Category: Contract Performance and Administration

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”).

Continue reading “What Is DMSMS and What to Do About It?”

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]

  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. 

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

President Trump Signs New Executive Order: “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative”—What Federal Contractors Need to Know

Dominique L. Casimir, Justin A. Chiarodo, and David L. Bodner ●


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.”).

Continue reading “President Trump Signs New Executive Order: “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative”—What Federal Contractors Need to Know”

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. 

Continue reading “Fixed Price Contracts: Government Contractors Beware”

What Contractors Facing Terminations, Stop-Work Orders, and Suspension of Work Orders Directed by the Trump Administration Need to Know

Stephanie M. Harden, Jennifer A. Short, Justin A. Chiarodo, Shane M. Hannon, and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere ●

The Trump administration’s directives to “pause” grant funding and to terminate certain grants and contracts sent shock waves through the government contracts and non-profit sectors. Although the “pause” in grant funding has been temporarily halted by a federal court (as of January 28), other terminations and suspensions have not been blocked. We summarize below the steps entities can take to preserve their rights as they navigate these emerging directives.

But First: What Happened? 

Immediately after his inauguration on January 20, President Trump began ordering federal agencies to pause funding for certain projects or initiatives. A January 20 Executive Order (“EO”) titled “Unleashing American Energy” encouraged energy exploration and production and eliminated electric vehicle mandates. It directed agencies to “immediately pause” all disbursements under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Another EO titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” directed the Office of Management and Budget to terminate DEI programs (see our prior analysis of this EO here). Consequently, the new Department of Government Efficiency announced on January 24 that approximately $420 million in current or impending contracts, most of which related to DEI programs, were cancelled.

Consistent with these orders, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) on January 27 directed federal agencies to pause, as of January 28 at 5:00 PM ET, all payments and obligations to disburse any federal financial assistance, including financial assistance for nongovernmental organizations. The two-page OMB policy memo stated that the paused programs will be assessed to determine whether they are consistent with the administration’s new policy objectives. This directive has led to widespread chaos, prompting the administration to issue additional guidance on January 28 regarding the scope and purpose of the January 27 funding freeze. The freeze on grant funding was then temporarily halted by a federal district court later in the day.

Federal contractors performing contracts or projects subject to these EOs or OMB instructions have or likely will soon receive stop work orders or, in some cases, notices that the government is terminating for convenience. A “suspension of work” or “stop-work” order pauses performance for a period of time, after which the government may decide either to resume performance or terminate the contract. A notice of termination for convenience, as its name suggests, is the mechanism by which the government unilaterally terminates the contract as of right.

Continue reading “What Contractors Facing Terminations, Stop-Work Orders, and Suspension of Work Orders Directed by the Trump Administration Need to Know”

GAO Rejects Notion of a Pre-FPR “Continuous Registration Requirement” for SAM

Luke W. Meier and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere ●

The last week saw GAO sustain two protests that should put the nail in the SAM “continuous registration” coffin.

The Federal Acquisition Regulatory (“FAR”) Council recently revised the standard System for Award Management (“SAM”) registration clause (FAR 52.204-7) to make clear there is no “continuous registration requirement”—contractors need to be registered in SAM only at the time they submit their final, legally-binding proposal.

In two recent decisions, GAO has confirmed that the same was (and is) true under the prior version of FAR 52.204-7 as well. That is, if an agency allows an offeror to submit a revised proposal, and the offeror is properly registered in SAM when that final proposal is submitted, it does not matter if there was some SAM registration failure at an earlier stage of the procurement.  The offeror is eligible, and it would be unreasonable for an agency to eliminate an offeror or terminate an award based on a pre-FPR SAM flaw.

In UNICA-BPA JV, LLC, B-422580.3, the protester (“UNICA”) had an active SAM registration when it submitted its final revised proposal, but the Agency later eliminated UNICA from the competition based on the fact that UNICA was not registered in SAM at the time of its initial proposal. That was unreasonable, GAO found, because UNICA had in fact met the stated requirement to be registered in SAM “when submitting an offer,” as the FAR defines “offer” as a proposal that can form a binding contract, and that definition applied only to UNICA’s final, legally-binding proposal, which was compliant. GAO thus found the Agency acted unreasonably by eliminating UNICA from the competition and sustained UNICA’s protest.

In Metris LLC, B-422996.2, the Agency proposed to take corrective action to terminate the award to Metris for having a break in its SAM registration between the time of the initial proposal submission and its final proposal submission. GAO found that Metris’s initial proposal was extinguished when Metris submitted – and the Agency accepted – Metris’s final proposal revision. Because Metris was registered in SAM at the time of the final proposal revision, Metris had an active SAM registration when it submitted its offer, in accordance with FAR 52.204-7. GAO thus recommended that the agency abandon its plans to terminate Metris’s contract award, and instead “maintain its existing award to Metris.”

These cases follow the legal reasoning of Hanford Tank Disposition Alliance, LLC v. United States, 173 Fed. Cl. 269, 312-319 (2024), and should deter agencies from eliminating any more offerors over pre-FPR SAM issues.

Also published in National Law Review at GAO Confirms No Continuous SAM Registration Requirement, January 17, 2025.

FAR Council Issues Final Rule on Sustainable Products & Services

Sara N. Gerber ●

As part of the Biden administration’s effort to use federal purchasing power to tackle climate change, the FAR Council issued a final rule, effective May 22, 2024, requiring agencies to procure “sustainable products and services,” to the “maximum extent practicable.” The “sustainable products and services” rule is just one of several proposed rules and directives intended to compel the government and government contractors to do business in a more environmentally sustainable way.

Under the final rule, the procurement of sustainable products and services is considered “practicable” if the products or services meet “reasonable performance requirements” and can be acquired “competitively within a reasonable performance schedule” and at “a reasonable price.” Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 23.103(a)(1). To determine whether the price is reasonable, the regulation directs agencies to “consider whether the product is cost-effective over the life of the product.” FAR 23.103(a)(2). If an agency determines that it is not practicable to procure sustainable products or services, the contracting officer must document the reason in writing in the contract file. FAR 23.103(a)(2).

Continue reading “FAR Council Issues Final Rule on Sustainable Products & Services”

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.

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

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.

Continue reading “Two Sides to Every Story: When Is Extrinsic Evidence Relevant to Interpreting the Scope of a Contractor Release?”
Exit mobile version
%%footer%%