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

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.

Brad is a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Litigation Department, Managing Partner of the Austin office, and Chair of the firm’s Israel practice. He is the former Co-Chair of the firm’s Global Litigation Practice and the Government Contracts + Public Procurement Practice.

Bradley Wine

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

The Tortured Regulations Department: SBA’s New Rule and Its Effect on Investments

Bid Protest Spotlight: Standing, Relationships, Responsibility

House’s Passage of the SAMOSA Act Signals Policy Shift Towards Government-Wide Enterprise Software Licensing

New DFARS Regulation on Small Business Affiliate Past Performance

Bid Protest Spotlight: Unclear Criteria, Data Rights, Conflicts

LinkedIN

Nearly a year ago, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) no later than July 1, 2024, “to require that when small business concerns bid on Department of Defense contracts, the past performance evaluation and source selection processes shall consider, if relevant, the past performance information of affiliate companies of the small business concerns.”On November 15, 2024, <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-11-15/pdf/2024-26055.pdf" target="_blank">DOD promulgated that long-awaited amendment</a>, effective immediately, with no opportunity for public comment. Here is what DOD worked up over the course of the last year:<blockquote>When evaluating the past performance of an offeror that is a small business concern in response to a competitive solicitation, contracting officers shall consider relevant past performance information provided for affiliates of the offeror.</blockquote>DFARS 215.305(a)(2)(C). The new regulation is welcome news to some (those small business contractors that have affiliates and do business with DOD), but most offerors will not benefit from it. We have a few observations. The regulation also raises some important questions, which the lack of public comment has unfortunately left unresolved.Observations<ul><li>This regulation applies only to DOD procurements. Non-DOD procurements continue to follow the ordinary rule that agencies may but are not required to consider affiliate past performance. In our experience, most agencies already do consider affiliate past performance for all offerors, subject to the usual condition that the affiliate must be proposed to have some meaningful involvement in performance.</li><li>The new rule applies only to small business offerors. It does not require agencies to consider the past performance of affiliates of large business offerors, although agencies remain free to do so.</li><li>Because the regulation is located in DFARS Part 215, we would not expect it to be mandatory for acquisitions that do not use FAR Part 15 procedures. Thus, for example, DOD agencies would continue to be free to consider or not consider affiliate past performance when making Federal Supply Schedule orders under FAR Subpart 8.4, because DFARS Part 215 is generally inapplicable to such orders. Whether the new regulation applies to task order competitions under FAR Subpart 16.5 likely depends on whether a particular acquisition otherwise uses FAR Part 15 procedures.</li><li>The regulation is not limited to small business set-aside procurements. The rule applies when the offeror is a small business, even if it is bidding on a full and open opportunity.</li></ul>Unresolved Questions<ul class="li-text-orange"><li>Does the regulation apply to the evaluation of corporate experience? Although past performance and corporate experience are related, they aren’t the same thing, and the rules governing past performance evaluations do not necessarily apply to corporate experience evaluations. It would be logical for an agency to apply this new rule to both, but the text of the regulation does not actually require that.</li><li class="li-text-orange">Can an offeror receive affiliate past performance credit if its proposal does not propose meaningful involvement of the affiliate in contract performance? As <a href="/topics/-i-get-by-with-a-little-help-from-my-friends-relying-on-affiliate-past-performance-and-experience" target="_self">we have detailed before</a>, the ordinary rule is that agencies are prohibited from crediting an offeror with affiliate past performance if the offeror’s proposal fails to identify some meaningful participation by the affiliate in contract performance. We would expect agencies to read the new regulation in harmony with this longstanding case law. After all, the success of a different legal entity that won’t be involved in a new contract provides no “relevant” information about the offeror’s ability to perform well. But the regulation itself does not explain how this will work.</li><li>What does “consider” mean? The new rule requires DOD contracting officers to “consider” the past performance of small business offerors’ affiliates. But does it require the contracting officers to give that past performance the same weight as offeror past performance? The rule does not say, but we would expect contracting officers to retain some degree of discretion in this regard.</li></ul>

Anser Advisory

ARKA

Arlington Capital

Battle Investment Group

Behrman Capital

Cadmus

Chainalysis

CollabraLink

Definitive Logic

Emmes

Enlightenment Capital

Grant Thornton

Griffon Corporation

eTelligent

L3Harris

Jacobs

LinQuest Corporation

Micross

Sagewind

Sedgwick

Sigma Defense

teKnoluxion

The Building People

VariQ

specht_damien_blog_150x150.png

specht_damien_common_640x280.jpg

specht_damien_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

specht_damien_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

specht_damien_social_600x600.jpg

Damien is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. He represents clients in all facets of government contracts transactions, as well as regulatory counseling, subcon

Damien Specht

Damien C. Specht

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

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

protests-and-litigation-600-300x148

On September 4, 2024, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) issued a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/09/04/2024-19457/transactions-other-than-contracts-grants-or-cooperative-agreements-for-prototype-projects" target="_blank">proposed rule</a> to update its longstanding but little-known regulations for prototype other transactions (OTs), including new sections that authorize follow-on production OTs. The changes would bring the regulations up to date with the current text of DoD’s statutory authority for prototype OT and follow-on production agreements. Much has changed since DoD’s OT regulations were last amended in 2004. In those years, the regulations have largely sat on the shelf (at <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-32/subtitle-A/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-3" target="_blank">32 C.F.R. Part 3</a>), rarely used and collecting dust while Congress repeatedly updated and expanded DoD’s statutory authority. In practice, DoD Agreements Officers and others draw their authority and guidance directly from the statute itself (10 U.S.C. § 4022). We expect that to continue, and the proposed rule is unlikely to effect any substantive change to current law. Nevertheless, it provides a good reminder of where the requirements stand for DoD OTs in a few key respects.Nontraditional Defense ContractorsDoD’s prototype OT authority is limited to agreements that meet certain statutory criteria. According to DoD’s Federal Register notice, the most commonly used of these eligibility criteria – accounting for more than 90 percent of all prototype OT awards – is the significant participation of a “nontraditional defense contractor.”[1]So, who qualifies as “nontraditional”? A nontraditional defense contractor is an entity that has not performed a DoD contract or subcontract subject to Full Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) coverage in the year prior to a solicitation. This is intentionally broad, and, as noted by DoD in its <a href="https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/policy/docs/guidebook/TAB%20A1%20-%20DoD%20OT%20Guide%20JUL%202023_final.pdf">Other Transactions Guide</a>, it includes nearly all small business concerns and even many companies that work exclusively with DoD.[2] It also includes subsidiaries or affiliates of large traditional defense contractors, as long as the specific legal entity at issue is not subject to Full CAS coverage (and, for purposes of the eligibility criteria, will in fact be a significant participant in the prototype project).DoD’s OT regulations, as currently written, reiterate this by defining nontraditional defense contractor status to apply specifically at the “business unit” level, rather than at the “entity,” consistent with general rules for CAS applicability across different segments within an organization. DoD’s proposed rule would update the regulations to replace “business unit” with “entity” for consistency with the statute, but there is no indication the change is intended to substantively alter the availability of nontraditional status to separate legal entities within a larger corporate family of companies. The proposed rule also would remove the additional requirement that a “nontraditional defense contractor” not have performed any prototyping or research projects worth more than $500,000 in the past year. That additional requirement was previously removed from the statutory definition.Broad Definition of PrototypeThe proposed rule would implement the broad definition of “Prototype Project” used by DoD and authorized by Congress in recent years. This broad definition, which comes directly from the statute, says that a prototype project can be any combination of the following: <ul><li>A proof of concept, model, or process, including a business process.</li><li>Reverse engineering to address obsolescence.</li><li>A pilot or novel application of commercial technologies for defense purposes.</li><li>Agile development activity.</li><li>The creation, design, development, or demonstration of operational utility.</li></ul>Congress added this definition to the statutory authorization in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.  Previously, the statute contained no definition, but the DoD claimed a broad interpretation of “prototype” that was very similar to the current statutory definition. Even before Congress enacted its definition into law, the Government Accountability Office upheld DoD’s broad interpretation of the term as reasonable in multiple challenges to its breadth. See ACI Techs., Inc., B-417011, Jan. 17, 2019, CPD ¶ 24; Oracle America, Inc., B-416061, May 31, 2018, CPD ¶ 180.Follow-On ProductionThe proposed rule also would add regulations for follow-on production OT awards. By law, DoD may award an OT or contract for follow-on production efforts on a sole-source basis if the initial prototype OT was awarded using competitive procedures and has been successfully completed. Notably, any agency may award a follow-on production OT or contract following successful completion; it does does not have to be the same agency that awarded the initial prototype OT, as we discussed <a href="/topics/dod-issues-updated-other-transactions-ot-guide" target="_self">previously</a>.  In fact, multiple DoD agencies may each award their own production OTs or contracts as follow-ons to a successfully completed prototype OT that a single agency had awarded and managed.To proceed from a prototype to follow-on production OT, the government must make a written determination that the prototype OT was “successfully completed.” According to DoD guidance, “successful completion” means that the prototype project “(1) met the key technical goals of a project; (2) satisfied success metrics incorporated into the Prototype OT; or (3) accomplished a particularly favorable or unexpected result that justifies the transition to production.” Any success metrics incorporated into a prototype OT may be objective or subjective, and success can be determined before the prototype project has ended, to facilitate the transition to a follow-on production OT.DoD’s Other Transactions Guide advises agreements officers to plan for the follow-on production OT as much as possible in the original prototype OT award. That planning should include a strategy “to obtain necessary IP deliverables (e.g., technical data or computer software), or associated license rights.” Pricing for the follow-on production OT should also be set at the time that the prototype OT is awarded, if the price can be forecast that far in advance.OTs Are ContractsDoD’s proposed rule would affirm that although OTs are not “procurement contracts” (or grants or cooperative agreements) and thus not subject to the laws specific to those legal instruments, they are most certainly “legally binding instruments that include the elements of: offer; acceptance; consideration; authority; a legal purpose; a meeting of the minds; and are approved by an Agreements Officer who has authority to bind the Government.”  They are, in other words, contracts – contracts that may be enforced, against the Government or the OT Performer in a court of law (namely, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims), even if not subject to the Contract Disputes Act. That never should have been in doubt, but it was a common misconception. A Few Closing ThoughtsDoD’s proposed rule is yet another signal that DoD’s prototype OTs have matured from pilot program to permanent authority. They are now a fixture of the government contracts industry and, according to the Federal Register notice announcing the proposed rule, “a significant asset in the DoD toolbox for acquisition of items to support the DoD mission.” DoD continues to tout publicly its “flexibility in negotiation of terms” and “less Government oversight” associated with OTs, which it hopes will encourage participation by businesses that are otherwise “unwilling to forfeit intellectual property rights or adhere to some of the procurement regulations.” In practice, however, this flexibility is all too often leveraged by agreements officers to benefit the Government at the OT performer’s expense, especially with respect to intellectual property rights. The FAR and DFARS and their underlying statutes are the products of many decades of legislation and notice-and-comment rulemaking attempting to balance the Government’s interests with those of a captive industry. As a result, they include significant protections for contractor rights, such as a right to own their inventions or a right to keep their privately developed trade secrets out of the hands of their competitors. Yet there are OTs and OT solicitations now that demand performers give up those rights as a condition of participating in the same kinds of major weapons acquisitions that historically have formed the companies’ lifeblood. Such abuses of the Government’s bargaining position would be unheard of – and legally actionable – in a procurement contract, but OTs often evade such oversight.  When considering its proposed rule, DoD appears to have weighed other alternatives, such deleting its OT regulations altogether or expanding them to include “best practices for DoD practitioners.” It decided against the former because deletion of regulatory coverage for such an important acquisition tool “would be inconsistent with DoD’s policy to support innovation through acquisition policy.” It dismissed the latter as adequately addressed by DoD’s existing Other Transactions Guide. Whether to expect more OT regulations in the future, in furtherance of “innovation through acquisition policy,” is yet to be seen. The flexibility and speed of OTs, when used correctly, present an opportunity to meet critical defense needs in ways that would otherwise be difficult or impossible. However, the flexibility can introduce new risks to the contracting process, so it remains vital for contractors to review terms with counsel before entering agreements.Ethan Sterenfeld, a Law Clerk in our Washington, D.C., office, contributed to the writing of this article.[1] Note that to meet this requirement, a nontraditional defense contractor is not required to be the OT awardee but rather must simply be “participating to a significant extent,” a phrase that has been broadly interpreted and defined by DoD in its internal OT guidance. DoD estimates that the majority of the dollars obligated for such agreements actually went to nontraditional defense contractors, but acknowledges limitations in its access to reliable data. [2] As DoD observes in the Federal Register: “This definition permits a large number of entities, including nearly all small business concerns, to be considered [nontraditional defense contractors] to help drive innovation.”

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

bell_locke_blog_150x150.png

bell_locke_common_640x280.jpg

bell_locke_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

bell_locke_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

bell_locke_social_600x600.jpg

Locke Bell is a partner in the firm’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice.

Locke Bell

GAO Finds CIO-SP4 Solicitation Is Unduly Restrictive of Competition

DoD Dusts Off Other Transactions (OT) Regulations

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) issued a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/15/2024-18110/defense-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-assessing-contractor-implementation-of" target="_blank">final rule</a> bringing the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) into alignment with changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that reorganized Part 23 on Sustainable Procurement. The rule, issued on August 15, 2024, became effective immediately.  It makes no substantive changes and “does not alter policy or requirements stated in the DFARS.” Although the rule renames certain DFARS parts and subparts, and changes one DFARS clause number, its effect on contractors is likely slight. We previously <a href="https://govcon.mofo.com/topics/proposed-sustainable-procurement-rule-would-streamline-existing-environmental-regulations-and-clarify-far-part-23-" target="_blank">commented</a> in greater detail on the corresponding streamlining of the FAR.Following the reorganization of FAR Part 23, the rule renames Part 223 as “Environment, Sustainable Acquisition, and Material Safety.” It also adds subpart 223.1, Sustainable Products and Services, where it brings together the content from subparts 223.4 and 223.8. The rule moves the content on a Drug-Free Workplace from subpart 223.5 to Part 226 into a newly added subpart 226.5 of the same title. The contract clause at DFARS 252.223-7004, Drug-Free Work Force, is consequently moved to DFARS 252.226-7003, Drug-Free Work Force. The rule renames subpart 223.3 as “Hazardous Material Identification, Material Safety Data, and Notice of Radioactive Materials.”As the rule “only renames an existing DFARS part and existing subparts, and relocates DFARS subparts and paragraphs, to align the DFARS with changes made in the FAR,” the drafters determined the rule did not require public comment under 41 U.S.C. § 1707. The rule does make some “editorial changes” to the renumbered clause to conform with definition drafting conventions.  Although contractors who frequently reference the DFARS will find it helpful to note the reorganization and corresponding renumbering imposed by the rule, contractors can otherwise rest easy that the rule imposes no new requirements.