Photo of Richard Arnholt

Richard Arnholt

Richard Arnholt advises companies, large and small, on the complex rules and regulations applicable to grants and contracts from federal and state governmental entities. In an era of increased budgetary pressures for contractors, Richard focuses his practice on providing practical business and legal guidance to help clients efficiently navigate the minefield of government procurement and grant regulations.

Follow:Read more about Richard ArnholtRichard's Linkedin Profile

For nearly two years, we have been reporting on this blog about the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program. CMMC is a training, certification, and third-party assessment program designed to protect federal contract information (FCI) and controlled unclassified information (CUI) shared by DoD with its contractors and subcontractors through federal acquisition programs.

On November 4, the DOD announced that CMMC 2.0 would replace CMMC 1.0. The announcement was followed by a publication in the Federal Register of a summary of DOD’s CMMC 2.0 plans, which explains that the changes will be implemented through the notice and comment rulemaking process, proposing revisions/additions to titles 32 and 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The decision was driven in large part by the more than 850 public comments submitted to the DoD in response to the CMMC 1.0 interim DFARS rule released on September 29, 2020, focusing on the need to enhance CMMC by doing the following, according to CMMC Frequently Asked Questions:

  1. Reducing costs, particularly for small businesses.
  2. Increasing trust in the CMMC assessment ecosystem.
  3. Clarifying and aligning cybersecurity requirements to other federal requirements and commonly accepted standards.

Continue Reading DOD Scraps CMMC 1.0 for CMMC 2.0

On December 6, we noted on this blog post that because the injunction issued by the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on November 30 prohibiting the government from enforcing the government contractor vaccine mandate against contractors and subcontractors in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee had national impact, a nationwide injunction seemed to make sense.

Today, the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, which held a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction on December 3, did just that.

The President Likely Exceeded Statutory Authority

The order granted the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiffs – Georgia, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia – finding that they “will likely succeed in their claim that the President exceeded the authorization given to him by Congress through the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) when issuing Executive Order [EO] 14042.”Continue Reading Georgia District Court Enjoins Government Contractor Vaccine Mandate Nationwide

As we previously reported, on November 30, the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (ED of KY) enjoined the government “from enforcing the vaccine mandate for federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.” This follows nationwide injunctions of both the OSHA vaccine and testing Emergency Temporary Standard applicable to employers with 100 or more employees and the CMS interim final rule mandating vaccinations applicable to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers.

As expected, on December 3, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the ED of KY for an immediate stay of the injunction and filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit. The plaintiffs have asked for three business days to respond, and it is unclear when the ED of KY will act on DOJ’s request. But the ED of KY case may be overtaken by other events, as preliminary injunction hearings in additional challenges to the government contractor vaccine mandate occurred on December 3 in two cases and are expected to happen on December 6 and 7 in two others.

Limited or Nationwide Injunction?

In the past few years, several commentators have questioned the conditions, if any, under which district courts may issue nationwide injunctions. While this is a very complex issue that brings into question the rights of the parties in a particular case, those in favor of limiting injunctions to the plaintiffs in the case generally favor having multiple district courts consider an issue so that the legal arguments are better developed before consideration by the appellate courts. Those in favor of nationwide injunctions believe that consistency is favorable, any district court is authorized to enjoin any executive branch action that it determines to be unlawful, and the government’s ability to appeal an injunction provides sufficient protection against improperly issued injunctions.Continue Reading DOJ Seeks Stay of KY, OH, and TN Injunction; Hearings Go Forward in Other Government Contractor Vaccine Mandate Cases

In a decision issued on November 17, JKB Solutions v. United States, the Federal Circuit held that the commercial item termination for convenience provision at FAR 52.212-4(l) incorporated by reference into a contract for commercial services did not apply because that provision “governs the termination of commercial item contracts for the government’s convenience, and it does not apply to service contracts ….” (emphasis added).

If taken to its logical conclusion, this remarkable decision would mean that no commercial “item” provision in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) applies to services even if incorporated in the contract, effectively overturning a decades-long understanding that the commercial item definition encompasses both goods and services. In one fell swoop, the Federal Circuit effectively eliminated the entire category of commercial services.

Background

JKB had entered into a three-year ID/IQ contract with the Army for instructor services, under which the Army issued three yearlong task orders.  The price of each task order included 14 classes, but each year the Army used JKB for fewer than 14 classes, using Army personnel to teach the balance of the classes, paying JKB only for the classes it actually taught.

As a result, JKB sued for breach of contract.  The Court of Federal Claims (COFC) held that the Army had constructively terminated the contract for convenience pursuant to FAR 52.212-4, which was incorporated by reference, and that the termination for convenience had not been in bad faith or an abuse of discretion because the contract was never actually terminated for convenience.  In so holding, the court concluded that JKB could only recover its termination for convenience costs, which it had not sought in its complaint. JKB appealed.Continue Reading Did the Federal Circuit Just Eliminate Commercial Services?

On November 30, the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky enjoined the government contractor vaccine mandate issued in accordance with President Biden’s Executive Order 14042. This injunction follows an injunction issued on November 29 of the CMS vaccine mandate and the earlier injunction of the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard by the Fifth Circuit.…

Likely in response to the flurry of litigation challenging the government contractor vaccine mandate, on November 16 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a new notice of determination and request for comments in the Federal Register. The new determination, which rescinds and supersedes the prior notice issued on September 24, 2021, and published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2021, provides additional support for the revised Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force) Guidance issued on November 10, 2021.

Task Force Guidance Published for the First Time

The revised notice, which asks that comments be submitted on or before December 16, 2021, is divided into three parts.  Part I published in the Federal Register for the first time the entire Task Force Guidance. While it is positive that the Guidance has finally been published, it is incomplete in one major respect. Specifically, although the November 10 version published in the Federal Register includes links to the regularly-updated frequently asked questions (FAQs), OMB fails to mention that the FAQs and the Guidance are subject to revision or that the contract provisions implementing these requirements mandate that contractors comply with the Guidance as it appears now and “as amended during the performance” of the contract.

OMB Expands its Economic Analysis

Part II of the notice, titled “Economy-and-Efficiency Analysis,” provides a post hoc justification for the measures initially taken over six weeks ago.  While some of OMB’s arguments and observations may have merit, the analysis leaves many open questions.Continue Reading OMB Attempts to Plug Holes in the Government Contractor Vaccine Mandate

In an opinion first publicly released on November 3, the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) took the somewhat usual, but not unheard of, step of sanctioning the government for mishandling the administrative record (AR) in a bid protest. Contractors can take heart that COFC will hold the government accountable when it fails to produce the entire AR.  The decision also provides a useful reminder of one of the advantages of filing a protest at COFC rather than the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Background

As we recently wrote about on this blog, on August 2, Judge Solomson sustained a protest filed by Oak Grove Technologies that argued the putative awardee had improperly benefited from unmitigated unequal access to information and biased ground rules organizational conflicts of interests. The decision noted that the government had failed to include in the AR a Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) report indicating an offeror was ineligible and a letter terminating the chair of the Source Selection Evaluation Board that suggested the chair had failed to evaluate the offerors’ proposals fairly.

The decision admonished the government for its “sentient choices regarding the contents of the administrative record, all of which appear to have favored the Agency,” noting that “[s]uch apparent gamesmanship wastes judicial resources and undermines trust in both the procurement and disputes process.”Continue Reading Records in Bid Protest Become More Complete – COFC Sanctions the Government for AR Omissions

As expected, late on November 10 the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force revised its government contractor vaccine mandate Guidance to extend the deadline for covered contractor employees to get vaccinated. This revision follows the White House announcement on November 4 that the deadline for implementation of the federal government contractor mandate would be synchronized with the CMS rule and the currently-stayed OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard, requiring that employees under all three regimes receive their last vaccine dose by January 4, 2022. Instead of using the date by which employees had to received their last vaccine dose, January 4, the Guidance has been revised to now say that covered contractor employees must be fully vaccinated by January 18, 2022 rather than the original December 8, 2021. As a reminder, fully vaccinated means an individual must have received the last vaccine dose two weeks prior.

In addition, the Q&A that previously appeared at the end of the September 24 Guidance has been removed and replaced with two references to the Task Force’s website:

Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions regarding this Guidance can be found here: https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/faq/contractors/

All Task Force Guidance, FAQs, and additional information for Federal contractors and subcontractors can be found here: https://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors

It is not clear whether any other changes were made to the Guidance because the changes were not made in redline.Continue Reading More Revisions to the Government Contractor Vaccine Mandate

The five cases challenging the contractor vaccine mandate filed in various district courts by 22 states, which we discussed on this blog last week, continue to develop. Motions for preliminary injunctions have now been filed in all cases except the suit filed by Texas, and briefing schedules/hearings are set or in process.

Status of Challenges

Here is a quick rundown of the status of the suits:

  • Florida (Middle District of Florida) – Motion for a Preliminary Injunction was filed on November 2. On November 8, the court set a briefing schedule. Oral argument is scheduled for December 7 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern in Tampa Courtroom 15 A.
  • Texas (Southern District of Texas) – Initial pretrial and scheduling conference set for February. 23, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. Central. As of November 10, no motion for a preliminary injunction has been filed.
  • Missouri, Nebraska, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming (Eastern District of Missouri) – Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed on November 4. On November 9, the states filed a Motion to Expedite Preliminary Injunction Briefing.
  • Georgia, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia (Southern District of Georgia) – Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed on November 5. Emergency motion to expedite the hearing schedule was filed on November 8, and a telephonic hearing on that motion is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. Eastern on November 10.
  • Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio (Eastern District of Kentucky) – Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction was filed on November 8. A status conference was held on November 9 to set a briefing and hearing schedule.

Continue Reading The State Challenges to the Contractor Vaccine Mandate Continue

In welcome news for government contractors, the government contractor vaccine mandate continues to soften.  In a statement issued by the White House this morning, the deadline for complying with the mandate will be extended from December 8, 2021, to January 4, 2022, to align with the deadline of the OSHA emergency temporary standard that was…

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.