Photo of Lorraine M. CamposPhoto of Erin RankinPhoto of J. Chris HailePhoto of Skye MathiesonPhoto of Laura J. Mitchell BakerPhoto of Alexandra Barbee-GarrettPhoto of Catherine Shames

On April 22, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Rule significantly revising the Uniform Guidance for grants, cooperative agreements, and other federal financial assistance.  The Final Rule (titled “OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance”), and OMB’s accompanying memorandum to agencies and reference guide, state that the revisions aim to streamline and clarify the grant rules and improve management, transparency, and oversight of federal financial assistance.  Agencies must implement the Final Rule by October 1, 2024; however, agencies may apply it to federal awards as early as June 21, 2024.

Highlighted Changes

The Final Rule makes changes throughout the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (hereinafter, “Revised OMB Guidance”).  Changes to 2 CFR Parts 25, 170, 172, and 175 incorporate newer statutory requirements and make certain plain-language revisions.  The Final Rule also makes many changes to 2 CFR Parts 180 and 200, including, but not limited to, increasing the threshold for audits, clarifying the requirements for fixed amount awards, and implementing a mandatory disclosure rule.  Some highlights of the Revised OMB Guidance include:  

Part 25 – Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management

  • Section 25.300 clarifies that first-tier subrecipients must obtain a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) but are not required to complete a full System for Award Management (SAM) registration. The section also clarifies that the UEI requirement does not extend beyond first-tier subawards. 
  • Contractors that have a procurement relationship with a recipient are not required to obtain a UEI.

Part 175 – Trafficking in Persons

  • Part 175 now aligns with the amended Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, 22 U.S.C. 7101 et seq., including requirements for certifications and a compliance plan consistent with the law. Section 175.105(c) requires recipients to inform the federal agency and the inspector general immediately if there are credible reports that the recipient (or any subrecipient, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of the recipient) has engaged in prohibited activities.

Part 180 – OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government-Wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement)

  • Part 180 implements recommendations from the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee to clarify available administrative actions in lieu of debarment.
  • Section 180.705 includes additional evidence for officials to consider before initiating a suspension, e.g., “other indicators of adequate evidence that may include, but are not limited to, warrants and their accompanying affidavits.”
  • Section 180.860 adds as a factor influencing a debarment decision, “whether [an entity’s] business, technical, or professional license(s) has been suspended, terminated, or revoked.”

Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards


Updated Mandatory Disclosure Rule

  • Section 200.113 now aligns with the disclosure requirements under FAR 3.1003 and 52.203-13. Section 200.113 requires an applicant, recipient, or subrecipient to promptly make a written disclosure to the agency and the agency’s inspector general whenever, in connection with the federal award (including any activities or subawards thereunder), it has “credible evidence of the commission of a violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations” or a violation of the civil False Claims Act.  Subrecipients must also submit a copy of any written disclosure to the pass-through entity.

Requirements for Fixed Amount Awards and Subawards

  • Section 200.201(b)(1) states that fixed amount awards must be negotiated using the cost principles (or other pricing information) as a guide, and may be used if accurate cost, historical, or unit pricing data is available to establish a reasonable estimate of actual costs. After award, financial reporting of actual costs incurred by the recipient or subrecipient generally is not required, but recipients and subrecipients must still comply with record retention requirements and must make records available for review during an audit.
  • Section 200.201(b)(4) makes clear that, at the end of an award, the recipient or subrecipient must certify that the project was completed in order to retain the full award amount. If activities required by the award are not completed, then the recipient or subrecipient must identify those activities, and the award will be reduced by the amount reflecting the activities that were not completed.  In contrast, if the required program activities are complete in accordance with the terms of a fixed amount award, unexpended funds can be retained by the recipient or subrecipient and are not considered profit.  See, e.g., 2 CFR 200.400(g).
  • Section 200.333 increases the maximum value of a fixed amount subaward from $250,000 to $500,000.

Additions to the Post-Award Requirements Regarding Sourcing

  • 2 CFR 200.317 allows Tribal Government recipients to use their own internal procurement standards rather than complying with federal procurement standards prescribed in 2 CFR 200 200.318 through 200.327.

Addition of Cybersecurity Internal Controls

  • 2 CFR 200.303 adds “reasonable” cybersecurity internal control requirements to the information protection internal control requirements at 2 CFR 200.303(e). The Final Rule also clarifies that the cybersecurity and information safeguarding controls apply to all information, not just personally identifiable information and “other types of information” deemed sensitive.  While the Final Rule does not prescribe a specific framework for cybersecurity controls, OMB may specify guidance in the future.

Changes to Procurement Standards Regarding Labor Standards and Conflicts of Interest

  • 2 CFR 200.318(c) adds board members to the list of subrecipient or contractor personnel who can create conflicts of interest.
  • 2 CFR 200.318(h) now requires recipients or subrecipients to consider, as part of a responsibility determination, whether contractors properly classify employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Threshold Increases and Changes to 2 CFR 200 Subpart E, Cost Principle, and 2 CFR 200 Subpart F, Audit

  • Sections 200.313 and 200.314 each increase the thresholds, from $5,000 to $10,000, for the value of equipment and supplies a recipient may retain, sell, or dispose of at the end of the grant.
  • Section 200.414 (Subpart E) increases the standard de minimis indirect cost rate from 10 percent to 15 percent (while still permitting election of a lower rate), which may allow for a more realistic recovery of indirect costs, especially for new or inexperienced organizations that may not have the capacity to undergo formal rate negotiations.
  • Section 200.455 (Subpart E) expands allowable organization costs to include: (1) evaluation costs, e.g., evidence reviews, feasibility assessments, conducting evaluations, sharing evaluation results, and other personnel and material costs related to using evaluations for program design, administration, or improvement; and (2) data costs, e.g., the costs of personnel, building integrated data systems, data dashboards, and cybersecurity associated with using data to administer or improve the program.
  • 2 CFR 200.501 (Subpart F) raises the annual threshold of expenditures triggering a single audit or program-specific audit from $750,000 to $1 million.   

Key Takeaways

The Final Rule’s changes may help reduce some burdens on recipients, subrecipients, and contractors under federal assistance awards.  These changes and clarifications in the Final Rule are a welcome development given the increasing number of federal awards from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, among others.  That said, recipients and subrecipients should be mindful that agencies have some flexibility as to when and how they implement the Revised OMB Guidance in federal awards.  Accordingly, recipients, subrecipients, and subcontractors must closely monitor their federal awards in the coming months to understand the specific compliance obligations for each award, recognizing also there may be different compliance challenges with awards from different federal agencies. 

Crowell will continue to monitor and report on developments as agencies implement the new OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Lorraine M. Campos Lorraine M. Campos

Lorraine M. Campos is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group and focuses her practice on assisting clients with a variety of issues related to government contracts, government ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws. Lorraine…

Lorraine M. Campos is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group and focuses her practice on assisting clients with a variety of issues related to government contracts, government ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws. Lorraine regularly counsels clients on all aspects of the General Services Administration (GSA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) programs. She also routinely advises clients on the terms and conditions of these agreements, including the Price Reduction Clause, small business subcontracting requirements, and country of origin restrictions mandated under U.S. trade agreements, such as the Trade Agreements Act and the Buy American Act. Additionally, Lorraine advises life sciences companies, in particular, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, on federal procurement and federal pricing statutes, including the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992.

Lorraine has been ranked by Chambers USA since 2013, and she was recognized by Profiles in Diversity Journal as one of their “Women Worth Watching” for 2015. Additionally, Lorraine is active in the American Bar Association’s Section of Public Contract Law and serves as co-chair of the Health Care Contracting Committee.

Photo of Erin Rankin Erin Rankin

Erin Rankin is a partner in the Government Contracts Group and is experienced in resolving government contract disputes with a particular focus on cost allowability, cost accounting issues, and DCAA audit findings. Erin also advises clients on all aspects of FAR and DFARS…

Erin Rankin is a partner in the Government Contracts Group and is experienced in resolving government contract disputes with a particular focus on cost allowability, cost accounting issues, and DCAA audit findings. Erin also advises clients on all aspects of FAR and DFARS compliance in connection with the administration, performance, and closing out of government contracts. Erin has extensive experience representing government contractors before the Boards of Contract Appeals, defending companies against False Claims Act allegations, conducting internal investigations, and advocating for clients in mandatory disclosures and suspension and debarment proceedings.

Photo of J. Chris Haile J. Chris Haile

J. Chris Haile is a partner at Crowell & Moring with extensive experience in government procurement law. Mr. Haile litigates disputes and counsels clients in a broad range of government contract matters, with particular emphasis on the resolution of contract disputes. For example…

J. Chris Haile is a partner at Crowell & Moring with extensive experience in government procurement law. Mr. Haile litigates disputes and counsels clients in a broad range of government contract matters, with particular emphasis on the resolution of contract disputes. For example, Mr. Haile has represented clients in matters involving the government’s breach of contract, claims for contract changes, termination for default, termination for convenience, Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) compliance and defective pricing, commercial-item procurement, contract negotiations, and bid protests. He also represents clients in other related matters, such as investigations and audits by government agencies or inspectors general (IGs), False Claims Act / qui tam relator suits, and disclosures to the U.S. Government.

Photo of Skye Mathieson Skye Mathieson

Skye Mathieson is a partner in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He works with and advises clients from diverse industries on a wide array of matters, including contract performance disputes (CDA claims and equitable adjustments), cost allowability…

Skye Mathieson is a partner in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office. He works with and advises clients from diverse industries on a wide array of matters, including contract performance disputes (CDA claims and equitable adjustments), cost allowability issues, defective pricing, fiscal law questions, prime-sub disputes, bid protests, internal investigations, and responding to DCAA audits. Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Skye spent several years as a trial attorney at the procurement litigation division of the Air Force Headquarters for Legal Operations, where he pioneered the seminal “Laguna Defense” that is now widely raised and litigated at the Boards of Contract Appeals.

Skye has extensive experience litigating cases before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Through this litigation, Skye has gained valuable experience in a wide variety of industries, such as aerospace (fighter jets, satellites, refueling tankers, simulators, and counter-measures), information technology and software development, construction, healthcare services, intelligence gathering, battlefield services and logistics, scrap disposal, base maintenance and repair contracts, and many others.

Skye also has experience counseling and litigating on a broad range of legal issues, including defective pricing, cost disallowances, contract terminations, unique commercial item issues, constructive changes, differing site conditions, statute of limitations problems, CDA jurisdictional hurdles, contract fraud, Government superior knowledge, unabsorbed overhead and Eichleay damages, CICA stays and overrides, and small business issues.

Having advocated and litigated on behalf of both the government and contractors, Skye has unique insights into both parties’ perspectives that he leverages when exploring and negotiating settlements or other avenues for alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Where settlements are not possible, Skye embraces opportunities for courtroom advocacy. He has significant trial experience examining both expert and fact witnesses on both direct and cross examination, as well as taking and defending depositions, drafting hearing briefs and dispositive motions, and managing millions of pages of document production.

Skye is an active member of the government contracts community. He is the editor-in-chief of the BCA Bar Journal, a quarterly publication of the Boards of Contract Appeals Bar Association, which allows him to work alongside judges, government attorneys, and in-house counsel in the production of each issue. He is also a member of the ABA Section of Public Contract Law.

Photo of Laura J. Mitchell Baker Laura J. Mitchell Baker

Laura J. Mitchell Baker is a counsel with Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Laura represents government contractors in litigation and administrative matters, including contract disputes with state and federal entities, suspension and debarment proceedings, mandatory disclosures…

Laura J. Mitchell Baker is a counsel with Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Laura represents government contractors in litigation and administrative matters, including contract disputes with state and federal entities, suspension and debarment proceedings, mandatory disclosures to the government, prime-sub disputes, and False Claims Act investigations. Her practice also includes counseling on federal, state, and local government contracts, government contracts due diligence, and regulatory and compliance matters, as well as conducting internal investigations.

Photo of Alexandra Barbee-Garrett Alexandra Barbee-Garrett

Alexandra Barbee-Garrett is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where she practices in the Government Contracts Group.

Alex represents government contractors in both litigation and counseling matters. Her practice includes bid protests before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S.

Alexandra Barbee-Garrett is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where she practices in the Government Contracts Group.

Alex represents government contractors in both litigation and counseling matters. Her practice includes bid protests before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alex’s practice also focuses on federal regulatory compliance, mandatory disclosures to the government, contract disputes under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), prime-sub disputes, and False Claims Act and internal investigations.

Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Alex was a law clerk to Judge Richard A. Hertling of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and a government contracts associate at another large law firm. Alex graduated honors from The George Washington University Law School, where she was an articles editor of The Public Contract Law Journal. Alex won the 2015 Government Contracts Moot Court Competition and served as chair for the 2016 competition. Prior to law school, Alex worked as a health care legislative assistant for Rep. Rick Larsen (WA) in the U.S. House of Representatives. She received her B.A. in international studies and anthropology from the University of Washington.

Photo of Catherine Shames Catherine Shames

Catherine O. Shames is an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring, where she is a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group.

Catherine’s government contracts practice focuses on contract claims/disputes under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), prime-sub disputes, transactional…

Catherine O. Shames is an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring, where she is a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group.

Catherine’s government contracts practice focuses on contract claims/disputes under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), prime-sub disputes, transactional due diligence, internal investigations, and disclosures under the Mandatory Disclosure Rule. She also assists contractors with cost allowability issues and responding to DCAA audits.