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

Bid Protest Spotlight: Size, Supply Schedules, SINs

Marking Commercial Technical Data After Flight Safety

Is Change Around the Corner? One Proposal to Forge Sweeping Changes to Defense Contracting

FAR Reform Now Underway

Deregulating Federal Procurement: Implications of Three Recent Executive Actions

LinkedIN

Like the COVID-19 virus, COVID-related contract claims have not gone away.  In “<a href="https://govcon.mofo.com/topics/contracting-in-the-fog-of-war-recovering-costs-caused-by-an-epidemic" target="_blank" dir="ltr">Contracting in the Fog of War: Recovering Costs Caused by an Epidemic</a>,” we reported on Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Department of State, CBCA No. 5683, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37589 (April 22, 2020), in which the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) determined a contractor’s additional costs incurred due to the Ebola outbreak did not entitle the contractor to an equitable adjustment.  In most cases, COVID-related claims have been similarly disappointing for government contractors.  This is particularly true under fixed-price contracts, where the contract price is not normally subject to any adjustment based on a contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract.  However, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently held that a contractor was entitled to compensation for additional COVID-19-related costs arising under a fixed-price task order, based on the particular facts of the case.FactsIn StructSure Projects, Inc., ASBCA No. 62927 (Aug. 7, 2023), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Agency”) awarded StructSure Projects, Inc. (StructSure) a fixed-price task order to perform design and alteration services at a medical center on an Air Force base.  The order contained several contract line item numbers (CLINs) for various services, including the provision of temporary phasing facilities for use at the medical center during the alteration services.  After StructSure began work, and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government designated the task order non-mission-essential and precluded StructSure from any on-site activities for 44 days.StructSure submitted a request for equitable adjustment (REA) for the impacts of the suspension of work.  In response, the government issued a bilateral modification providing a non-compensatory time extension, resulting in a longer period of performance.StructSure submitted another REA asserting that the government used the temporary phasing facilitates and associated rental furniture and equipment during the time the project was classified as non-mission-essential and StructSure could not perform on site.  As a result, StructSure stated it incurred extended rental costs for the facilities, furniture, and equipment.  Originally those items were to be on site for only 13 months, but due to the stoppage of work and per the modification, the temporary phasing facilities were on site for 16 months.The government denied the REA, stating that, pursuant to the contract’s Default clause, FAR 52.249-10, the government may grant extra time in response to a pandemic or quarantine but not additional money.StructSure submitted a certified claim seeking reimbursement for the same costs, alleging it was entitled to the additional rental costs incurred because the government occupied the temporary phasing facilitates and utilized the rental furniture and equipment during the stoppage of work.The contracting officer’s final decision denied the claim for two reasons: (1) the Agency stated that the exclusion from the work site was not a change as it was considered a sovereign act of the government and therefore, pursuant to FAR 52.249-10, the contracting officer could issue a non-compensable extension for days lost, which the Agency did, and (2) StructSure was obligated to bear the costs here—despite the fact the medical facility continued to use the temporary phasing facilities during the period StructSure was not allowed access—because it had a fixed-price task order.DecisionThe ASBCA stated that under the contract’s Changes clause, FAR 52.243-4, the contracting officer was required to make an equitable adjustment and modify the award for any change causing an increase in the contractor’s costs.  In this case, the government modified the task order and changed the completion date, which required use of the temporary phasing facilities for a longer period of time.  As a result, the ASBCA concluded the government changed the task order CLIN to utilize the temporary phasing facilities for additional time, and StructSure was entitled to compensation for those additional rental costs.The government raised two primary challenges against StructSure’s claim.First, the government argued that the task order, including the CLIN requiring the provision of temporary phasing facilities, was fixed-price, and the risk of a pandemic is always borne by the contractor in a fixed-price task order, with the exception of the grant of a non-compensable extension of time pursuant to the default clause.  The ASBCA disagreed, explaining that the default clause would not apply to performance of this particular CLIN because StructSure provided the temporary phasing facilities during the 44-day stoppage of work.Second, the government contended that StructSure could not recover additional costs incurred due the sovereign acts defense.  The government argued that the defense applied because the base leadership suspended all non-mission essential activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, not merely work relating to StructSure’s task order.  As a result, according to the government, StructSure was only entitled to a non-compensable delay, which the government provided in its bilateral contract modification extending the task order completion date.Under the sovereign acts defense, the government, when sued as a party to a contract, cannot be held liable for its general and public acts as a sovereign.  The defense precludes a contractor from monetary recovery for contract damages resulting from the government separately acting in its sovereign capacity.The defense only applies when: (1) the government’s sovereign act is public, general, and only incidentally falls upon the contract or order, and (2) the sovereign act renders performance impossible or impracticable.Here, the government’s actions in limiting base access to only mission-essential personnel due to COVID-19, and finding StructSure’s task order non-mission-essential and therefore precluding StructSure from on-site construction activity, were public and general sovereign acts.  However, supplying the temporary phasing facilities was a separate CLIN under the fixed-priced task order, and StructSure met its deliverable.  In other words, the Government’s decision to suspend access to the base for non-mission -critical contractors did not make supplying the temporary facilities impossible.  To the contrary, StructSure delivered the temporary phasing facilities, and the government used them for ongoing medical treatments.  Therefore, the ASBCA concluded the sovereign acts defense did not apply and StructSure was entitled to compensation for the additional rental costs.TakeawayStructSure Projects provides a potential avenue for recovery of COVID-19-related costs under the Changes clause where the government receives some additional benefit.  It also demonstrates the limitations of the sovereign acts defense where the contractor continues to perform its own obligations—in this case, providing the temporary facilities—despite the government’s sovereign act.  This case could be significant, as contractors continue to grapple with the impact of the pandemic.

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

angle_victoria_blog_150x150.png

angle_victoria_common_640x280.jpg

angle_victoria_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

angle_victoria_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

angle_victoria_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Tori Dalcourt Angle is an associate in the Government Contracts practice in Morrison Foerster’s Washington, D.C. office.
Tori advises clients on various government contract matters, including both pre

Victoria Dalcourt Angle

Victoria Angle

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v2-300x200.jpg

Another Ticking Clock: Additional District Court Preliminarily Enjoins EO 14042 | Increasing Need for OMB Update on GA Court Clarification Order

Like the COVID-19 virus, COVID-related contract claims have not gone away.  In “Contracting in the Fog of War: Recovering Costs Caused by an Epidemic,” we reported on Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Department of State, CBCA No. 5683, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37589 (April 22, 2020), in which the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) determined a contractor’s additional costs incurred due to the Ebola outbreak did not entitle the contractor to an equitable adjustment. 

Contracting In The Fog of War: Recovering Costs Related to COVID-19

On May 9, 2023, President Biden issued a highly anticipated <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/05/09/executive-order-on-moving-beyond-covid-19-vaccination-requirements-for-federal-workers/" target="_blank">Executive Order</a> formally revoking the federal contractor COVID-19 vaccine mandate (Executive Order 14042) and the federal employee COVID-19 vaccine mandate (Executive Order 14043). The decision marks a significant shift in the administration’s earlier stance on vaccine mandates in the wake of the winding down of the national COVID-19 emergency. It also affirms the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force’s recent announcement that the federal contractor vaccine mandate would soon come to an end.Effective May 12, 2023, the new Executive Order advises all agencies to stop enforcing any policies adopted to implement Executive Order 14042 or Executive Order 14043 and to rescind any remaining policies in accordance with applicable law. The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force has also advised agencies not to take any steps to come into compliance with any previously issued vaccine mandate guidance or enforce any contract clauses implementing Executive Order 14042 against federal contractors and subcontractors.Long-Lasting Effects of the Federal Contractor Vaccine MandateWhile most federal contractors and subcontractors will not feel any immediate impact from the new Executive Order, the long-lasting impacts of the litigation surrounding the federal contractor vaccine mandate will remain, including some uncertainties with respect to the scope of the President’s authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (commonly known as the Procurement Act or Property Act).The mandate has stirred up a lot of litigation and left the country with a circuit split over its enforceability—the Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have all upheld the lower courts’ preliminary injunction of Executive Order 14042, as we reported on <a href="https://govcon.mofo.com/topics/fifth-circuit-affirms-preliminary-injunction-of-contractor-vaccine-mandate" target="_blank">Fifth Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction of Contractor Vaccine Mandate</a> and <a href="https://govcon.mofo.com/topics/sixth-circuit-follows-suit-in-affirming-preliminary-injunction-of-contractor-vaccine-mandate" target="_blank">Sixth Circuit Follows Suit in Affirming Preliminary Injunction of Contractor Vaccine Mandate</a>. In contrast, the <a href="https://govcon.mofo.com/topics/ninth-circuit-dissolves-preliminary-injunction-of-eo-14042-contractor-vaccine-mandate" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit</a> has found that the President does have the authority to impose health-related requirements on federal contractors under the Procurement Act.The scope of the President’s authority under the Procurement Act was a major point of contention in the litigation surrounding the federal contractor vaccine mandate. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits concluded that the “Major Questions Doctrine”—the notion that “Congress [must] speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance”—limits the President’s otherwise broad authority under the Procurement Act, precluding enforcement of the contractor vaccine mandate. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the President exceeded his authority in issuing Executive Order 14042.In contrast, the Ninth Circuit sidestepped the Major Questions Doctrine and found that Congress had delegated the authority to the President to impose such requirements on federal contractors. That decision is in line with the long-held precedent of the D.C. Circuit’s 1979 decision in AFL-CIO v. Kahn, which held that the President has broad discretionary authority to issue executive orders concerning federal contractors, provided there is a sufficient nexus between the executive order and the Procurement Act’s goals of promoting economy and efficiency in federal procurement.What Happens Now?Absent revocation of the mandate, the Supreme Court likely would have resolved the circuit split and, in doing so, would have provided federal contractors with greater clarity on the scope of the President’s authority under the Procurement Act. But revocation of the mandate likely means the litigation is now moot. Because that mootness was caused by the defendants’ unilateral action in revoking the mandate, plaintiffs in the Ninth Circuit case may be able to have that court’s decision vacated (called a “Munsingwear vacatur”). That would eliminate the circuit split and likely preclude the Supreme Court’s review of the issue.With the rescission of the federal contractor vaccine mandate, it is unclear what implications the federal contractor vaccine mandate litigation might have on future administrations’ efforts to impose requirements that are not purely commercial on federal contractors. Federal contractors may interpret the circuit courts’ decisions to limit the actions a President may take with respect to federal procurement, which is a departure from the legal landscape initiated by the D.C. Circuit’s seminal decision in AFL-CIO v. Kahn. Whatever the long-term legal ramifications may be, the Biden Administration’s decision to revoke the dual vaccine mandates closes the door on an issue that has left contractors looking for certainty since the Fall of 2021.

President Biden Revokes Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate

palmore_joseph_blog_150x150.png

palmore_joseph_common_640x280.jpg

palmore_joseph_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

palmore_joseph_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

palmore_joseph_social_600x600.jpg

Joe Palmore co-chairs Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. Chambers USA describes him as “an outstanding oral advocate,” who is “calm, focused, effective and doesn’t back down,” and has “complete command of the facts.” Joe “writes great briefs” (Chambers USA), with one client recounting that “the Court mirrored the language he thoughtfully chose in its ultimate order” (Legal 500).

Joseph R. Palmore

Joseph R. Palmore is co-chair of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group and Managing Partner for the Washington, D.C. office. Before joining Morrison Foerster, Joe was an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the United States Department of Justice and the Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Joseph Palmore

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

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

Roke Iko

230510-gov-con-blog.jpg