This week’s episode covers developments involving DOJ’s guidance for federal funding recipients regarding DEI and the White House AI Action Plan, and is hosted by Peter Eyre, Katie Erno, and Matthew F. Ferraro. Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest 5 Minutes” is a biweekly podcast that provides a brief summary of significant government contracts legal and regulatory developments that no government contracts lawyer or executive should be without.
Click below to listen or access from one of these links:
A recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision provides useful guidance on when the government may (or may not) waive its defense that a contractor’s claim failed to state a sum certain. In GE Renewables US, LLC, the contractor had submitted a claim to the contracting officer for a determination that the contractor had the right to an economic price adjustment (EPA) due to an inflation-related price increase. Notably, the contractor did not provide the value of its requested adjustment in its claim. The contracting officer denied the claim, and the contractor appealed to the Board.
Continue Reading A Greater Sum of Certainty: ASBCA Weighs in on when Sum Certain Defense Is Not Waived
Current political priorities in Congress will continue to push many industries under the microscope of Congressional investigations, including universities, tech companies, entities that receive federal funds, and energy-sector companies. When the chambers of Congress and the executive branch are controlled by the same party, Congressional oversight of the executive branch is less intense and instead public and private sector, state, and local entities are more likely to find themselves in the crosshairs. If a chamber of Congress changes hands in the midterm elections, the focus of the oversight may shift to reflect the policy priorities of the moment and include more executive branch oversight, but even the executive branch is often contending with requests for information that may implicate their dealings with third parties; for example, there is a risk that agency oversight triggers requests for privileged material belonging to a government contractor or grantee. The topics and industries of highest interest may play musical chairs, but entities across sectors would do well to incorporate a few best practices that will mitigate their risk should they end up in the hot seat, either directly or through a government partner.
Continue Reading Protecting Information in Congressional Investigations: The Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product Privilege
Last week, we wrote that concerns about excessive, unchecked executive branch power resulting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA—which declared universal/nationwide injunctions likely exceeded district courts’ equitable authority under FRCP 65—felt premature, because there were a number of other levers district courts could pull to deliver the equivalent of nationwide injunctive relief. We discussed how Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is one such lever. That section authorizes courts to “postpone the effective date” of a challenged agency action pending judicial review utilizing the same four-factor test applicable to requests for injunctive relief.
Continue Reading Meet the New Nationwide Injunction. Same as the Old Nationwide Injunction.
On July 11, 2025, the Department of Education issued a new interpretive rule entitled “Clarification of Federal Public Benefits under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.” The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) generally limits “eligibility for ‘federal public benefits’ to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and certain categories of qualified aliens.” The Department concluded that certain postsecondary education programs, “including adult education programs authorized under Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, [and] postsecondary career and technical education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006,” constitute “Federal public benefits under the PRWORA and thus are subject to PRWORA’s citizenship verification requirements.”
Continue Reading New Department of Education Interpretive Rule Ends Federal Education Grants for Undocumented Students
On July 23, 2025, the White House released Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan (“the Plan”) the Trump Administration’s most significant policy statement on artificial intelligence to date.
Continue Reading White House AI Action Plan Seeks to Establish “Dominance,” Boost Innovation, and Scrutinize Regulations
A recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) reinforces the FAR part 49 provisions governing terminations for convenience, which provide that contractors are entitled to fair compensation and that settlements for such terminations should not rigidly rely on cost and accounting data. In D-STAR Eng’g Corp., ASBCA Nos. 62075, 62780 (Apr. 28, 2025), the government had terminated the contractor’s cost-plus-fixed-fee research and development contract for convenience. Following the contractor’s submission of its termination settlement proposal (TSP), the government questioned certain costs claimed, disputed the fee owed to the contractor, determined it had overpaid the contractor, and issued a debt demand claim for disallowed costs. The contractor then submitted its own, affirmative claim incorporating its TSP and seeking additional costs and interest. The most interesting portion of the ASBCA’s decision is its discussion of the methods available to the parties to calculate the amount of fee to which the contractor was entitled following the termination for convenience, which we describe below. However, the ASBCA also addressed the allowability and allocability of various cost types that may be of interest, including termination settlement costs, direct labor, engineering overhead, and G&A.
Continue Reading All Together Now: “Many Ways to Calculate Fee After a T4C”
The following is an installment in Crowell & Moring’s Bid Protest Sustain of the Month Series. In this series, Crowell’s Government Contracts Practice will keep you up to date with a summary of one of the most notable bid protest sustain decisions each month. Below, Crowell Consultant (and former GAO Bid Protest Hearing Officer) Cherie Owen discusses GAO’s decision in DirectViz Solutions, LLC, B-423366, June 11, 2025, which sustained a protester’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI) arguments.
Continue Reading June 2025 Bid Protest Sustain of the Month: Impaired Objectivity OCI Allegations Find Success at GAO
This week’s episode covers developments involving the Department of Homeland Security, and is hosted by Peter Eyre and Sharmi Das. Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest 5 Minutes” is a biweekly podcast that provides a brief summary of significant government contracts legal and regulatory developments that no government contracts lawyer or executive should be without.
Click below to listen or access from one of these links:
PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes
The deadlines for filing a GAO protest are short and strictly enforced. In post-award protests, the general rule is that a company must file its protest within ten days of when the protester knows, or should have known, of its basis of protest. However, GAO’s regulations provide an exception to this rule for “protests challenging a procurement conducted on the basis of competitive proposals under which a debriefing is requested and, when requested, is required”—in such a situation, “[the] protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered to the protester, but shall be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held.” 4 CFR §21.2(a)(2).
Continue Reading GAO Moves the Goalposts: New Post-Debriefing Timeliness Trap for Protesters