

Focus on non-public companies

One of the “gaps” DOJ seeks to fill with the whistleblower program is to target foreign corruption cases outside the jurisdiction of the SEC, which already has its own whistleblower program. Thus, DOJ is likely to focus on suspected violations by non-public corporations.

We expect more information on program details and implementation over the coming months and will follow up with further updates.

More Cases and Expanded Data Analytics: A Closer Look at DOJ’s FY 2023 False Claims Act Statistics

Dominique L. Casimir, Luke W. Meier, and Oliver E. Jury ●

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recently announced its statistics for False Claims Act (“FCA”) FY 2023 settlements and judgments. DOJ recovered $2.68 billion in FY 2023; as usual, the majority of these recoveries (nearly 70 percent, or $1.8B) came from the healthcare industry. DOJ continues to make use of data analytics to inform its enforcement activity.

Background

Comparing year-to-year variance in the volume of DOJ’s FCA recoveries provides only marginal utility. More telling is the rapid expansion of the non-qui tam matters opened during the past two years. In FY 2022, DOJ opened 305 non-qui tam matters, representing approximately 186 percent of its prior ten-year average (164). In FY 2023, this increase continued, with DOJ opening 500 non-qui tam matters—305 percent of the ten-year average over FY 12–21.

Deadline Looms for the Submission of Comments on FAR Council’s Proposed Rule Updating Federal Debarment Procedures

Dominique L. Casimir and Patrick F. Collins ●

Introduction

The United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually on government contracts, grants, and other forms of federal assistance. Although most entities that receive these awards are good business partners, the government must protect itself from those that lack integrity. One of the ways the government does this is by imposing suspension or debarment, which renders an entity broadly ineligible to receive federal awards for a specified period.

The suspension and debarment regulations at Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Subpart 9.4 (which apply to procurement contracts) and at 2 C.F.R. Part 180, known as the Nonprocurement Common Rule (“NCR”) (which apply to nonprocurement transactions such as grants) have remained relatively unchanged for many years. But change may be on the horizon, as the FAR Council recently issued a proposed rule that aims to better harmonize the two regulatory regimes. The period for public comment closes on March 11, 2024—one week from today. Rulemaking is infrequent in this area, so the final rule will be highly anticipated.

Meet Our Newest Partner, Robyn Burrows

Justin A. Chiarodo, Dominique L. Casimir, and Robyn N. Burrows

In late 2023, we were very happy to announce that Blank Rome Government Contracts associate Robyn N. Burrows was elevated to partner in our Government Contracts practice in Washington, D.C., effective January 2024.

Robyn is a key member of our practice group who represents clients on a wide range of government contracts matters. She has experience preparing and negotiating complex claims and has litigated disputes before the boards of contract appeal and state and federal courts. Robyn has a particular focus on emerging supply chain and cybersecurity issues and has counseled numerous clients on Section 889 compliance. She also provides counseling on cost/pricing issues, domestic preferences, protection of contractor data and intellectual property, and suspension and debarment matters. She has experience navigating clients through False Claims Act investigations and regularly assists clients in high-value bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Robyn has also developed particular experience with Department of Energy (“DOE”) contracts, and has handled matters involving whistleblower complaints, civil investigative demands, subcontractor disputes, cost-allowability issues, and other unique DOE requirements applying to management and operating (“M&O”) contractors.

Robyn is a member of the Public Contract Law Section of the American Bar Association, where she is Vice-Chair – Contract Claims & Disputes Committee, Vice-Chair – Cybersecurity, Privacy and Emerging Technology Committee, and has served as the Associate Editor for the section’s quarterly journal, The Procurement Lawyer, since 2021. Robyn also serves on the Washington, D.C. Bar Government Contracts Steering Committee.

Before joining Blank Rome, Robyn represented construction clients in federal contracting matters. During law school, she was a research editor for the George Mason Law Review. She interned with the Honorable R. Terrence Ney of the Fairfax County Circuit Court, and with the administrative judges at the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

We took some time to chat with Robyn to see how she is settling into her new position, and to learn more about her, including what she enjoys doing outside of work!

DOD Finalizes Rule Concerning Domestic Content Preference

Samarth Barot and Shane M. Hannon ●

On February 15, the Department of Defense (“DOD”) finalized a rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) to supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) implementation of Executive Order 14005, addressing domestic preferences in DOD procurement. Defense contractors should be aware of the specific changes and ensure their sourcing and supply chain systems incorporate the updated requirements.

Background

As we discussed in prior posts, in January 2021 President Biden issued an executive order strengthening the Buy American Act’s (“BAA”) preference for domestic products and services in federal procurements. The executive order directed the FAR Council to consider proposing a rule to increase the BAA’s domestic content threshold for domestic end products.

The FAR Council then issued a final rule that increased the domestic content threshold for domestic end products (covered here). Previously, a product was considered a domestic end product if the cost of its components mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States exceeded 55 percent of the cost of all components. The FAR Council’s final rule increased that domestic content threshold to 60 percent and implemented a phased increase to 65 percent in 2024 and 75 percent in 2029. However, the rule also included a fallback threshold of 55 percent if (1) no end products exist that meet the new domestic content threshold or (2) such end products do exist but are unreasonably expensive. This fallback threshold will persist until 2030.

Two Sides to Every Story: When Is Extrinsic Evidence Relevant to Interpreting the Scope of a Contractor Release?

Stephanie M. Harden and David L. Bodner ●

When is it appropriate to consider “extrinsic evidence” of the parties’ intent when interpreting a contractor’s release of claims? A new decision out of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), Sonabend Company (ASBCA No. 63359), sheds new light on this important question, denying the government’s motion for summary judgment because the release language it relied on was ambiguous and thus raised an issue of fact.

Signing Releases—An Area Fraught with Risk

Releases are typically presented to the contractor as routine. Simply sign the modification and new work scope or new funding will be added to your contract! But when a contractor signs a modification, it might waive its ability to later pursue a cost claim, even for prior changes not impacted by the modification itself. Thus, it is important to identify modification language that may bar a future claim.

The government typically seeks to bar recovery based on at least one of two legal theories: (1) a release and (2) accord and satisfaction.

Release—a unilateral act by which one party disclaims a contract right or obligation.
Accord and Satisfaction—a bilateral agreement or an accord, where the parties agree to altered performance and the acceptance of such altered performance is satisfaction of the accord, which discharges the claim.

In practice, these theories may apply even though a modification does not announce itself as a release or an accord and satisfaction or a bar to a future claim.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: