Contract Performance and Administration 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.

E‑Verify, FAR 52.222‑54, and Renewed FCA Risk: What Contractors Need to Know

Jennifer A. Short, and Oliver E. Jury ●

The current administration’s focus on immigration played out in a recent False Claims Act (“FCA”) matter in which a federal contractor was alleged to have billed for unauthorized workers in violation of FAR 52.222‑54 (Employment Eligibility Verification, “E-Verify”).

On September 18, 2025, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that Bayonne Drydock and Repair Corporation (“Bayonne”) agreed to pay $4,043,810.56 to resolve allegations that unauthorized workers worked on Bayonne’s Navy contracts over multiple years.

According to DOJ’s press release, in 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sent a “Notice of Suspect Documents” to a subcontractor controlled by Bayonne’s Risk Manager, questioning the work authorization of certain subcontractor employees. While the Risk Manager terminated the unauthorized employees, she re-hired some of them through another subcontractor that she controlled. Bayonne’s settlement agreement with DOJ asserts that between 2016 and 2020, Bayonne billed the government for the work of approximately 52 unauthorized employees working for entities owned or controlled by Bayonne’s Risk Manager. The settlement agreement also confirmed that the Risk Manager pled guilty to criminal charges stemming from her role with Bayonne and its subcontractors.

The Bottom Line: Cost and Pricing Updates | Sum Certain

Stephanie M. Harden and Shane M. Hannon ●

Appeal of Samho Enterprise, ASBCA No. 63587 (Aug. 13, 2025)

The Bottom Line: The Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) requires that if a contractor submits a claim for payment to the Government, the claim must include a “sum certain”—with the emphasis on “certain.” Here, the contractor submitted a claim for damages after the Government declined to exercise the contract’s first option year. The contractor submitted a claim for “no less than” $326,276. The claim’s qualifying language—“no less than”—meant the claim did not state a sum certain. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the “Board”) therefore dismissed the contractor’s appeal.

Key points of interest:

A sum certain is a mandatory element of a CDA claim. If a contractor’s claim fails to state a sum certain, the contracting officer may deny the claim on that basis, and the Board may dismiss any subsequent appeals for failing to state a claim.
Using qualifying language to describe the requested amount does not constitute a sum certain. If a claim characterizes its requested amount with qualifying language, like “approximately,” “to be determined,” or “in excess of,” the claim does not state a sum certain under the CDA.
Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s 2023 decision in ECC International Constructors, the “sum certain” requirement is not a jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
The contractor’s appeal also asked the Board to order the agency to exercise the contract’s option year. The Board reiterated it does not have jurisdiction over requests for specific performance.

Contractors submitting claims for monetary relief must include a “sum certain,” not a “sum approximate.” Failure to state a sum certain is fatal to a claim.

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

The Bottom Line: Cost and Pricing Updates | Act of God or Compensable Delay?

Stephanie M. Harden ●

Welcome to The Bottom Line: Cost and Pricing Updates, a new series covering what contractors should know about recent cost and pricing disputes—without the long read!

For our inaugural post, we present:

Appeal of Gideon Contracting, LLC, ASBCA No. 63561 (May 12, 2025)

The Bottom Line: When the Government orders a suspension of work due to an “act of God,” it may still be on the hook for the resulting increased costs under the Suspension of Work clause if it proximately causes an unreasonable delay. Here, the Government proximately caused the delay at issue through its management of water drainage through a lake and dam, including through controlled releases of water, and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or “the Board”) found a portion of the delay to be unreasonable.

Key points of interest:

Generally, “acts of God” entitle contractors to additional time, but not additional compensation. However, the distinguishing feature entitling Gideon to additional compensation here was that the Government controlled the release of floodwaters via a drainage management system. Thus, the flooding was not caused solely by rainfall, as the Government argued, but rather, by the Government’s release of floodwater.
Gideon was not entitled to damages for the entire suspension period, however, because the contract specified when and how water releases would occur. Therefore, Gideon was only entitled to compensation for portions of the suspension that were found to be “unreasonable” (or as described by the Board, inexplicable).

Contractors facing suspensions of work should carefully evaluate whether their contracts may entitle them to relief where at least a portion of such suspensions are “unreasonable.”

Supreme Court Lifts Restraining Order on Grant Terminations

Dominique L. Casimir and Sara N. Gerber ●

The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling with significant impacts for federal contractors and grantees looking to challenge terminations of their contracts and grants in U.S. district courts. Terminated contractors and grantees may strongly prefer to challenge terminations in the district courts rather than in the Court of Federal Claims, because the Court of Federal Claims does not have authority to grant equitable relief to do things like restore funding or enjoin terminations, and the available grounds for challenging contract and grant terminations in the Court of Federal Claims are significantly limited.

In February 2025, the Department of Education (“DOE”) terminated $600 million in grants for teacher training on the grounds that the training included diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) concepts and thus no longer effectuated DOE priorities. The grantees challenged these terminations in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The District Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) directing DOE to restore the terminated grant funding. DOE asked the First Circuit to stay the TRO pending appeal, which the First Circuit denied. DOE then filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a majority of the justices sided with DOE.

All-Points Bulletin for Defense Contractors: If You’re 15% Behind Schedule or 15% Over Budget, You Need a Strategy

Dominique L. Casimir ●

On April 9, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (“EO”) titled Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation in the Defense Industrial Base. This EO seeks to overhaul many aspects of defense acquisition in order to enhance the military capabilities and streamline the Department of Defense’s (“DOD”) procurement processes. While every presidential administration seeks to streamline and facilitate defense procurement, this EO contains noteworthy approaches that defense contractors should be aware of. For instance, the EO suggests that the government has an appetite for “risk” when it comes to DOD procurements: “We will also modernize the duties and composition of the defense acquisition workforce, as well as incentivize and reward risk-taking and innovation from these personnel.”

Attention Department of Labor Contractors and Grantees: A Federal Court Hits Pause on Executive Orders Related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Dominique L. Casimir ●

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.

DEI Litigation Whiplash: Appellate Court Allows the Government to Move Forward with Challenged DEI-Related Executive Orders

Dominique L. Casimir and Brooke T. Iley ●

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.

Read the full client alert on our website.

What Is DMSMS and What to Do About It?

David L. Bodner and Dominique L. Casimir ●

What does DMSMS mean?

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”).

Redesignation and Organizing Principle

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: