Commercial Item and Schedule Contracting Archives - Government Contracts Navigator

Preliminary Takeaways as DoD Seeks to Redesign the Defense Acquisition System for Wartime Speed

During a speech before key players in the defense industrial base on Friday, November 7, Secretary Hegseth announced plans for a sweeping transformation of the Defense Acquisition System, redesignating it as the Warfighting Acquisition System (“WAS”) and elevating speed-to-field as the organizing principle. The reforms would concentrate authority, expand competition and modularity, adopt commercial-first pathways, modernize contracting and training, and streamline oversight—all aimed at accelerating capability delivery and scaling industrial capacity for surge. While much will depend on how these announced changes are implemented, in this post we highlight key aspects of the changes and identify potential impacts to monitor. Secretary Hegseth’s full recorded remarks are available on C-SPAN’s website.

Redesignation and Organizing Principle

Acquisition is to be treated as a warfighting function, with every process required to justify its value to timely capability delivery. The WAS will reframe success around time-to-capability rather than exhaustive specification compliance.

Potential impact: Companies should expect solicitations and evaluations to prioritize schedule credibility and operational outcomes, reshaping win strategies toward demonstrable speed and adaptability.

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.

Department of Defense to Increase Scrutiny Over IT Consulting and Advisory Contracts

Michael Joseph Montalbano and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere ●

The Department of Defense’s (“DoD”) Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment issued a memorandum on June 23, 2025, that tightens oversight on DoD contracts for information technology consulting & management services (“ITC&MS”) and advisory & assistance services (“A&AS”).

What contracts are impacted?

The memorandum applies to unclassified, FAR-based contracts or task orders for ITC&MS or A&AS. ITC&MS are services provided by integrators or consultants that involve system information technology (“IT”) integration, implementation, or advice and that are valued at over $10 million. A&AS are services for consulting, advising, assisting, or any professional services for similar functions, and that are valued over $1 million. The memorandum expressly notes that requirements may not be split into multiple efforts to stay under the $10 million and $1 million thresholds. Additionally, the memorandum does not apply to already existing consulting and advisory contracts.

What is the timeline for review?

Effective immediately, DoD agencies must secure advance approval from the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) for all qualifying ITC&MS or A&AS contracts. DoD agencies must include in their approval request a description of the contract’s purpose, a cost/benefit analysis, and a justification as to why the efforts cannot be insourced or acquired from a direct service provider. DOGE then has three business days to respond. If DOGE does not respond or approves the contract, then the contract may proceed. If DOGE raises issues with the contract, then DOGE and the DoD agencies are required to work collaboratively to resolve those issues. The memorandum does not specify whether DOGE can block a DoD agency from moving forward with the contract, whether there is any time limit on DOGE and DoD’s attempts to work collaboratively, or whether the agency has a specific appeal process if it disagrees with DOGE’s assessment.

Scope and Exemptions

Not all ITC&MS or A&AS contracts are subject to review. The memo expressly excludes:

ITC&MS contracts involving “direct service providers” performing services rather than resellers, integrators, or intermediaries.
ITC&MS contracts in direct support of defense weapon system programs or sustainment activities.
A&AS contracts for systems engineering and technical assistance in support of major defense acquisition programs.

These exemptions align with the Administration’s decision to prioritize war fighting efforts as well as procure more supplies and services from Original Equipment Manufacturers.

Strategic Implications for Contractors and Agencies

This memorandum reflects a strategic push—rooted in broader federal efficiency initiatives—to trim consulting spend, eliminate unnecessary intermediation, and ensure rigorous scrutiny of high-value service awards.

While the exact impact this memorandum will have on contractors is still unclear, contractors working in the ITC&MS or A&AS space can take several steps to reduce their risk:

Preempt DOGE scrutiny with clear justifications: Articulate in your proposal how your services provide unique value and cost-effective support.
Clarify your role: Emphasize direct mission-critical support—especially for exempt programs. Avoid generic management consulting language that could trigger heightened scrutiny.
Collaborate with agency customers: Work early with DoD contracting and program officials to help them develop the rationale for approving your contract or identifying an applicable exception.
Streamline pricing and deliverables: Clearly define work products, performance metrics, and accountability mechanisms.

USA001386-25-DPCAP Download

Five Practical Tips for Government Contractors Navigating the Executive Order Chaos

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

Federal government contractors are living in a climate of uncertainty. Executive orders affecting government contracts are being issued at a rapid pace. The executive orders tend to be broad and high-level with regulatory guidance to follow. This is not abnormal. However, the sheer number of executive orders and the magnitude of the regulatory changes they seek to impose is a new phenomenon. Contractors are left to determine what they should be doing, if anything, and when. Set forth below are practical suggestions for contractors to consider during this unsettling time.[1]

Communicate with your Contracting Officer

During the chaos, it is important to communicate with your contracting officer. Only contracting officers are authorized to modify contracts. Do not blindly accept direction from contract specialists or others who purport to be speaking on behalf of the government. Direction received from anyone other than a contracting officer should be immediately relayed to your contracting officer with a request for clarification or guidance.

Also, be prepared for unclear responses from your contracting officer. Like you, contracting officers also are living through this chaos. They may not have received clear direction to pass on to contractors. Aim to keep your communications with your contracting officer respectful.

Executive Orders are not Contract Modifications

Remember that executive orders are not contract modifications. Contractors should not change their contract performance or their compliance with, for example, socioeconomic programs unless or until a contract modification signed by a contracting officer. This may be difficult for contractors when they think they can see the writing on the wall. But regulatory and policy changes can occur and, thus, even well-intentioned contractors might make changes they did not need to make or that are different from what is required from a formal contract modification.

Continue Contract Performance

Along the same lines, contractors need to continue contract performance in accordance with the four corners of the contract unless or until a contract is modified. Failure to do so could be considered breach of contract. With the plethora of contract terminations being reported, contractors should not put themselves in the crosshairs by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of their contract, thereby giving the government a basis to terminate for default. And remember, if you believe the government has breached or improperly changed a contract, a contractor is required to continue performance and seek relief in accordance with the FAR Disputes clause.

Communicate with your Subcontractors

Just as a prime contractor craves concrete guidance from a contracting officer regarding what to do, subcontractors also need guidance and oftentimes more so, because they are unable to communicate directly with the government. Thus, a good practice for prime contractors is to pass along any guidance received from a contracting officer to its subcontractors. Prime contractors also should remind their subcontractors about their obligations to continue contract performance.

Prepare to Defend Your Contract

Contractors also should be prepared to explain the importance of their contracts to the government. To be proactive, contractors should draft narratives explaining the importance of their work and how their performance exceeds contract requirements. Contracts that are considered to “add value” are less likely to be found on the so-called “chopping block.” If appropriate, a contractor should consider including recommendations, for example, regarding how its work can be performed more effectively or efficiently.

We hope this practical advice will help you navigate the government contracting chaos until the dust settles.

[1] See our previous related blog posts: Understanding President Trump’s Executive Orders on DEI: Implications for Federal Contractors; What Contractors Facing Terminations, Stop-Work Orders, and Suspension of Work Orders Directed by the Trump Administration Need to Know; Fixed Price Contracts: Government Contractors Beware; What GSA Contractors Need to Know About the New FAR Deviation for Revoked Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity; Preliminary Injunction Granted Related to DEI-Related Executive Orders—Takeaways for Government Contractors; President Trump Signs New Executive Order: “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative”—What Federal Contractors Need to Know.

Today’s General Counsel referenced this post in an article on March 17, 2025. Read the article here: Risk Management for Federal Contractors During Regulatory Changes.

Fixed Price Contracts: Government Contractors Beware

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

Many predict that, among other procurement and regulatory reforms, the new administration will implement policies favoring the award of fixed-price government contracts and grants. Throughout the years, the procurement pendulum has swung back and forth in favor of and against fixed-price contracting. For example, in 2017, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) implemented a preference for fixed-price contracting and required approval of cost-reimbursement contracts in excess of $25 million by the head of the contracting agency. In 2022, DoD reversed course and removed both the preference and approval requirement.

For taxpayers, fixed-price contracting may seem appealing; however, for government contractors, fixed-price contracts present significant risk. Fixed-price contracting is often criticized because it deprives the government from receiving the best solutions and performance and instead results in awards to the lowest price, technically acceptable offeror. The federal government typically prefers fixed-price contracts because of budget and funding certainty, and because a fixed-price contract assigns all performance risk to the contractor.

Absent actual or constructive changes to the contract requirements, a contractor generally is not entitled to a cost or price increase under a fixed-price contract. This applies to large and small business contractors. A large government contractor recently reported it will recognize a significant loss on fixed-price space and defense programs, which already caused the company years of losses, due to issues such as increased production costs and disruptions from a recent strike. However, the impact on small businesses that cannot absorb the level of losses of a large business can have much more dire consequences.

Open the Floodgates: Divided Federal Circuit Panel Expands Access to Court of Federal Claims

Shane M. Hannon and Scott Arnold ●

The Federal Circuit last Friday issued a decision that is, as the dissent put it, “a very important government contract case.” In Percipient.ai v. United States, the Federal Circuit adopted a narrow construction of the FASA task order bar, which prohibits the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) from hearing a protest challenging the issuance of a task order. At the same time, the Federal Circuit held that under certain circumstances—such as in this case—potential subcontractors can challenge an agency’s violation of procurement law at the COFC.

The Federal Circuit effectively kicked down the drawbridge to the COFC. It increased the variety of cases the COFC can hear and the classes of government contractors—particularly subcontractors—that can bring those cases. Percipient.ai will have significant ramifications on the government contracting community.

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.

Starting December 4th, Contractors Must Rid Supply Chains of Covered Articles and Sources Subject to FASC Orders

Robyn N. Burrows ●

Effective December 4, 2023, a new interim rule will prohibit contractors from delivering or using covered articles and sources subject to exclusion or removal orders issued under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 (“FASCSA”). The rule is intended to eliminate certain technology from the federal supply chain that foreign adversaries might exploit to commit malicious cyber acts. The interim rule allows the executive branch through the Federal Acquisition Security Council (“FASC”) to exclude certain technologies and manufacturers from federal procurements and even to require removal of covered articles from federal or contractor information systems during performance.

The rule imposes a host of new obligations, including certification, monitoring, and reporting requirements. This post provides practical guidance on the rule and several compliance tips to help contractors prepare for the December deadline.

Background

Congress passed Section 202 of the FASCSA to protect the information and communications technology (“ICT”) supply chain against threats and vulnerabilities that may lead to data and intellectual property theft, damage to critical infrastructure, or national security harm. The Act established the FASC as an interagency council authorized to make recommendations for orders that would require the removal of covered articles from agency information systems (removal orders) or the exclusion of sources or covered articles from agency procurement actions (exclusion orders) (collectively referred to as “FASCSA orders”).

In August 2021, the FASC issued a final rule establishing procedures for recommending removal and exclusion orders. The FASC evaluates supply chain risk based on several non-exclusive factors and sends its recommendations to the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to consider when deciding whether to issue a FASCSA order. If a FASCSA order is issued, agencies are required to implement the exclusion or removal order.

Government Offerors—There Are No Foolish Questions

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) regularly denies protests because an offeror made assumptions in its proposal. To the offeror, such assumptions seem perfectly reasonable but to an agency the assumptions are incorrect or contrary to the agency’s intended procurement approach. As a result, the offeror’s proposal is rejected as non-compliant.

If the offeror files a GAO protest, GAO will likely dismiss the protest as being untimely, stating that the offeror was required to challenge a solicitation’s terms and conditions prior to the deadline for the submission of proposals. This scenario is frustrating because it likely could have been avoided had the offeror simply asked the agency questions.

Frequently, clients ask us to opine on what information an agency is seeking in a solicitation or how to interpret a term in a solicitation. These questions are often asked shortly before an offer is due. While we do our best, our guidance is not a substitute for agency guidance. We appreciate offerors are busy. Most prepare proposals based on due dates. As a result, by the time an offeror begins to prepare its proposal, the solicitation’s Q&A period is over.

And No Longer Trending: 7 FAQs Regarding the Federal Contractor TikTok Ban

Justin A. Chiarodo, Luke W. Meier, and Robyn N. Burrows ●

Building on recent and ongoing efforts to limit Chinese government access to government contractor supply chains, the FAR Councils published an interim rule effective June 2, 2023, that will broadly ban TikTok on contractor and contractor employee electronic devices used in the performance of federal contracts. The ban will be implemented through a new contract clause at FAR 52.204-27. Expect to see the clause added in all future solicitations (including commercially available off-the-shelf (“COTS”) acquisitions and micro-purchases) and added to existing contracts over the next month. We answer seven common questions on this new interim rule and offer several compliance tips.

What’s banned?

The new TikTok ban broadly prohibits contractors from having or using a “covered application” (e.g., TikTok or other successor applications by ByteDance Limited, a privately held company headquartered in Beijing, China) on any “information technology” used in the performance of a government contract. The ban applies regardless of whether the technology is owned by the government, the contractor, or the contractor’s employees. Bottom line, the rule has a (very) broad reach—it applies to contracts below the micro-purchase threshold, contracts for commercial products and services, and COTS items.

Redesignation and Organizing Principle

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Background

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: