Authors Archives - Page 2 of 40 - Government Contracts Navigator

Supreme Court Weighs in for a Second Time on Jurisdiction over Grant Termination Cases

Dominique L. Casimir and Sara N. Gerber ●

The Supreme Court recently ruled for the second time that federal district courts likely lack jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to hear challenges to terminations of federal grants. The first such ruling came in April of this year, when the Court granted an emergency stay in California v. Department of Education. On August 21, 2025, the Supreme Court issued another emergency stay, in NIH v. American Public Health Association, reaffirming the view that challenges to grant terminations are, in substance, breach of contract actions for money damages that belong in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.

Since California, several lower courts have nevertheless asserted jurisdiction over grantee lawsuits seeking reinstatement of terminated grants, often distinguishing California on procedural or factual grounds. We have previously written about some of those cases (including Massachusetts v. Kennedy, which was later consolidated with NIH). Although the Supreme Court’s decision in NIH is an interim order, the jurisdictional question may now be functionally settled, particularly given Justice Gorsuch’s admonishment to lower courts that even if they “sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions…they are never free to defy them. When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.” Following NIH, we expect terminated grantees will largely be forced into the Court of Federal Claims, which generally does not have authority under the Tucker Act to grant the equitable relief—reinstatement of grants—that many of them are seeking.

Federal Circuit Clarifies “Interested Party” Status in Percipient.ai v. United States

Robyn N. Burrows and Michael Joseph Montalbano ●

When a Federal Circuit panel held that subcontractors had standing to challenge procurement violations, Judge Clevenger warned of a flood. Under the panel’s holding, thousands of subcontractors could inundate the Court of Federal Claims with allegations that agencies had violated applicable procurement laws. Progress on major programs could slow as the Government dealt with a wave of new protest litigants.

On August 28, 2025, the full Federal Circuit reversed course. The Court reaffirmed the long-standing definition of “interested party,” holding that only actual or prospective bidders or offerors with a direct economic interest in the outcome of the procurement may protest.

Trump Administration Increases Oversight of Federal Grants

Dominique L. Casimir and Shane M. Hannon ●

President Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”) on August 7 that overhauls the federal grantmaking process. Titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” the EO identifies deficiencies in the federal government’s current approach to issuing discretionary grants. The EO criticizes some existing federal grants as an “offensive waste of tax dollars” and promoting “anti-American ideologies,” and contends grants have been issued to “organizations that actively work against American interests abroad.” It also identifies defects in the grant approval process, noting that drafting grant applications is “notoriously complex” and therefore too costly for smaller institutions. The EO seeks to align federal grants with the Administration’s policy preferences and give the Administration greater control to select grant recipients. Here are the relevant highlights and takeaways:

The EO expands the federal government’s ability to terminate grants.

A core feature of the EO is requiring all discretionary grants, current and future, to include termination for convenience clauses. Discretionary grants are those where an agency exercises its own judgment to select both the funding amount and the grantee, such as by basing award on the merits of grant applications via a competitive process. Historically, discretionary grants have not included termination for convenience clauses. For example, the Uniform Guidance, 2 C.F.R. § 200, does not include a provision that permits the federal government to terminate a discretionary grant at its leisure. This is in contrast to typical federal contracts, which invariably include termination for convenience provisions, such as FAR 52.249-2.

DOJ Issues July 2025 Guidance on Unlawful Discrimination: Navigating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in a New Legal Landscape

Dominique L. Casimir, Brooke T. Iley, and Jennifer A. Short ●

From the outset of his current term in office, President Trump has made it a signature policy objective to target and dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) and so-called “gender ideology” in both the public and the private sectors. Blank Rome has covered these policy initiatives extensively, along with the various lawsuits challenging them. In the courts and elsewhere, the government has been questioned about what the phrase “illegal DEI” actually means.

Perhaps in response to those queries, on July 29, 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a memorandum titled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding.” The memo’s stated objective is to offer “non-binding suggestions to help entities comply with federal antidiscrimination laws and avoid legal pitfalls,” thereby aiming to “minimize the risk of violations.”

This memo provides the most comprehensive insight about DOJ’s perspective on DEI and gender ideology practices to date, and thus serves as a valuable resource for recipients of federal funding as they review their current policies. Private employers, too, may find the memo a useful framework to evaluate potential risks associated with DEI initiatives and to discern what actions the Administration considers to violate civil rights laws. That said, the DOJ memo does not address certain practical questions that entities will face in trying to adhere to its guidance. Below, we summarize the memo and provide our analysis of its most significant aspects for federally funded entities and companies.

Read the full client alert on our website.

This alert was published in The Government Contractor, Volume 67 Issue 30, on August 13, 2025.

Domestic Production of Pharmaceuticals: Are the Administration’s Efforts Enough?

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

The Administration issued Executive Order (“EO”) 14293: Regulatory Relief to Promote Domestic Production of Critical Medicines on May 5, 2025 (whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/regulatory-relief-to-promote-domestic-production-of-critical-medicines). The EO seeks to ease obstacles for drug manufacturers to establish or expand domestic production facilities. For example, it streamlines Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), Environmental Protection Agency, and Army Corps of Engineers reviews and inspections associated with building or expanding manufacturing facilities. These accelerated processes are intended to reduce a manufacturer’s cost to build or expand a facility with the intended result being lower prices for domestically produced drugs.

The EO also calls for enhanced FDA inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities. The inspections will be funded through increased fees imposed on foreign drug manufacturers. The likely result will be an increase in foreign drug production costs, which would lead to increased prices of foreign-produced drugs. Further, adding to the price of foreign drugs are the Administration’s proposed tariffs. If imposed, the tariffs could start at 15 percent and ratchet up to 150 percent and 250 percent over time.

The goal of increasing the prices of foreign-produced drugs is to enable domestically produced drugs to compete. Only time will tell whether the EO’s efforts will be enough to level the playing field. However, there are at least two obstacles that could prevent the Administration from reaching its goal.

Beyond the Balance Sheet: The Continued Importance of Cybersecurity in M&A

Merle M. DeLancey Jr., Samarth Barot, and Michael Joseph Montalbano ●

In our August 1 post, we discussed how companies that acquire government contractors can inherit the False Claims Act (“FCA”) exposure based on their targets’ cybersecurity violations. Now, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) delivered another vivid real-world example: a $1.75 million settlement in which a private equity (“PE”) firm, Gallant Capital Partners LLC, was named jointly and severally liable for its portfolio company’s cybersecurity violations on a U.S. Air Force contract.

The outcome underscores two critical truths. First, DOJ will pursue financial sponsors when a contractor in their portfolio fails to comply with its contractual cybersecurity requirements. Second, investors that fail to ask about, document, and remediate a target’s security shortcomings can find themselves financing both the acquisition and the government’s recovery.

GAO Sharpens Its Pleading Standard Description: But Did GAO Raise the Bar?

David L. Bodner, Elizabeth N. Jochum, Stephanie M. Harden, and Luke W. Meier ●

In a recent decision, GAO announced that it was clarifying its pleading standard for bid protests. For many years, GAO had described a minimally acceptable protest pleading as one with “either allegations or evidence sufficient” to establish a likelihood of improper agency action. Going forward, as articulated in Warfighter Focused Logistics, Inc., B-423546, B-423546.2, Aug. 5, 2025, 2025 WL 2237333, the standard now calls for “credible allegations that are supported by evidence and are sufficient” to make that showing. GAO linked this revised formulation to a request from Congress in Section 885 of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act to clarify and enhance its pleading standard.

It is not immediately clear whether this means a change in protest practice at GAO. GAO seemed to suggest that the updated language was not a change to the pleading standard itself, but a clarification to better align the stated legal standard with its longstanding stance that “‘bare allegations’ or allegations based upon ‘information and belief’ are not sufficient to meet our pleading standards.” We will be closely watching how GAO applies the standard in its decisions to fully understand the level of evidence required to clear GAO’s pleading standard, and it is likely to remain a heavily fact-specific analysis. Regardless, protesters, as ever, should make sure they substantiate allegations with evidence and awardees should retain counsel to safeguard their interests through effective dismissal requests.

Blank Rome Attorneys Appointed to American Bar Association’s Public Contract Law Section Leadership for the 2025–2026 Term

We are pleased to announce that a record nine attorneys from Blank Rome’s nationally recognized Government Contracts group have been appointed to leadership roles in the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Public Contract Law Section for the 2025–2026 term.

Visit our website to learn more about their roles and ABA’s Section of Public Contract Law.

Buyer Beware: Cybersecurity Compliance in M&A

Merle M. DeLancey Jr. and Samarth Barot ●

A recent Department of Justice (“DOJ”) settlement highlights the importance of assessing cybersecurity compliance for government contractors during mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”). In April 2025, DOJ announced an $8.4 million settlement with a defense contractor resolving alleged cybersecurity noncompliance by a company it acquired. Notably, under the settlement, the acquiring company was liable for cybersecurity noncompliance that occurred prior to the acquisition.

In the M&A context, successor liability arises when an acquiring company becomes responsible for liabilities, obligations, or wrongful acts committed by the company to be acquired prior to the acquisition. Fundamentally, successor liability ensures that a corporate acquisition does not allow the acquired entity to escape accountability. In the settlement, DOJ explicitly named the acquiring company as the “successor in liability” for the acquired company’s alleged violations, even though the conduct at issue occurred years before the acquisition. This underscores the importance for acquirers to add cybersecurity compliance to the issues vetted during due diligence.

CMS Proposes New Rules for Calculating Average Sales Price for Medicare Part B Drug Reimbursement

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released the Calendar Year 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (“PFS”) proposed rule on July 16, 2025. (See cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/calendar-year-cy-2026-medicare-physician-fee-schedule-pfs-proposed-rule-cms-1832-p). The proposed rule includes potentially significant changes to what is considered a bona fide service fee (“BFSF”) when calculating average sales price (“ASP”) under Medicare Part B.^[*]

Under Medicare Part B, most drugs are reimbursed based on ASP plus six percent. Manufacturers report ASPs to CMS quarterly. With certain exceptions, ASP is defined as a weighted average price to commercial customers in the United States. Drug manufacturer price concessions are deducted when calculating ASP but BFSFs are not. To support a higher ASP, which increases a drug’s reimbursement, manufacturers seek to avoid price concessions and instead classify programs as BFSFs. Improperly classifying a price concession as a BFSF increases a manufacturer’s ASP, which results in Medicare overpayments and higher coinsurance amounts for Medicare beneficiaries.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: