Regulatory Compliance and Ethics Archives - Government Contracts Navigator

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.

Webinar: Impacts on Government Contractors: 180 Days of the Trump Administration—Quick Hits on Executive Orders, Actions, and Policies

Blank Rome-Hosted Live Webinar
July 29, 2025
12:00–1:00 p.m. EDT | 9:00–10:00 a.m. PDT

Please join Blank Rome Government Contracts attorneys Justin A. Chiarodo, Dominique L. Casimir, Robyn N. Burrows, and Sara N. Gerber for this timely webinar with key updates for government contractors navigating the first 180 days of the Trump Administration, and the days ahead.

Topics include:

Civil rights enforcement / diversity, equity, and inclusion
Federal Acquisition Regulation update
Contract and grant terminations

This session is part of Blank Rome’s summer live webinar series 180 Days of the Trump Administration—Quick Hits on Executive Orders, Actions, and Policies (ending on Wednesday, August, 13, 2025), where our interdisciplinary Trump Administration Resource Team is unpacking the most pressing legal, regulatory, and policy developments from the Trump administration’s first 180 days.

Click here to register for the July 29 government contractor session and for any future sessions: Summer 2025- Trump 180 Day Webinar Series | RSVP Blank.

You may also view any past sessions on demand here: On-Demand Webinar Series: 180 Days of the Trump Administration.

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.”

Department of Justice Announces New Initiative to Combat Civil Rights Fraud Using the False Claims Act

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

From time to time, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has established initiatives, task forces, or strike teams to advance its enforcement priorities. In recent years, DOJ has announced a Procurement Collusion Strike Force, a COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force, and a Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative, in each instance explicitly invoking a plan to use the False Claims Act (“FCA”) for civil enforcement.

DOJ announced the latest version of this enforcement approach on May 19, 2025, when Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum announcing a new Civil Rights Fraud Initiative (“the Initiative”), described as a coordinated and “vigorous” effort to leverage the specter of FCA liability against recipients of federal funding alleged to be violating civil rights laws. The types of alleged civil rights violations targeted by this Initiative relate to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs, antisemitism, and transgender policy, all of which dovetail with a number of Executive Orders (“EOs”) expressing President Trump’s approach to these issues.

Relevant Executive Orders

Some of the EOs relevant to the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative include:

EO No. 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (January 20, 2025). This EO directs federal government agencies to end DEI and diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (“DEIA”) programs, to eliminate positions such as “Chief Diversity Officer,” and to terminate grants and contracts related to DEI and DEIA. It also orders a review of federal employment practices to ensure they focus on individual merit rather than DEI factors.

EO No. 14168: Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (January 20, 2025). This EO declares, as United States’ policy, that there are two immutable sexes (male and female), based on biological reality. It requires changes to government-issued identification documents and prohibits federal funding for so-called “gender ideology.”

EO No. 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (January 21, 2025). This EO requires that all federal contracts and grants include a certification that recipients do not operate any DEI programs that violate applicable antidiscrimination laws and affirms that compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws is material to government payment decisions. Additionally, the EO directs DOJ to identify key sectors and entities for DEI-related enforcement, and to recommend strategies to end “illegal DEI discrimination” in the private sector.

EO No. 14188: Additional Measures To Combat Anti-Semitism (January 29, 2025). This EO reaffirms EO 13899 from December 11, 2019, which aimed to combat antisemitism, particularly in educational institutions. It directs various federal agencies to identify actions to curb antisemitism and recommends monitoring foreign students and staff for antisemitic actions.

EO No. 14201: Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports (February 5, 2025). This EO aims to exclude transgender individuals from competing in women’s sports. It directs the Secretary of Education to rescind funding from educational institutions that do not comply.

Read the full client alert on our website.

An Update on the DEI Certification Provision of Executive Order 14173

Dominique L. Casimir ●

On May 2, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in National Urban League et al. v. Trump, et al., 25-471, a case that seeks to halt enforcement of President Trump’s executive orders (“EOs”) related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), EO 14151 and EO 14173, as well as EO 14168, regarding so-called “Gender Ideology.” At this point two tribunals have ruled that the DEI-related EOs should not be enjoined pending legal challenges. (The other tribunal to take this position is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which stayed a nationwide preliminary injunction of the DEI-related EOs issued by the District Court of Maryland.)

Government contractors are particularly interested in the DEI Certification provision in Section 3(b)(iv)(A) and (B) of EO 14173, which requires each agency of the government to include two terms in every contract or grant award: one requiring the counterparty “to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal antidiscrimination laws,” and another requiring it to agree that compliance with those laws “is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of” the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(4). (We have previously done a deep dive on FCA liability premised on DEI programs.)

Hybrid Event: Export Controls Amid Evolving Trump 2.0 Trade Dynamics: Policy Updates and Best Practices

April 29, 2025
12:00–2:00 p.m.
McLean, Virginia, or online

Blank Rome partners Anthony Rapa, partner & co-chair of the International Trade group, and Justin A. Chiarodo, partner & co-chair of the Government Contracts group, will join Sol Brody (Vice President, International Trade Licensing & Sanctions, BAE Systems, Inc.) to present the Association of Corporate Counsel National Capital Region’s (“ACC NCR”) hybrid event, “Export Controls Amid Evolving Trump 2.0 Trade Dynamics: Policy Updates and Best Practices,” on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. The event will be held from 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. in McLean, Virginia, with a virtual participation option available.

ABOUT THE PROGRAM

This hybrid (in-person and online) program will cover up-to-the minute developments in the export controls landscape, one of the linchpins of the Trump administration’s national security strategy and “America First” trade policy. This will include the latest regarding semiconductor export controls, controls relating to emerging technologies, China-focused restrictions, anticipated Russia-related developments, ramped-up government enforcement, and best practices in an ever-changing environment.

For more information and to register, please visit the registration page and select the “Speaker/Panelist” registration option to register for free.

Defense Contractors’ Restrictions When Contracting with Chinese Companies

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. and Oliver E. Jury ●

In the current economic climate, the obvious focus of many companies is on the administration’s imposition of tariffs. However, government contractors, especially those contracting with the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”), must not lose sight of their current and potential future direct and indirect relationships with certain Chinese entities.

Contractors’ compliance obligations regarding relationships with Chinese entities flow from:

FAR 52.204-25 (Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”)), and
The Chinese Military Companies (“CMC”) List (Section 1260H of the 2021 NDAA) (also known as the “1260H List”).

Rescission of Regulations Without Notice and Comment? What’s Next for Regulated Industries in the Deregulation Climate

Dominique L. Casimir and Christina Manfredi McKinley ●

We previously wrote about President Trump’s February Executive Order identifying deregulation as a top administration priority (here and here). That Executive Order, 14219 (the “Deregulation EO”), directed all executive departments and agencies to identify regulations falling within certain enumerated categories of regulations. More recently, on April 9, 2025, the President issued a memorandum providing further direction to executive departments and agencies regarding implementation of the Deregulation EO (available here). This memorandum addresses how the President envisions that Executive Branch agencies will go about rescinding regulations. And—spoiler alert—the vision for rescinding regulations is a departure from the typical notice-and-comment process.

The Specifics

Emphasizing adherence to recent Supreme Court decisions and the use of the “good cause” exception in the Administrative Procedure Act for expedited rulemaking (that is, rulemaking/rescission without the constraints of notice and comment), the memorandum instructs agencies, first, as part of the review-and-repeal efforts required by the Deregulation EO, to assess each existing regulation’s lawfulness under the following United States Supreme Court decisions:

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024);
West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022);
SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024);
Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743 (2015);
Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651 (2023);
Ohio v. EPA, 603 U.S. 279 (2024);
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021);
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023);
Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022); and
Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14 (2020).

Read the full client alert on our website.

FAR on the Chopping Block: Potential Impacts on Protests

Elizabeth N. Jochum and Robyn N. Burrows ●

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.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: