Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights provides our in-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting. Through Insights, our attorneys offer a real-time assessment of the statutory, regulatory, legal, and business-related developments and trends that are shaping the industry. We also examine a full array of non-U.S. public procurement issues, mindful that our clients compete in a global marketplace.Morrison Foerster’s nationally recognized Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice represents the world’s leading companies in the aerospace and defense, intelligence, cybersecurity, information technology, financial and professional services, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and logistics support sectors. We are enlisted to address our clients’ most complex and important legal issues. Our work includes contract and subcontract negotiation and other transactional matters, business and regulatory compliance counseling, internal investigations, bid protests, and a wide array of enforcement and litigation matters. Our clients range from Fortune 50 companies to small and medium-sized companies just entering the public sector. We advise both U.S. and non-U.S. companies involved in municipal, state, federal, and non-U.S. procurement matters.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

GAO Protest Timeline

govcon-gao-protest-timeline-thumb.jpg

Govcon GAO Post Award Protest Timeline Article

Contract Disputes Act Claim Timeline

govcon-contract-disputes-timeline-thumb.jpg

The Bayh-Dole Act

govcon-bayhdole-thumb.jpg

Anatomy of a Protest

govcon-federalclaimsprotest-thumb.jpg

Allowability of Legal Costs

govcon-allowabilityoflegalcosts-thumb.jpg

Procurement Integrity Act

240715-procurement-integrity-act-resized.jpg

Govcon-Resources

Tina is Co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. She represents a wide variety of government contractors including information technology, defense, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical companies, with a focus on general contract counseling and compliance, particularly concerning intellectual property, and cybersecurity matters and federal grant funding.Tina counsels contractors on compliance with federal, state and local acquisition and ethics regulations and with the evolving myriad of requirements pertaining to data security and cybersecurity. She has been involved with numerous internal investigations and compliance reviews, and with mandatory and voluntary disclosures to agencies, and litigation of False Claims Act matters.Tina routinely advises clients concerning:<ul><li>Prime-subcontractor relationships</li><li>Sources of supply and country of origin requirements</li><li>Price reductions and price reporting issues</li><li>Organizational conflicts of interest</li><li>Safeguarding of intellectual property and other proprietary interests</li><li>Licensing and data rights issues</li><li>Handling of classified materials and controlled unclassified information</li><li>Agency suspension and debarment proceedings</li></ul>She also assists clients with due diligence and other activities related to the acquisition of government contracting concerns, and with the drafting and negotiation of teaming agreements, subcontracts, licensing agreements, and cooperative research and development agreements. She also assists clients applying for federal grants (including SBIR and STTR agreements), and those who seek to obtain other transactional authority agreements, as well as those competing for state and local government work.Tina’s litigation experience includes government contracts claims litigation in federal courts and before boards of contract appeals, bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims, and complex disputes in federal courts, including civil fraud and False Claims Act litigation and reverse Freedom of Information Act litigation.Prior to joining Morrison Foerster, Tina worked at another large national firm and as a trial attorney in the Office of the General Counsel of the Navy, Navy Litigation Office.<h4>Representative Experience</h4><ul><li>Negotiation of largest CHIPS Act federal funding agreement between multinational semiconductor corporation and U.S. Department of Commerce.</li><li>Negotiated prime contract and major subcontracts related to the Department of Energy’s next generation supercomputer program, including extensive IP rights negotiations and negotiation of associated patent rights waivers.</li><li>Negotiated series of other transaction authority agreements with DARPA and associated subcontracts with more than a dozen research universities on behalf of a firm biotech client, including complex IP rights allocations and material transfer agreements.</li><li>Assist clients with FedRAMP authorization process and with development of license agreements for software products sold to federal, state and local government agencies.</li><li>Cyber incident response counseling to some of the largest companies and organizations impacted by security incidents.</li><li>Advises clients on Bayh-Dole reporting of inventions and IP strategies for contracts and grants.</li><li>Conducts due diligence for major government contract mergers and acquisitions.</li></ul>

reynolds_tina_blog_150x150.png

reynolds_tina_common_640x280.jpg

reynolds_tina_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

reynolds_tina_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

reynolds_tina_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Our government contracts and procurement attorneys counsel businesses on legal and compliance issues encountered when doing business with government entities.

Government Contracts + Public Procurement

Government Contracts and Procurement Attorneys

Band 1: National: Government Contracts

Tier 1: Government Contracts

Readers Choice Award: Government Contracting

Tina is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. She counsels a wide variety of government contractors on compliance with federal acquisition and ethics regulations. She drafts and negotiates contracts on their behalf and has been involved with numerous internal investigations and compliance reviews, and with bid protest, contract claims, and False Claims Act litigation. She also advises on M&A transactions involving government contractors.

Tina D. Reynolds

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litigation and counseling in federal procurement matters, with an emphasis on bid protests, Cost Accounting Standards disputes, and small business matters. He has represented both protesters and awardees in scores of protests before the Government Accountability Office, the Court of Federal Claims, and procuring agencies, in acquisitions ranging from small business procurements to multibillion-dollar contracts of global significance. His representative protest matters span the aerospace sector, the Intelligence Community, base operations and logistics, healthcare, nuclear and environmental work, and information technology and software acquisitions. His protests have included both classified and unclassified programs. In addition to prevailing in published decisions, Jim has also secured favorable corrective action on behalf of clients in a wide variety of protests that were resolved without a published decision.Jim’s work also focuses on disputes over cost allowability and compliance with the Cost Accounting Standards, and he has appeared before the Armed Services and Civilian Boards of Contract Appeals, in size and status protests before Small Business Administration (SBA) area offices, and appeals before the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals. Jim regularly counsels clients on contract interpretation, organizational conflicts of interest, and small business compliance.Jim graduated with high honors from the George Washington University Law School, where he focused his studies on federal procurement law, was a member of the Law Review, and interned with the General Services Administration’s suspension and debarment office. Jim also holds a degree in theology magna cum laude from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and a bachelor’s degree in classical languages and literature summa cum laude from the University of Kentucky, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa.

tucker_james_blog_150x150.png

tucker_james_common_640x280.jpg

tucker_james_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

tucker_james_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

tucker_james_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Jim maintains an active practice in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and contracting agencies and counsels clients in contract disputes and compliance obligations.

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litigation and counseling in federal procurement matters, with an emphasis on bid protests, Cost Accounting Standards disputes, and small business matters.

James Tucker

<div style="margin-bottom: 15px;" class="videoWrapper"><iframe class="sticky-video" title="Meet Alex Ward, Government Contracts Practice Co-Chair" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/TkliwdSlTaQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="1" title="iframe"></iframe></div>J. Alex Ward is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement group. His practice covers a full range of government contracts matters, including investigations, bid protests, claims, general litigation, corporate transactions, and counseling. Alex strives in all matters is to provide his clients the highest level of efficient and effective representation.Alex represents contractors in internal and external investigations, disclosures to the government, and qui tam litigation, with great success in reducing or eliminating his clients’ exposure through active engagement with the government. His work in this area includes obtaining numerous declinations and dismissals of False Claims Act cases in their earliest stages, sparing his clients the cost, risk, and exposure of litigation.He has also served as lead counsel in dozens of bid protests involving military and civilian agency procurements of a wide range of products and services, including all manner of pre- and post-award protests in the GAO, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and state tribunals, as well as appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and size protest appeals before the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals.Alex handles all aspects of the claims process, from the initial assessment and drafting of requests for equitable adjustment through litigation in the Boards of Contract Appeals and the Court of Federal Claims. Alex’s practice also covers the full gamut of other controversies confronting government contractors, including prime-sub, teaming partner, employer-employee, competitor, and indemnification disputes. His litigation work also includes a wide variety of pro bono engagements, in which he has represented both individual and institutional clients in matters ranging from immigration and criminal defense to sustainable procurement and protection of the environment.Prior to joining the firm, Alex served in the U.S. Army as a commissioned officer and an Assistant to the General Counsel of the Army responsible for civil works and international matters, and as a clerk for judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the D.C. Circuit. He is a member of the Boards of the Morrison & Foerster Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and of Law360’s Government Contracts Editorial Board.

ward_alex_blog_150x150.png

ward_alex_common_640x280.jpg

ward_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ward_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ward_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alex is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice. His practice covers a full range of government contracts matters, including bid protests, claims, investigations, corporate transactions, and counseling.

J. Alex Ward

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights blog provides an in-depth analysis of news, developments, and trends impacting government contracting and procurement. Through Insights, attorneys from our nationally recognized Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice will offer a real-time assessment of the statutory, regulatory, legal, and business-related developments that are shaping the industry. This blog will also examine a full array of U.S. and non-U.S. public procurement issues, mindful that our clients compete in a global marketplace.Read about our <a href="http://govcon.mofo.com/editors/">Authors</a>.Never miss a post. Subscribe to get real-time updates.

gov-con-feature-image-thumb1.jpg

Welcome to the Government Contracts Insights Blog

Welcome to the Government Contracts Insights Blog

gov-con-feature-image_(1)1.jpg

The United States Capitol building

Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights blog provides an in-depth analysis of news, developments, and trends impacting government contracting and proc

Announcements & Press

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

News and thought leadership from lawyers who are adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

  External-Link

MoFo + Blog

Mofo+

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

Our Government Contracts Insights blog provides in-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting U.S. government contracting and non-U.S. public procureme

Government Contracts Insights

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Blog - Govcon RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Government Contracts Insights. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The latest updates and analysis from Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Acquisition Regulations

Artificial Intelligence + Robotics

Compliance

Coronavirus

Cybersecurity & Data Privacy

Data Rights

Defense

Domestic Preferences

False Claims Act

Federal Procurement

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Grants

Health Care

Intellectual Property

International Public Procurement

Labor & Employment

Mergers & Acquisitions

National Security

Protests & Litigation

Resources

Schedule Contracting

Small Business

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

James A. Tucker

Telesto: Another Call For Clarity In Other Transactions Protest Jurisdiction

Strengthening the American Drone Industrial Base

Bid Protest Spotlight: Jurisdiction, Price Range, Late-Is-Late

Trump Issues Executive Order on Cybersecurity Rolling Back Some Prior Policies and Introducing New Ones

GAO Reaffirms Agencies’ Discretion to Award Sole-Source SBIR Phase III Contracts (Even to a Successor-in-Interest)

Each year around this time, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) publishes its annual report to Congress on bid protests. Earlier this week, the GAO published the <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/723608.pdf">report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022</a>. The following are the updated statistics at a glance, in the context of the four preceding government fiscal years:<div data-reactroot=""><img src="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/images/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt512dbad8b6585318/6369704f27925638a1eb294c/Deciphering_the_GAO’s_Bid_Protest_Statistics_for_FY_2022.png?format=auto&amp;quality=60" alt="Bid Protest Statistics For Fiscal Years 2018-2020"/></div><h3>What the Numbers Really Mean</h3>Before discussing trends, it’s worth observing that the reported numbers don’t mean what you probably think they mean. As the GAO emphasizes each year, the “case” tallies above reflect discrete “B-numbers” on the GAO’s docket, not the total procurements challenged or the total protests filed:<blockquote>All entries in this chart are counted in terms of the docket numbers (‟B” numbers) assigned by our Office, not the number of procurements challenged. Where a protester files a supplemental protest or multiple parties protest the same procurement action, multiple iterations of the same “B” number are assigned (i.e., .2, .3). Each of these numbers is deemed a separate case for purposes of this chart. Cases include protests, cost claims, and requests for reconsideration.</blockquote>Report at PDF 4 n.1.For example, if an agency makes an award, and two disappointed offerors file protests, the GAO assigns two B-numbers:e.g., B-700000.1 and B-700000.2. If, as sometimes happens, one of those protesters files a supplemental protest to make additional timely arguments it did not have time to make within five days of the close of its debriefing, the GAO dockets that new filing as B-700000.3. After the agency produces the agency report, both protesters might add a few supplemental arguments based upon the new documents, leading to the docketing of B-700000.4 and B-700000.5. If the agency must produce additional procurement documents as a result, one of the protesters may file another new argument based on those documents, leading to B-700000.6. And, if the GAO ultimately denies the protests, one of the protesters may file a request for reconsideration (which almost certainly will fail), generating a seventh B-number. The annual statistics will report this as seven different “cases,” rather than one procurement that was unsuccessfully challenged, or two protests that were denied, which is what most casual observers probably think the numbers mean.So, in FY 2022 there were 1,658 “case filed,” which actually means far fewer than 1,658 protests were filed, and far fewer than 1,658 solicitations or awards were challenged.Although news reports and government attention make it seem as if there is an epidemic of bid protests threatening most if not all federal procurements, these figures (like every year’s figures) demonstrate that is not so. Of all the vast numbers of contracts and task orders the U.S. government awarded in FY 2022, far fewer than 1,658 protests were filed against them—well below 1% of all procurements.<h3>Continuing Drop in “Cases Filed” and Decisions on the Merits</h3>Cases filed in FY 2022 fell by more than 200 (a 12% drop) since 2021, and 2021 cases filed had fallen by more than 200 relative to 2020. Because of the B-number method of counting, the actual drop may be more or less than 12% in the total protests filed or procurements challenged since 2021. But the consistent downward trend in “cases filed” over the last five years almost certainly reflects a decline in the total number of protests.Consistent with the lower number of “cases filed” in FY 2022, the total number of written decisions on the merits has dropped significantly from 581 in FY 2021 to 455 in FY 2022. As a percentage though, the “sustain rate” of 13% remains in line with the recent past, where it ranged from 13% to 15%.Note that of the 1,651 “cases filed” in FY 2022, only 455 resulted in written decisions on the merits.Most bid protests never make it to a full written decision on the merits—most end with summary dismissal, withdrawal by the protester, or voluntary corrective action by the agency. Although the report does not address at what stage of the 100-day protest lifecycle these non-merits resolutions occurred, historically most protests are resolved within the first 30 days of the protest period, before the procuring agency produces the agency report and supporting procurement record.<h3>51% Effectiveness Rate</h3>The reported “effectiveness rate” for FY 2022 was 51%.“Effectiveness” here means the agency took corrective action in response to the protest, either voluntarily or in response to a formal GAO recommendation. It does not mean that the protester ended up winning the contract it protested half the time. It does, however, reflect that in roughly half of all protests, the procuring agency goes back to correct real or perceived errors in the procurement process. This number has remained relatively steady (44%-51% over the last five years).<h3>Hearings Are Rare as Hens’ Teeth</h3>Consistent with the GAO’s goal of providing relatively expeditious and efficient resolution of protests, it is extremely rare for the GAO to convene a hearing.In FY 2022, only two “cases” had hearings. And, because of the way B-numbers work, it is entirely possible that the two “cases” were only a single protest.

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison & Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.
Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litiga

2017-09-08-12-37-protests-and-litigation-600-300x148.jpg

Deciphering the GAO’s Bid Protest Statistics for FY 2022

GAO Finds CIO-SP4 Solicitation Is Unduly Restrictive of Competition

protests-and-litigation-600-300x148.jpg

Each year around this time, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) publishes its annual report to Congress on bid protests.  Earlier this week, the GAO published the report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022.  The following are the updated statistics at a glance, in the context of the four preceding government fiscal years:

Deciphering the GAO’s Bid Protest Statistics for FY 2022

New Agency Sets Ambitious Goals to Transform Biomedicine and HealthAs part of the Biden Administration’s ongoing efforts to spur innovation and research, it has championed the creation of a new sub-agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, the <a href="https://www.nih.gov/arpa-h">Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health</a> (ARPA-H). Authorized by Congress in March 2022, the new agency will bring together industry, academia, and government through public-private partnerships for high-risk, high-reward endeavors intended to drive breakthroughs in biomedicine and health. ARPA-H seeks to capitalize and expand on recent advances in biomedicine to revolutionize the prevention and treatment of cancer, infectious diseases, and Alzheimer’s and other diseases, and potentially to uncover cures. Its impact on Americans could be profound.  Among the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ARPA-H-Fact-Sheet.pdf">potential early projects</a> that ARPA-H has identified are efforts to develop mRNA cancer vaccines, wearable blood pressure and blood sugar monitors, and systems to help eliminate racial disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality. The agency’s focus is very broad, and it intends to leverage its unique position to fill gaps across the United States’ biomedical research ecosystem. The breadth of innovation that the agency plans to undertake is, in part, the byproduct of a series of <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2021/08/17/white-house-and-national-institutes-of-health-close-out-listening-sessions-with-over-5100-stakeholders-on-the-proposed-advanced-research-projects-agency-for-health/">listening sessions</a> that the White House and National Institutes of Health (NIH) held last year, which included more than 5,100 stakeholders.Structurally, ARPA-H is an independent agency within NIH in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The agency will model its approach to the award of grants and contracts on the process used by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). With the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/12/president-biden-announces-intent-to-appoint-dr-renee-wegrzyn-as-inaugural-director-of-advanced-research-projects-agency-for-health-arpa-h/">inaugural director recently announced</a>, one of the agency’s next priorities will be identifying a diverse cohort of program managers, assembled from industry, academia, and other sectors, to implement the agency’s vision. Like DARPA, ARPA-H plans to seek broad, flexible funding authority and to use an adaptable and permissive proposal review process. While the specific parameters of the process are still in development, an analogy may be the process used by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), another agency within the HHS, which we described in detail in <a href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/topics/us-government-new-federal-funding-opportunities-related-to-covid19">this article</a>.As the new agency takes shape, it remains clear that it has the strong backing of the Biden Administration. President Biden’s proposed fiscal year 2023 budget included $5 billion for ARPA-H—a notable increase over the $1 billion that Congress allocated in 2022. Somewhat relatedly, the administration further demonstrated its commitment to biotechnology and biomanufacturing by issuing an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/09/12/executive-order-on-advancing-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-innovation-for-a-sustainable-safe-and-secure-american-bioeconomy/">Executive Order</a> in September 2022 on “Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy,” which introduces the National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative. While the Initiative’s mission goes beyond that of ARPA-H―including climate change, energy, food security, agriculture, supply chains, and national security in addition to health―the EO is further evidence of increasing investment in biotechnology research and development and manufacturing capabilities.We will continue to monitor the development of ARPA-H, and will provide further updates as opportunities for biotech and health companies to partner with the agency, and to receive funding to further its ambitious goals, become available.Cody Kornack, a Law Clerk in our Washington, D.C., office, contributed to the writing of this alert.

U.S. Government Launches Billion-Dollar Biomedical Agency

Tina is a partner in Morrison & Foerster’s Government Contracts practice. She represents a wide variety of government contractors including information technology, defense, biotechnology, and pharmace

Tina Reynolds

190927-dod-promulgates.jpg

U.S. Government Launches Billion-Dollar Biomedical Agency

New DCMA Defective Pricing Pilot Team Will Possess Audit Resolution Authority

As part of the Biden Administration’s ongoing efforts to spur innovation and research, it has championed the creation of a new sub-agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H).

On October 19, 2022, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published its first set of interim guidance for agencies regarding the Federal Government’s enforcement of Executive Order 14042 (“EO 14042”). In addition to reaffirming the Federal Government’s decision not to enforce any contract clauses implementing EO 14042, OMB’s guidance directs agencies not to include an implementing clause in any new contracts and solicitations.  The OMB’s guidance follows an October 14, 2022, update from the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (“Task Force”), which indicated that the Task Force and OMB will issue at least three guidance documents following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s issuance of its mandate <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220830-eleventh-circuit-preliminary-injunction-contractor-vax-mandate">significantly narrowing the scope of the nationwide preliminary injunction</a> of the EO 14042 vaccine mandate. Consistent with OMB’s guidance, the Task Force also published a complementary update on the same day.OMB’s first set of interim guidance directs agencies to take the following actions:<ul><li>For existing contracts that contain a clause implementing EO 14042: “Agencies should continue NOT to enforce any contract clauses implementing requirements of Executive Order 14042—regardless of party or location—until future OMB guidance discussed above indicates that contracting agencies should provide written notice to contractors reinstating enforcement of those clauses and then resume enforcement” (emphasis in original).</li><li>For existing contracts that do not include a clause implementing EO 14042:  Agencies “should NOT at this time modify the contract to insert” an implementing clause, even when renewing, extending the term of, placing a new order against, or exercising contract options (i.e., <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/211112-untangling-the-vaccine-mandate">“new” contracts</a> as defined in the Task Force’s prior—and now largely defunct—guidance) (emphasis in original).</li></ul><ul><li>For new solicitations:  Agencies “should NOT at this time” include a clause implementing EO 14042, including solicitations for new orders under existing indefinite‑delivery indefinite‑quantity contracts that contain an implementing clause.</li></ul>What does this mean? Federal contractors and subcontractors need not worry about complying with the requirements of EO 14042 in either new or existing contracts “at this time,” except when accessing Federal buildings or Federally controlled facilities, per Federal agency workplace safety protocols, which have consistently remained in effect. However, Federal contractors and subcontractors should still get their houses in order in anticipation of the second and third sets of OMB guidance, as discussed in our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220830-eleventh-circuit-preliminary-injunction-contractor-vax-mandate">prior alert</a>.Also following the Eleventh Circuit’s mandate, on October 20, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the year-old motion for preliminary injunction filed by the State of Texas, which sought to block the enforcement and implementation of EO 14042.  After reviewing supplemental briefs, the district court found that Texas failed to demonstrate the imminent harm necessary for a preliminary injunction. In reaching this decision, the court relied on the OMB’s first set of interim guidance and the complementary Task Force guidance, both of which directed agencies not to enforce or incorporate a clause implementing EO 14042 into any new and existing contracts. This decision serves as a warning to new and existing litigants alike that any attempt to obtain a preliminary injunction of EO 14042 may be stopped dead in its tracks, at least “at this time.”  Thomas Lee, a Law Clerk in our Washington, D.C., office, contributed to the writing of this alert.

EO 14042: OMB Guidance Keeps Enforcement on Hold “At This Time”

IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

Flight Support, Inc.

DynCorp Int’l LLC

Raytheon Co.

DynCorp International, LLC v. United States

URS Federal Servs., Inc.

DynCorp International, LLC

Planned Sys. Int’l, Inc.

Threat Mgmt. Group, LLC

Vencore Servs. & Solutions, Inc.

Jacobs Tech., Inc.

Cubic, Inc.

American Institutes for Research v. State of New Mexico

CACI-WGI, Inc.

Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. v. IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

IAP World Servs., Inc.

Size Appeal of IAP World Servs., Inc.

Al-Ghanim v. IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

O’Gara Training & Servs., LLC

IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

AAR Mobility Sys.

Matt Martin Real Estate Mgm’t, LLC v. United States

Pyramid Real Estate Servs., LLC v. United States

Harrington, Moran, Barksdale, Inc.

Homesource Real Estate Asset Servs., Inc. v. United States

Ocean Ships, Inc.

Keystone Sealift Servs., Inc.

ITT Corp., Sys. Div.

IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc. v. Fluor Intercontinental, Inc.

FedSys, Inc.

Academy Facilities Mgm’t v. United States

Academy Facilities Management -- Advisory Opinion

Evans Security Solutions, Inc.

Contingency Mgm’t Group, LLC and IAP Worldwide Servs., Inc.

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.

Liberty Power Corp.

J. Alex Ward is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement group. 

J. Ward

iko_roke_blog_150x150.png

iko_roke_common_640x280.jpg

iko_roke_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

iko_roke_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

iko_roke_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Roke Iko is an associate in the Litigation Department in Morrison & Foerster’s Washington, D.C. office.
Roke assists clients in the full range of government contracts litigation and compliance matters