As those in the federal contracting community wait anxiously for rumored and hinted at changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), we are beginning to evaluate how certain of those changes might most impact our clients. In the first of a series engaging in some mild—or wild, depending on your outlook—speculation about these potential changes, we take a look at how the removal of certain FAR requirements might impact bid protests.
One of the cardinal rules of bid protests is that protests not alleging solicitation improprieties must be filed no later than 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(b). There is a key exception, however—for procurements under which a debriefing is requested. If requested, a debriefing is required, and the initial protest cannot be filed before the debriefing date offered and must be filed no later than 10 days after the debriefing concludes. In other words, a protester’s timeliness clock does not start ticking until the debriefing concludes.
In March 2025, the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) and the Veterans Health Administration (“VHA”) entered into another interagency agreement. The agencies announced that the purpose of the 10-year, $3.6 billion agreement is to align supply chain requirements and centralize logistical support DLA will provide to all VHA healthcare facilities nationwide.
The 2025 agreement follows three DLA and VHA interagency agreements entered into between 2018 and 2020. In 2018, DLA and VHA entered into an agreement under which VHA began transitioning its medical supplies purchasing to DLA’s Electronic Catalog (“ECAT”). In 2019, the agencies entered into another interagency agreement which allowed VHA to access medical and surgical items by leveraging the DLA supply chain and provided for creating a centralized ordering system, rather than using the separate VHA and DLA systems.
Federal courts continue to grapple with challenges to President Trump’s executive orders (“EOs”) related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), particularly EO 14151, Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing, and EO 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. As we’ve noted in our coverage of the litigation first filed in the District Court of Maryland, there has been a sense of whiplash among the courts, with the District Court initially issuing a nationwide injunction that was then stayed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now a second federal court has weighed in, issuing a new, nationwide temporary restraining order (“TRO”). This new TRO is more limited than the prior preliminary injunction issued by the District Court of Maryland, in that the new TRO only applies to Department of Labor (“DOL”) contractors and grantees. Nevertheless, the Court’s reasoning could be helpful to the contractors and grantees of other agencies facing renewed demands to execute the DEI Certification.
The Department of Government Efficiency’s (“DOGE”) scrutiny of federal contracts has resulted in a spike in notices of termination for convenience. Given DOGE’s broad mandate to reduce federal spending, we expect a sustained increase in the use of terminations for convenience to end contracts the administration considers “wasteful” or not aligned with its priorities.
But while termination notices make one thing clear—the contract is over—it can leave contractors with questions about their rights and obligations.
What Is a Termination for Convenience and Can I Challenge It?
The right to terminate for convenience is included expressly in almost all government contracts—and is generally considered to be a government right even when not expressly included.[1] Terminations for convenience allow the federal government to unilaterally end a contract (or a portion of a contract) immediately and without alleging contractor fault. The government typically invokes a termination for convenience after determining the contract is no longer in its best interests, and this can occur for a wide variety of reasons, such as budget cuts, or changes in government priorities or project requirements. Typically, the government does not explain why it is terminating a contract for convenience.
On March 6, 2025, the Defense Secretary released a memorandum directing the Department of Defense (“DoD”) to adopt the Software Acquisition Pathway (“SWP”) to speed up the development, procurement, and delivery of software needed for weapons and business systems. Specifically, the memorandum directed DoD to use Commercial Solutions Openings and Other Transactions (“OTs”) as the default solicitation and award approaches for acquiring capabilities under the SWP. As a result, we are likely to see an expansion in DoD’s use of OTs. Thus, contractors should be aware of the rules and regulations regarding OTs.
Background
While OTs have been in the news a lot these days, they are not a new concept. OTs date back to 1958, when Congress granted the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) the authority to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements in order to foster innovation and speed in the space race.
Uncertainty for companies when making business decisions is a new norm. Tariffs aren’t going to be the only thing that is on again and off again. The same is happening with directives governing diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives. In the first two days of President Trump’s second term, he signed two DEI-related executive orders (“EOs”), EO 14151 (Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing) and EO 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity). While they were in effect, these EOs caused widespread concern throughout the public and private sector as entities scrambled to understand the implications for their businesses. Approximately a month later, a federal judge in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction that stopped the government from implementing key provisions of the two EOs. However, the tide turned on Friday, March 14, 2025, when a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. This ruling empowers the government to resume the implementation of EO 14151 and EO 14173.
While the preliminary injunction was in effect, the government was precluded from (1) terminating “equity-related” contracts and grants pursuant to EO 14151, (2) requiring that government contractors and grantees sign a DEI certification pursuant to EO 14173, and (3) bringing any False Claims Act (“FCA”) or other enforcement action premised on the DEI certification. (As we have previously explained, the certification requirement in EO 14173 is intended to deter contractor and grantee DEI-programs by invoking the specter of FCA liability.)
Now that the injunction is stayed, an emboldened government will likely move swiftly to terminate contracts and grants that it views as being “equity-related” and to require contractors and grantees to execute the DEI certification. We have previously recommended general steps that contractors and grantees can take as they navigate a rapidly changing environment in which the president signs new EOs almost daily. Below, we offer recommendations specific to the government’s renewed ability to implement the previously enjoined provisions of the DEI-related EOs.
DMSMS stands for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages. It is the loss or impending loss of manufacturers or suppliers of items, raw materials, or software. In other words, DMSMS is obsolescence. DMSMS occurs when companies (at any level of the supply chain) that make products, raw materials, or software stop doing so or are about to stop. DMSMS issues can occur for various reasons, such as technological advancements, shifts in market demand, regulatory changes, or a manufacturer’s strategic business decision.
Where can contractors find DMSMS requirements?
DMSMS requirements are typically found in prime contracts. Specifically, a Statement of Work (“SOW”) can describe DMSMS requirements such as: a DMSMS Management Plan, a Bill of Materials, Health Status Reports, End of Life Notices, and various other requirements to mitigate DMSMS risks. The contract may use Contract Data Requirements Lists (“CDRLs”) to specify the content of deliverables, the inspection and acceptance process, and the frequency of delivery (e.g., the Contractor must deliver a Health Status Report “monthly” or an End of Life Notice “as required”).
Protest of: TISTA Science and Technology Corporation B-422891.2; .3; .4
TISTA challenged the issuance of a task order by the National Institutes of Health to Tantus Technologies, alleging the agency engaged in unequal treatment of the offerors.
The Agency assessed a strength to the awardee for proposing to maintain a “warm bench” of candidates to meet potential surge staffing needs. On the other hand, it assessed a weakness to TISTA for proposing to maintain bench strength with a pool of pre-vetted candidates.
The Agency argued there was a distinction in the proposals in that the awardee’s “warm bench” was made up exclusively of existing employees, while TISTA’s would need to hire surge candidates.
The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) rejected the Agency’s argument, finding that both quotations provided for surge staffing with a mix of existing and yet-to-be-hired employees, and sustained the protester’s allegation of disparate treatment.
GAO similarly found unequal treatment in the Agency’s decision to assign a strength to the awardee for its use of a “master schedule,” when it did not assign a strength to the protester for proposing use of a “master tracker.”
On February 26, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (“EO”) that states that it “commences a transformation in Federal spending on contracts, grants, and loans to ensure Government spending is transparent and Government employees are accountable to the American public.” Here’s what government contractors need to know.
Who Does the EO Apply To?
The EO is primarily directed at Agency Heads and contemplates that each Agency Head will work closely with its Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) Team Lead on a number of activities intended to reduce federal spending and root out fraud, waste, and abuse. (On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed EO 14158 establishing DOGE and requiring each agency to have a DOGE Team Lead to “advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President’s DOGE Agenda.”).
On Monday, February 24, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) released the public version of a February 13 decision declining to dismiss Raytheon Company’s protest of a $648.5 million award under the Missile Defense Agency’s (“MDA”) interceptor development program. Judge Armando O. Bonilla held that the award was within the court’s jurisdiction over Other Transaction Authority agreements (“OTAs”).
Unsuccessful offerors have had difficulty finding a tribunal with jurisdiction over post-award protests involving OTAs. Under COFC and U.S. General Accountability Office (“GAO”) precedent, an offeror’s ability to protest an OTA award is limited. OTAs are not considered procurement contracts. They are considered non-traditional acquisitions usually involving innovative research and development or prototyping services. They are not based on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) or Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) and are not subject to the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”). Under CICA and the GAO’s Bid Protest Regulations, GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction is limited to protests concerning alleged violations of federal agency procurement statutes or regulations in the award or proposed award of contracts for the procurement of goods and services, and solicitations leading to such awards. Under the COFC’s Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction, COFC’s review is limited to protests “in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” Disappointed OTA competitors also have been unsuccessful seeking relief in U.S. Federal District Courts.
