Photo of Anuj VohraPhoto of J. Chris HailePhoto of Rebecca SpringerPhoto of Per MidboePhoto of Alexandra Barbee-GarrettPhoto of Kris D. MeadePhoto of Trina Fairley Barlow

Congress has not passed crucial funding bills for the start of Fiscal Year 2026.  If Congress fails to act by September 30, the government may be forced to shut down for lack of funding.  In anticipation of that possibility, agencies government-wide are preparing for a shutdown, and contractors and companies that work with the government should do so as well.  Our team is ready and available to help advise companies through the shutdown process.

I. What Is a Government Shutdown?

The federal government may only spend or promise to spend in the amounts, for the purpose, and subject to the conditions Congress sets out in its annual appropriations bills.  A government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass appropriations for a new fiscal year before the prior fiscal year expires on September 30. 

Simply put, without an appropriations law passed by Congress and signed by the President, the government generally has to stop spending money, meaning it must shut down operations, close offices, and send employees home.  There are a few notable exceptions: even in a shutdown, the government can continue activities involving the safety of human life or the protection of property; required to carry out constitutional functions; or funded through other means, such as irregular appropriations, user fees, working capital, or unexpired prior-year appropriations.

II. What Is Different About This Potential Shutdown?

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the central budget policy body for the executive branch of the federal government, reportedly released a memo to agencies directing them to take steps to end programs, projects and activities supported by “discretionary” funds that did not receive additional appropriations through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and that “are not consistent with the President’s priorities.”  The memo takes the position that a shutdown would essentially mean that those programs “are no longer statutorily required to be carried out” and agencies “are directed to use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force (RIF) notices for all employees” supporting those programs, projects, and activities.

If the directions in the OMB Memo are carried out, it could have impacts beyond a government shutdown, including delaying agency restarts when the shutdown ends, and becoming a longer-term impediment to contract and grant administration.

III. Shutdown Impacts on Contractors and Grant Recipients 

The direct impact on any federal contractor or grant recipient will vary based upon the terms of their individual funding instruments, but there are a number of common questions all are likely to face:

  • What is the Contracting or Awarding Agency’s Plan? Agencies across the government are issuing shutdown operating plans.  For example, the Department of DefenseDepartment of Homeland SecurityDepartment of Health and Human Services (and its operating divisions), Department of StateDepartment of Veterans AffairsDepartment of TransportationDepartment of Energy,[1]Small Business Administration,[2]Environmental Protection Agency,[3]and federal Judiciary have all issued shutdown guidance for a lapse in appropriations for FY2026.  The plans restate general rules that contractors and grant recipients should continue performing under contracts awarded and funded prior to the shutdown, but that agencies may not issue modifications or award new contracts, options, or grants, unless they are related to “excepted” activities.  The plans also reflect the probability of furloughs of large numbers of government personnel.  Contractors and grant recipients should review their contracting or awarding agency’s guidance to understand any agency-specific plans.
  • What Happens if the Program, Project, or Activity My Agreement Supports Is Terminated in a Shutdown? As agencies implement OMB’s guidance, some agencies will identify programs, projects, or activities that are not supported by mandatory funds, did not receive supplemental appropriations in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act or another source of funding, and have been deemed not to support the President’s policy priorities.  Contractors and grant recipients should pay special attention to the sources of authorization and appropriation for their contracts and/or grants, and be aware of potential impacts.  
  • What Happens if Performance Is Delayed or Disrupted? Due to the unavailability of appropriated funds, contractors and grant recipients may be unable to access closed government facilities or obtain timely approvals, directions or support from the government.  For example, a contractor that performs services in a federal facility may find that the facility is closed, so the contractor’s employees do not have access to their workplace.  In that situation, the contractor would need to consider employment law implications of its actions, discussed more below.  Contractors and grant recipients should track and document the cost and schedule impact of both the disrupted work and their employee relations actions so that a potential future modification can appropriately reflect any increases in their work associated with the shutdown. 
  • Can My Contract Workload Increase? Some contractors may be approached by their government customer seeking to off-load, at least temporarily, work that cannot be performed by the government during the shutdown period.  If contract funding is available, the government may want to increase the scope of the contract in order to ensure that certain work is not disrupted or delayed.  Contractors should track and document any changes in workload to ensure that any increases in scope and associated cost or price adjustments are appropriately reflected in a contract modification.
  • Can I Stop Performance? In extreme circumstances, contractors or grant recipients may have to question whether to continue performance in the face of potentially material government failures to pay.
    • A unilateral cessation of work involves considerable risk for a contractor, particularly considering the duty to proceed imposed by the FAR “Disputes” clause.  FAR 52.233-1 requires that “[t]he Contractor shall proceed diligently with performance of this contract, pending final resolution of any request for relief, claim, appeal, or action arising under the contract.”  The “Alt. I” version of the Disputes clause extends that duty further to issues “relating to” the contract, which is generally understood to include government breach.  Failure to comply with the duty to proceed can be an independent basis for the government to terminate a contractor for default.  Contractors considering unilateral cessation of performance should first seek legal guidance based upon a detailed analysis of the relevant facts and law.
    • Grants often lack a provision allowing the government or the recipient to pause their work.  Grant recipients should review their agreements for specific terms regarding work stoppages and any duty to proceed.
  • Where Is the Money? For incrementally funded awards, contractors and grant recipients will need to consider the implications of the various standard clauses (Limitation of Costs, Limitation of Funds, Limitation of Government Obligations) that may affect the government’s obligation to pay costs in excess of the amounts already obligated to their contracts or grants.  Of particular concern will be the standard provisions in those clauses that may limit the government’s liability for termination costs in the event that the contracts are eventually terminated without new funding.  But for contracts and grants that are fully funded or that have incremental funding sufficient to cover all anticipated costs, including termination costs, a shutdown would not normally create new funding risks.
  • When Will I Be Paid?There may be delays in payment. As noted above, the government’s ultimate legal liability for payments due on contracts and grants that are already funded at the time of the shutdown is unlikely to be an issue, but if government employees who process contractor invoices and grant recipient drawdown requests are not at work, payments are likely to be delayed.  
  • What Remedies Are Available?Agreement type and the availability of a remedy from the government for the consequences of a shutdown will also be important in the decision-making process. For contractors and grant recipients with cost-reimbursement contracts, reasonable costs associated with a shutdown should be recoverable, although there may be allocability and allowability issues on specific cost items.  On fixed-price contracts, any recovery from the government will likely depend on whether the contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment. And, on time and materials contracts, there are likely to be contract-specific issues about whether the contractor is entitled to be paid under the contract for idle time or would need to make a claim for an equitable adjustment. Again, every situation should be assessed separately, based on specific facts. In general, however, contractors and grant recipients should take steps to ensure that any increased costs associated with the shutdown are recorded and itemized to support a claim or a request for equitable adjustment, if one becomes necessary.
  • Can I Protest a Solicitation or Award During a Shutdown?  While agencies are unlikely to issue new solicitations or award new contracts during the shutdown, contractors may still have timely protest issues at the start of the shutdown period.  Contractors considering protest should note that the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) is likely to be closed during the shutdown.  Historically, GAO has considered protests filed on days when the office is closed to be filed at 8:30 a.m. on the first day that GAO reopens.  If that is the case, protests filed during the shutdown may be considered untimely, but that untimeliness may be excused.  Protests in the Court of Federal Claims may continue until the judiciary’s funds expire, as noted above, although delays are possible given that Department of Justice attorneys may be furloughed.

IV. What Is the Impact on Workers Supporting Federal Contracts or Grants?

Two primary employment issues can arise in the shutdown: (1) jeopardized Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state-law corollary exemption status for employees who are “exempt” from minimum wage and overtime requirements; and (2) Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act obligations.

During a government shutdown, many government contractors implement unpaid furloughs of employees. FLSA exemption issues can arise when unpaid furlough periods reduce   the compensation level of exempt employees below the threshold required for them to maintain their exempt status under federal, state, or local law. For example, an exempt executive, administrative, or professional employee must be paid a salary of at least $684 per week to maintain their exemption under the FLSA and is entitled to be paid in full for any week in which they perform any work. Contractors implementing mid-week furloughs that do not pay exempt employees for the portion of the week they did not work jeopardize those employees’ exempt status by doing so.  These contractors also risk the exempt status of other employees in the same job classification working for the same supervisors.  If employees’ exempt status is lost, employers will be required to pay overtime to those employees who work over 40 hours in a workweek and for such other periods required under applicable state and local laws.

To avoid the loss of employees’ exempt status, contractors should ensure that exempt employees do not perform any work at all during weeks in which they are in an unpaid furlough status. Employers should be aware that work includes checking emails and work-related text messages, for example.  Employers should consider what steps are necessary to ensure that employees who are on unpaid furlough are not performing work.  This may include temporarily blocking access to company networks and clearly communicating expectations to affected workers.  Contractors may also consider requiring exempt employees to use accrued vacation pay or other paid time off during the furlough period to mitigate these risks, provided such a requirement complies with company leave policies and applicable law. 

Furloughs may also trigger federal or state-equivalent WARN requirements. The federal WARN Act and its state-law equivalents generally require that an employer implementing a mass layoff must provide affected employees with 60 days’ notice. While a layoff does not trigger the federal WARN Act until it exceeds six months (which is an unlikely duration for a shutdown), state WARN requirements may apply. For example, in California the state WARN Act does not specify the duration of a qualifying layoff, and at least one court has required California WARN notice for layoffs that lasted only three to five weeks. See Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Nassco Holdings Inc., 17 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).

As a shutdown approaches, contractors should incorporate plans for addressing these employment issues into their contingency plans for a potential shutdown.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Anuj Vohra Anuj Vohra

Anuj Vohra litigates high-stakes disputes on behalf of government contractors in federal and state court, and maintains an active bid protest practice before the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He also assists clients with an array of…

Anuj Vohra litigates high-stakes disputes on behalf of government contractors in federal and state court, and maintains an active bid protest practice before the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He also assists clients with an array of issues related to contract formation (including subcontracts and teaming agreements), regulatory compliance, internal and government-facing investigations, suspension and debarment, organizational conflicts of interest (“OCIs”), intellectual property and data rights, and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

Prior to entering private practice, Anuj spent six years as a Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Commercial Litigation Branch. At DOJ, he was a member of the Bid Protest Team—which handles the department’s largest and most complex protests—and served as lead counsel in dozens of matters representing the United States in commercial disputes before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

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 Rebecca Springer Rebecca Springer

Rebecca Springer joined Crowell & Moring in 1999 and currently serves as partner in the Labor & Employment Group. Her practice focuses on labor and employment litigation and counseling, particularly in the area of Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) compliance. Rebecca…

Rebecca Springer joined Crowell & Moring in 1999 and currently serves as partner in the Labor & Employment Group. Her practice focuses on labor and employment litigation and counseling, particularly in the area of Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) compliance. Rebecca has extensive experience conducting audits of personnel practices, preparing Affirmative Action Plans, and counseling clients on affirmative action issues. She also has experience conducting statistical analyses of compensation and other personnel practices for purposes of class action litigation, OFCCP compliance audits, and employer self-audits, and frequently teams with labor economists to analyze compensation and advise clients on potential risks and proactive measures to address compensation disparities.

Photo of Per Midboe Per Midboe

Government contractors large and small trust Per David Midboe to solve their most complex legal challenges to winning and successfully performing work for the government. Building on his substantial Navy experience, Per advises clients —  particularly in the defense, emerging technologies,  and IT…

Government contractors large and small trust Per David Midboe to solve their most complex legal challenges to winning and successfully performing work for the government. Building on his substantial Navy experience, Per advises clients —  particularly in the defense, emerging technologies,  and IT sectors — on critical competition issues under the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, including solicitation terms, evaluation factors, organizational conflict of interest issues, bidders’ Q&As, request for information responses, subcontract formations, conducting discussions, government data rights clauses, subcontractor flow-downs, Procurement Integrity Act investigations, and debriefs. He also has a substantial bid protest practice, representing clients at the Government Accountability Office, at the Court of Federal Claims, and in state court bid protest litigation.

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 Kris D. Meade Kris D. Meade

Kris D. Meade is co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Labor & Employment Group. He is also a member of the firm’s Management Board and Executive Committee. He counsels and represents employers in the full range of employment and traditional labor law matters, including…

Kris D. Meade is co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Labor & Employment Group. He is also a member of the firm’s Management Board and Executive Committee. He counsels and represents employers in the full range of employment and traditional labor law matters, including individual and class action lawsuits filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ERISA, and companion state statutes. Kris represents employers in connection with union organizing campaigns, collective bargaining, labor arbitrations, and unfair labor practice litigation. In 2020, Chambers USA recognized Kris as a leading labor and employment lawyer.

Photo of Trina Fairley Barlow Trina Fairley Barlow

Trina Fairley Barlow is co-chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Group and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. She devotes a substantial portion of her practice to helping government contractors navigate and comply with the myriad laws, regulations, and Executive…

Trina Fairley Barlow is co-chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Group and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. She devotes a substantial portion of her practice to helping government contractors navigate and comply with the myriad laws, regulations, and Executive Orders which impact employers who are also government contractors. Trina’s experience includes advising federal contractors on the requirements of the Service Contract Act, as well as the Davis Bacon Act, and assisting clients with developing compliance strategies that reduce legal risks. In addition, Trina has defended and advised clients in False Claim Act (FCA) whistleblower retaliation cases and has led large internal investigations that frequently encompass a complex combination of labor and employment, government contracts, and ethics and compliance issues. In connection with such investigations and in other contexts, clients also frequently call upon Trina to assist them with developing compliant policies and internal practices that achieve business objectives while simultaneously reducing potential legal risks and exposure.