The Department of Veterans Affairs is preparing to issue what’s likely to become one of the largest service contracts in government history as it restructures its arrangements, aiming for rigorous management of the department’s role as a health care payer and greater competition among health care management firms.

The massive contract vehicle represents only the second time VA has signed large contracts with health plans to coordinate private sector care for veterans. The first was shortly after the MISSION Act was signed in 2018. Those contracts are now expiring, and in their place, VA is preparing one large indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract with a total potential value of $700 billion over the next ten years.

Among the changes the department is aiming for is a much more rigorous approach to program management in its “community care network,” said Richard Topping, VA’s assistant secretary for management and chief financial officer.

“This program has been unmanaged since its inception. None of the tools, none of the controls that we are talking about introducing here have been available,” he told the House Veterans Affairs Committee on Thursday. “VA had no ability to manage this program, to drive quality, to focus on the outcomes for veterans, to focus on cost. We’ve now got the ability to do that in this contract. The way we designed this unmanaged program also made it very difficult for industry to partner with us. It made it very difficult for community providers to serve our veterans, because it didn’t operate like any other payer program.”

The new contract, called Community Care Network Next Generation, is meant to change much of that. VA says the department intends to cast a wide net for vendors — creating an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract that doesn’t only attract large, national health insurers.

“We are very intentionally not limiting it to the large vendors. The intention is to open this up to competition, to non-large vendors, to those who might bring regional capabilities, regional capacity, and that would not be able to operate on a national or semi-national scale,” Topping said. “They will incur a cost to bid and be awarded a spot on the vehicle. But once they do that, the vendors who are on the vehicle with us, large and small, have a seat at the table with VA, with our program management team to design the task orders. There are two initial task orders in the initial award, those look a lot like what we have now. But we are going to immediately partner with the vendors on the vehicle to begin to build the next more regional, more adaptable, more local models in our task orders.”

Value-based payment models and utilization management

VA plans to use the ID/IQ for its purchased health care for up to ten years. The contract includes a three-year base period, followed by three two-year option periods, and a final one-year option period. During that time, the department plans to use on-ramps and off-ramps to bring new vendors onto the contract — and remove ones that aren’t meeting performance standards.

And contract performance will be overseen and measured by VA program officials who plan to start implementing measures that value quality care over numbers of procedures performed, Topping said.

“VA will implement a comprehensive quality program for community care providers based on nationally recognized measures from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Contractors will track patient safety events, identify veterans at risk of avoidable visits and readmissions through predictive analytics, and while respecting their choice, guide veterans towards higher performing providers,” he said. “Next Gen will modernize how VA pays its contractors for the care furnished to veterans by implementing value-based payment models. We will begin with episode-based payments for lower extremity joint replacements. As we gain the data and the expertise to manage alternative payments, we will introduce at least three additional models over the performance period of the contract to continually improve care. These models will shift payment away from volume and toward outcomes and total cost of care, which aligns contractor incentives with veterans’ health and system sustainability. We will introduce utilization management. This includes active management of inpatient admissions, emergency department use, concurrent hospital reviews, and high cost drugs administered in clinical settings. This will reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and inappropriate care while protecting veterans’ access to medically necessary services.”

Questions from Congressional overseers

But the department faced bipartisan skepticism during the hearing, partly because VA officials have been slow to detail their plans for the CCN Next Gen effort to members of Congress. VA’s overseers on the House Veterans Affairs Committee say they found out the details of the contract at the same time vendors did — when the request for proposals was released a little over a month ago.

“I understand the VA finds it unprecedented to hold a hearing on an active contract solicitation. I appreciate the sensitivity of the contract, but it is also unprecedented to avoid Congress’s oversight of $1 trillion of spending,” said Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.), the committee’s chairman. “My staff and the ranking member’s staff have been told that some topics are off limits because of the sensitive nature of the contract and solicitation. We’ve tried to create a venue in which VA would feel comfortable to speak candidly to our members, but unfortunately, VA failed to assure us of such candor.”

Meanwhile, Democrats on the committee also worry that the new contract will serve as a way to further privatize VA health care — pointing out that more than 40% of veterans’ care is already delivered by private providers through the existing contracts.

Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.) said he worried that the contract will lead to large, vertically-integrated conglomerates driving veterans into facilities they control, and away from smaller community-based providers.

“I don’t trust big insurance companies to take care of anybody. The sole thing that motivates them is profit. It’s not people, and it’s certainly not our veterans,” he said. “We have the right to be skeptical when we are talking about private insurance companies taking care of people, because right now they don’t.”

But Topping said the department believes it can avoid problems like the ones McGarvey is worried about through strong oversight and program management.

“The vendors, our health plan partners on this, don’t make the clinical referral from the direct care system to community care. VA does that,” he said. “They don’t make the referral to the provider or determine eligibility [for community care], VA determines that. VA drives where and how our veterans receive care, and we want to know what we’re buying. We want to steer our veterans to the highest quality, lowest cost providers. That goal is not unique to VA — it’s new to us, but we’re bringing this into this program.”

Vendors hoping for a spot on the contract have until March 16 to submit their proposals.

The post VA readies massive contract for veterans’ private sector health care first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

The Small Business Administration suspended more than 1,000 companies in the 8(a) program. SBA made the decision after it deemed those small businesses non-compliant with its financial data request from December.

“Suspended firms have 45 days to appeal the suspension,” said Maggie Clemmons, an SBA spokesperson in an email to Federal News Network. “SBA will release further information on the suspensions in the coming days.”

The suspension comes after SBA sent a letter to more than 4,300 8(a) firms in December seeking 13 different data, ranging from a list of the company’s employees to bank statements for the last three fiscal years to a copy of all 8(a) contracts, as part of its ongoing audit of the program.

Data compiled by GovContractPros, an advisory services firm specializing in federal procurement, found that SBA admitted 753 companies into the 8(a) program in fiscal 2024. Of those 753 firms, the company says SBA suspended 156 of them.

In fiscal 2025, SBA says it admitted only 65 companies into the 8(a) firm. GovContractPros says SBA suspended 10 of those firms, including nine which joined the program after the Trump administration began leading SBA.

Lawyers that represent small businesses say SBA issued the suspensions on Wednesday based on the fact that the 8(a) firms either failed to submit their responses on or before the Jan. 19 deadline or submitted incomplete responses.

“At least some firms that submitted complete data call responses only one day late — on Jan. 20, and before any suspension notices were issued — often due to errors in the government-operated MySBA Certifications portal, nonetheless received suspension notices, indicating that SBA is taking a strict approach to alleged non-compliance with the filing deadline,” wrote Meghan Leemon and Matt Feinberg, partners with the law firm Piliero Mazza, on a blog post. “Firms subject to 8(a) suspension are not permitted to receive new competitive or sole-source 8(a) awards. However, firms are required to complete existing 8(a) contracts, and federal agencies may exercise options on those contracts, even while a firm is suspended, unless otherwise prohibited by statute or regulation.”

SBA’s new clarifying guidance

The suspensions are part of a broad Trump administration effort to audit the 8(a) program and address allegations of fraud and abuse. SBA’s data call was one of several ongoing audits to now include the Treasury Department, the General Services Administration and, as of last week, now the Department of Defense.

“The Biden administration expanded and then abused the 8(a) program to hand out billions in taxpayer-funded government contracts to favored minorities at the direct expense of honest small businesses, which is why we ended the practice on day one,” said SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler in a press release. “Since then, the Trump SBA has been working to reverse the damage – and today, we’re reiterating one simple fact: the Biden-era practice of discriminating against white Americans is over, and reforms to enshrine that fact are well underway. The SBA is ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in federal contracting – and our programs will remain open to all eligible job creators in compliance with federal law.”

In addition to suspending nearly a quarter of the 8(a) program participants, SBA issued new guidance today clarifying that the small business development program “is open to job creators of every race – consistent with court orders, notices from the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ), and President [Donald] Trump’s broader effort to eliminate DEI across the federal government – and that any race-based presumptions of social disadvantage have been inoperative since 2023.”

The guidance outlines new ways the SBA will manage the program.

It says it will administer the 8(a) program based on race neutral requirements and there will be no presumptive preference given to anyone.

SBA also will no longer approve the use of “socially disadvantage narratives” as a way to get into the program. It removed from its website the Biden-era “Guide for Demonstrating Social Disadvantage.”

Finally, SBA will consider several factors when determining eligibility for the 8(a) program, including whether the individual has been a “victim of illegal or radical DEI policies or illegal affirmative action policies or has otherwise been the victim of discriminatory practices such as race-based quotas, set asides or hiring targets, in each case by government and non-government actors.”

SBA says these steps are in reaction to the “dramatic expansion” under the Biden administration of companies in the 8(a) program.

Since January 2025, SBA accepted just 65 new 8(a) firms into the program, compared to over 2,100 who were accepted during the four years of the Biden administration.

Undermining the 8(a) program?

Jackie Robinson-Burnette, a former SBA associate administrator in the Office of Government Contracting and Business Development during the Biden administration, wrote on LinkedIn that this change isn’t a small tweak, but it’s re‑anchoring of the program’s foundation.

“It’s important to reform the 8(a) program without crushing the firms the program was designed to help,” wrote Robinson-Burnette, who now is the CEO of Senior Executive Strategic Solutions. “Are we dismantling and putting a sledgehammer to the program to curtail spending $20 million-plus on 8(a) sole source contracts or is it about something else?”

John Shoraka, a former associate administrator of government contracting and business development at SBA and now the co-founder and managing director of GovContractPros, said the SBA and now DoD’s audits are part of a concerted effort to undermine the confidence in the 8(a) program.

“It seems to be one initiative after another initiative, sort of in a very sequenced flow of events to undermine the program and sort of put the brakes on the program,” he said. “I think there’s a perception, and, it’s the wrong perception, that the 8(a) program is, at its core, a DEI program. I honestly don’t think that the administration believes there is significantly more fraud in the 8(a) program than any other contracting program. In fact, the data shows, if you look at inspector general cases or if you look at Department of Justice cases, the instances of fraud in the set-aside programs and particularly the 8(a) program, are actually significantly lower as opposed to across the entire federal government. So when we focus on fraud, waste and abuse in the 8(a) program, I think it’s just raising the flag. They can’t really say we want to kill this program because it’s DEI, they need to identify some sort of red flag to point to and say, ‘Ah-a, we told you this program was fraudulent, and therefore we need to terminate or put the brakes on this program.’”

Leemon and Feinberg, from the law firm Piliero Mazza, said companies caught up in the suspension should consider sending an informal appeals to SBA to lift the suspension.

“If informal channels are unsuccessful, a suspended 8(a) company may — and should — appeal SBA’s decision within 45 days of the date of the Notice of Suspension to SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals. This process can be time consuming, and appeals decisions can be delayed for months or even years,” the lawyers wrote.

The post SBA suspends 1,000 8(a) firms for not submitting data first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

Interview transcript:

Terry Gerton Deltek has a new report out that’s looking ahead for federal contractor intelligence for 2026. But before we look forward, I want to look back a little bit. When you think of everything that happened in the contracting space in 2025, what stands out for you as the biggest trends?

Kevin Plexico Well, chaos reigns supreme this past year, for sure. And what I find just super interesting is that some companies happen to find themselves in really good places and align to the goals of the new administration and did really well. And others that happened to be in sort of the wrong place at the wrong time had profound impact. I think 2025 was a year where companies had to really take stock of the organizations that they’re selling to and their offerings to make sure they’re aligned to the goals of the administration and the mission that the government agencies have been asked to take on by that administration. That’s probably, to me, the biggest change. There’s been so much movement of money, in some cases money coming out of certain agencies. We’ve all heard about Agency for International Development and Department of State and Education. But then you look at organizations like the VA, DHS, and DoD that have continued to do really well. So, a lot of haves and have-nots this year, and I think for companies it’s just trying to figure out, based on this new administration, where should we really be aiming to be able to capitalize on it going forward?

Terry Gerton Every administration comes in with different priorities, but it seems like this one was able to make the pendulum swing really fast, and that may have caught companies off guard. What are some of the hard conversations that had to happen inside those boardrooms?

Kevin Plexico Well, early on, it was all about DOGE and the DOGE organization really putting some unprecedented pressure on some vendors. I mean, some of the letters I saw sent to professional services companies and some of demands that were made of value-added resellers were not anything I’ve seen a federal agency communicate to a vendor that was otherwise performing to the jobs that they were asked to do. And I think it’s, in some respects, a bit surreal that the administration was asking companies to identify wasteful spending. It’s just an awkward situation to be in if you have a customer, and the customer already hired you to do the work, and you’re now being asked to identify where there’s wasteful spending in that and sort of serve up cuts. So I think that was the early part of the year. We did see that start to sunset a bit and fade as we got into the summertime. But then all of a sudden, all eyes were turning to appropriations and funding for 2026. And we all know where that’s landed, which it hasn’t. We’re still waiting for full-year 2026, with just a couple agency exceptions. We bought some time ending the shutdown, which was, as you know, the longest on record. But there’s nothing to say that we might not have another shutdown here at the end of January. I still think where there’s that bit of uncertainty, the one silver lining this past year for the contracting community is the One Big Beautiful Bill, just because it had so much opportunity in it for contractors that really cut across the gamut of aerospace, defense, professional services, training, architecture, engineering, construction. There was literally something in there for everybody, but it does require really an honest assessment by a company to figure out, okay, how do we get after this? Because that might not be in the agencies that they’re used to doing business in.

Terry Gerton Right. And a lot of those funds haven’t been dispersed yet. So they’re still maybe in the RFP or RFQ stage. This unpredictability of funding flows is something you don’t normally see in government contracts. Everything from stop-work orders and termination notices earlier in the year to unpaid bills at the end of the fiscal year and the CR. Has that caused the GovCon community to sort of re-evaluate and re-adjust their planning for predictable cash flows?

Kevin Plexico I think this year, while it was a record-setting shutdown, is not an unusual year in that we don’t have a line of sight on what line appropriations are going to get done. I think industry has become used to that scenario. And while shutdowns are certainly not good for anyone, they’re usually relatively short-lived because of what happens. The pain gets so severe that finally Congress is like, we’re inflicting a lot of pain on rank-and-file Americans, we need to resolve this. I’m hoping that cooler heads will prevail the next time that this comes around. What I think is perhaps different this time versus what we’ve seen, say, the last decade or so is we’ve always had a bipartisan budget agreement or resolution that sort of set the top line that appropriators were negotiating towards. I think we’ve had that literally for about a decade, since back during the Budget Control Act, and we don’t have that for ’26. So there was no goalpost that Congress was working towards on a bipartisan basis that that they agreed on previously. And I think that’s the same for 2027. That’s what’s unique about this, is there’s nothing that says, here’s the goal that we’re working towards, and then how do we allocate it by the different appropriations bills that are negotiated?

Terry Gerton Kevin Plexico is senior vice president of information solutions at Deltek. Kevin, let’s turn our attention to the windshield and not the rear-view mirror now. With all of that disruption in 2025, what is at the top of Deltek’s intelligence report for 2026?

Kevin Plexico Well, I think 2026 is going to be a better year than 2025, thanks primarily to the One Big Beautiful Bill. As you pointed out, it’s not a single-year appropriation. The funding in that legislation lasts through, I think it has to be committed in contracts essentially by the end of 2029; then expenditures can take longer. So that gives us a bit of time and it certainly doesn’t mean that it has get rushed out the door like we’ve seen — some emergency supplemental appropriations have had that shape. And so that provides some longer-term opportunity and ability for companies to reposition, to get after some of that money. The biggest challenge on the base-level appropriations, we’ve got this ambitious goal of growing defense spending, paid for by significant cuts in civilian spending, and we saw that under the prior Trump administration. But they were never able to get appropriators to buy off on that. And I think that’s the dynamic that we have in the Senate, where it has to get 60 votes to get past the filibuster. It does really need a bipartisan-level agreement to get appropriations done. That’s particularly challenging in these contentious times, but I do think it helps prevent those draconian cuts that could be put in place for some civilian agencies that we’ve seen this and the prior Trump administration ask for that usually have not been enacted.

Terry Gerton One of the sectors that’s really struggled this past year is small businesses. What do you see in the future for them?

Kevin Plexico This is an interesting one, because on the one hand, the government has done a really good job of spending money with small business. But if you look at the level of participation in terms of prime contracts, it’s going down. The number of small businesses I think has declined by close to 30% over the last several years in terms of prime contracting. And I think that’s a problem that the administration really has to take a look at. Unfortunately, some of the things that we’re seeing them do around relying on best-in-class contracts, don’t create a new contract if there’s already an existing contract that you can place a task or delivery order under — those really favor the companies that already have those prime contracts. I think it makes it challenging for small businesses to enter the market. On the research and development side, we’re still waiting for Congress to extend the SBIR and STTR programs, which are Small Business Innovative Research-related work. So it’s a challenging market for all companies, but in particular for small businesses. They’re dependent on cash flow; shutdowns particularly impact small businesses. The rule changes that are being made in the FAR overhaul are pretty profound in terms of their impact on small business. I think it’s unpredictable to understand how much is it going to affect a service-disabled veteran-owned business versus an 8(a) company versus a women-owned business. It seems like they’re gravitating more towards a preference of just small business set-asides and trying to get away from sole-source awards. And that’s a big change for the small business community for sure. So I think getting smart about the new rules and how they’re going to be applied agency by agency is going to be super important for small businesses.

Terry Gerton Well, speaking about the FAR overhaul, let’s talk about GSA for a minute. They’ve really worked over this last year to centralize a lot of buying strategies, centralize lot of contracts. They’ve updated the OASIS contract. What are you seeing and what should contractors be expecting to hear from GSA?

Kevin Plexico Well, I think the thing that’s created a lot of confusion is the way they’re rolling it out. Usually when FAR changes are rolled out, they go through a rulemaking process, they issue drafts, take comments and then go to a final rule or interim rule. What they’ve done in this particular situation is instead of approaching it in that traditional way, they’ve rolled out the revised FAR and basically said that agencies can adopt it if they get a class deviation. So, you have to literally go to the FAR overhaul website and see which agencies have adopted these FAR clauses. And right now you basically have different agencies using different versions of the FAR. The DoD is still using the traditional FAR and DFAR. They don’t have any class deviations that I’m aware of, but many civilian agencies do. So it just puts a lot of onus on the contracting community to really be mindful of what regulations are being followed by the agency you’re selling to, because it’s not the same as everybody’s following the FAR anymore. Which version of the FAR? Is it this class deviation or is it the traditional FAR? And that’s just an example of the chaos that we talked about.

Terry Gerton If you could give contractors one piece of advice as they’re trying to put their 2026 business strategies together, what would it be?

Kevin Plexico I go to what we call the four Cs. Customers: Who are the right customers that you’re going to be focused on selling to? Contracts: What vehicles are they going to be using to get access to those providers? Compliance: What do you need to be able to comply with, and I know the CMMC is a big one, but even with all the FAR overhaul changes, I haven’t seen what I would call a deregulation of compliance requirements. There’s pressure on agencies to use more fixed-price; that would potentially take away some of the accounting requirements that come along with a cost-plus contract. I think I might have missed a C in that, but you get the gist of it, right? It’s really just being more strategic and being more thoughtful about how you’re going to go to market. You can’t just afford to live off the agencies you’ve been doing business with, because they might be starving for money going forward. So you really have to take an honest assessment of where you are today, where you want to play, and how are you going to position yourself to get there? Because it’s not a quick pivot by any stretch.

The post New year, new opportunities? Here’s where contractors should focus in 2026 first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/Urupong

The 8(a) small business contracting program is coming under the microscope of its biggest user.

The Defense Department is joining a growing list of agencies auditing the use of sole source contracts through the 8(a) program.

Experts warn that DoD’s decision to launch this new audit signals that this 40-year-old small business development program is teetering further on the edge.

“It’s not a death knell, but it’s absolutely going to leave a mark. It’s absolutely going to hinder our ability to bring some of that new technology, that new manufacturing capability to the federal marketplace. That’s probably my bigger concern,” said Norm Abdallah, executive vice president at Hui Huliau, a Native Hawaiian-owned firm in the 8(a) program, in an interview with Federal News Network. “We’re behind in terms of the ability to manufacture here in the U.S., and have outsourced that beyond what one should in the defense of their own country, and so hindering the ability for us to help bring some of that to bear in the U.S. marketplace is probably the biggest concern.”

Abdallah said the 8(a) program is an avenue for companies to enter the market, obtain past performance experience in the federal sector and learn the ropes so DoD, and really every agency’s, ongoing distrust and scrutiny of the program is likely going to impact the government in bigger ways than expected.

Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a video on X on Friday explaining that the Pentagon is worried about two main things: The 8(a) program is a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) program, and it’s wrought with fraud.

We are taking a sledgehammer to the oldest DEI program in the federal government—the 8(a) program. pic.twitter.com/c9iH8gcqG7

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) January 16, 2026

“Providing these small businesses with opportunities is a laudable goal, but over the decades, as it happens, the 8(a) program has morphed into swamp code words for DEI, race-based contracting. And here’s the worst part, in many, many instances, these socially disadvantaged businesses, they don’t even do work. They take a 10%, 20%, sometimes 50% fee off the top, and then pass the contract off to a giant consulting firm, commonly known as beltway bandits. For decades, this program, 8(a) has been a breeding ground for fraud, and this administration is finally doing something about it,” Hegseth said. “Effective immediately, I’m ordering a line-by-line review of every small business sole source, 8(a) contract that is over $20 million, and we’ll look at everything smaller than that too. The Department of War has the biggest chunk of 8(a) spending by far, 10 times more than any other agency. So our cleanup, it’s going to be 10 times tougher.”

DoD’s audit will include two phases. Hegseth said if a contract doesn’t make meet the DoD’s goal of increasing lethality, they will terminate it.

“We have no room in our budget for wasteful DEI contracts that don’t help us win wars, period, full stop. Second, we’re doing away with these pass through schemes. We’ll make sure that every small business getting a contract is the one actually doing the work, and not just some shell company funneling your money to a giant consulting firm,” he said. “This approach is, of course, not meant to hurt small businesses, and that’s not the point. America is full of great, amazing small businesses. This is part of a larger effort to transform our acquisition ecosystem into one that makes sense for the threats we face in the 21st century.”

An email to DoD seeking more details about the audit and a timeline for the audit wasn’t returned.

Experts say Hegseth’s decision to review sole source contracts worth at least $20 million is directed at Native American, Alaskan Native, Hawaiian Native and other tribal companies. Congress raised the sole source threshold for these firms to $100 million from $22 million in 2020. Firms not belonging to one of these groups have a sole source threshold of $5.5 million for manufacturing and $8.5 million for non-manufacturing contracts. These non-tribal or native firms can receive a sole source contract up to $20 million with certain justifications and approvals.

While experts say Congress may not act to change the law, the ongoing audits by the Small Business Administration, the Treasury Department, the General Services Administration and now DoD are sending signals that, at least for sole source contracts, the program doesn’t work.

A former DoD acquisition executive, who requested anonymity because their current company still does business with DoD, said he believes federal small business goals are at risk across the board, and while they may not be affected this year, in two to four years, agencies will see a huge reduction in their industrial base.

The former DoD executive said the administration is sending an inconsistent message to the federal contracting community. The audits and the reduction of staff in small business offices are sending one message that small businesses aren’t important. But then the White House, and DoD particularly, are expressing the desire to attract new participants to the federal market, including non-traditional companies. The executive said these companies typically depend on small business offices and programs like 8(a) to help them get a foot in the door.

John Shoraka, a former associate administrator of government contracting and business development at SBA and now the co-founder and managing director of GovContractPros, an advisory services firm specializing in federal procurement, said DoD’s audit is part of a concerted effort by the administration to undermine the 8(a) program.

“I think if you look at the dollars in the 8(a) program, especially at DoD, some will point to the fact that they actually went up in 2025. But the challenge that we saw across a lot of our clients was that offer letters that have to go through the district office in order for a sole source award to happen were being held up and or never being processed. So we saw a slowdown in sole source awards,” he said. “I think given what we’ve seen with respect to the SBA audit, given what we’ve seen with respect to the number of 8(a)s being approved, in 2024 there was something like 500 plus 8(a)s approved. In 2025, I think the last count I saw was 66 approved. So given the audits, the slowdown in processing, I think contracting officers are looking over their shoulders. I think in the short term, given the current administration and the current congressional makeup, if you will, we will see a trend away from the 8(a) program.”

DoD’s decision to audit the 8(a) program comes after Treasury and SBA announced similar audits earlier this fall. SBA is looking at the entire program and companies had to submit data to the agency by Monday.

The SBA general counsel’s office is driving the audit, which is unusual because usually these things are either done by the inspector general or program office.

Fraud, DEI concerns unfounded

Shoraka said while the questions being asked by SBA, and now eventually DoD, are legitimate questions, the approach is causing some chaos.

“A lot of our clients reached out to their district office and the district office was actually unaware that those letters had originally gone out with respect to the audit, so there was a disconnect there. The field offices aren’t sure how the data is going to be used, or who’s going to use it, or what they’re looking at,” he said. “From my perspective, given the types of questions that were asked, I think it leads to the question, are there pass throughs happening? Because there was a lot of questions with respect to, who are your subcontractors, who are your vendors, et cetera. So the question is, and I think what SBA was looking at is, are there pass throughs and who’s really in control? Is the disadvantaged individual really owning, operating and benefiting from the 8(a) company? And I think those are legitimate questions. But again, there are legitimate processes and mechanisms to monitor that, including the annual review, which occurs every year on every single 8(a) company.”

The former DoD acquisition executive said while there are concerns about the use of sole source awards over $20 million to tribal companies, the allegations of fraud and the belief that the 8(a) program is a DEI program are unfounded. He said DoD should go to Congress and change the law to reduce the risk of large sole source contracts turning into pass throughs.

Experts agreed that while no program is perfect and there probably are some challenges, the 8(a) program is typically well overseen and maintained.

In fact, Abdallah, from Hui Huliau, said most 8(a) firms spend a lot of time meeting the compliance requirements. But he said it’s also a shared responsibility for oversight with the government.

“There are several folks that have responsibility in there. The first one is the contracting officer. In some cases, they’ve got to approve subcontracts. But more basically, with SBA, we go through a review every year where we have to submit our financials, what work did we do and what work happened?” he said. “They worry about the business mix, how much of your work was set aside versus not set aside? Quite honestly, what means you got the work by some means other than the 8(a) program, be that a subcontractor to another straight commercial, et cetera. So there are lots of hooks to watch it. Do they audit the books, per se, to check for percentages? That’s less common. But it’s part of your overall review.”

Shoraka added there are a significant number of regulations or requirements to mitigate the risk of pass throughs, and most rules allow for legitimate subcontracting.

One thing all of the experts pointed out is that the program is set up to help the 8(a) firm grow and learn, but they still have to do at least 51% of the work under services contracts and 15% of the work under construction contracts.

Shoraka said what is being lost in this entire discussion is there is more fraud in non-small business socio-economic programs across government than there are in the 8(a) and other small businesses initiatives.

The post 8(a) program pushed further to the edge by DoD audit first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Kevin Wolf

Ed Forst never served in the Navy, but the metaphor he uses to describe the role the General Services Administration would make any admiral proud.

Forst, who has been at the helm of GSA since late December, believes agencies, like ships, have two distinct compartments. One is to focus on the mission. The other is the engine room that makes the mission run.

“I think in every business, every enterprise, every agency, every department, and what I think makes great sense, and I believe the President does too, is, let’s advance mission and let’s have the engine room, what’s behind the curtain, consolidate and get even better. That’s where I see GSA in the federal government. We’re the engine room,” Forst said at the Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement winter conference on Jan. 14. “Now, interestingly, GSA is its own agency, so we happen to have both. We’ve got mission and the engine room as well. So I think because of that, we really do appreciate the mission piece of that and serving our stakeholders and our constituents.”

For GSA, being that engine room in part means making acquisition less burdensome, cheaper and more agile so agency customers can meet their mission needs more quickly.

GSA has been pursuing several initiatives over the last year to fine tune the acquisition piece of the engine room.

Laura Stanton, the deputy commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, said between the Office of Centralized Acquisition Services (OCAS), the OneGov initiative and the implementation of changes from the Federal Acquisition Regulation rewrite, GSA is delivering speed to acquisition like never before.

For example, OCAS now centrally buys for three agencies: the Office of Personnel Management, the Small Business Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Stanton said GSA brought on OPM and SBA in about a month.

Stanton said OCAS is using an opt-in approach to help agencies and trying to relieve some of the burden on GSA’s Assisted Acquisition Service.

“We’re having conversations with a number of agencies about what are their needs. One of the things that we set up OCAS to be able to support is the buying of common goods and services,” Stanton said. “We also recognize that there are mission critical items that and there’s common things that are mission critical that can be used for governmentwide contracts, and then things where there are specialized contracts. So we’re having those types of conversations with a number of agencies at this point.”

Under the OneGov program, GSA has signed 18 agreements to reduce the price of commonly used software across government. Additionally, 45 agencies have taken advantage specifically of the enterprisewide agreements for artificial intelligence tools.

“This is a radical shift in how we think about it, and how we think about how we come to market, and also how we want you to treat us as a customer,” Stanton said at the conference. “This requires changes, not only on the government side, but it’s also going to require changes on the industry side to make that happen. We want to be better aligned when it comes to terms pricing and performance, when it comes to all aspects of that.”

Forst said he was especially focused on the performance aspects of the equation for GSA.

Measuring performance against peer groups

He said measuring performance, and holding organizations and people accountable are among his key focuses areas.

“We’re putting out some priorities for having deliverables. I’m committing every quarter and I’m going to report on ourselves on that,” he said. “I think we’re all better if we find a way to talk about measurement or metrics, whatever you want to call it. There’s a common language and vocabulary about that, so I am a big proponent.”

Forst said he will be looking at both the performance of FAS in terms of “revenue,” as well as their performance relative to peer organizations.

“If you had a record year, you’d probably beat plan. All that should be good. That’s absolute measurement. That’s you versus you. And I think that’s important. I think it’s also really important to accompany that with who’s in your peer group and how did they do? I think the relative performance matters a ton as well,” he said. “You could be down 7% and on an absolute basis, angst to death over down seven if your peer group’s down 15, that’s a home run. So I think it’s important. But if you had a record year and you’re up 6% and your peer group’s up 12%, I’d say good record, but you underdelivered versus the other side. I think we have to be honest with ourselves and look at both us versus us over the time series, and look at us versus a peer group. That seems to make sense.”

Forst said GSA plans to bring in a peer group analysis to raise their awareness and their overall performance.

The third piece of moving bringing speed to capability is the FAR rewrite. GSA will begin implementing the FAR changes within its own acquisition regulations in the coming weeks. It already issued deviations to the current FAR to begin the process.

Jeff Koses, GSA’s senior procurement executive, said in a post on LinkedIn that they have “limited the issuance of mandatory acquisition policies to my office, the Office of Acquisition Policy. Legacy mandatory policy will have to be reissued at the agency level, converted to discretionary guidance, or cancelled.”

Koses said GSA will begin culling down 500 pages of its acquisition manual, 300 pages of office policy, 500 pages of FAS policy and another 500 pages of Public Buildings Service policy and then 1,000 pages of real property leasing policy.

Reviewing the GSA schedule catalog of items

Larry Allen, the associate administrator in the Office of Governmentwide Policy, said at the CGP conference that GSA, in helping out the FAR Council, is working closely with OFPP to get all of the rulemaking completed by the end of the fiscal year.

“It may be delayed a little bit because we had a little shutdown in the fall, but that tells you exactly what type of timetable we are on. It’s aggressive, and you will see change, and we want you to be part of that change,” Allen said.

Stanton added that GSA understands the FAR rewrite has moved quickly and is addressing complex acquisition issues that will take time for government and industry to wrap their arms around.

“When we think about this year, it’s going to be a year of both adopting and adaptation, and acceleration all at the same time, and that becomes really challenging to do,” she said.

Stanton said another key initiative kicking into gear this year is GSA’s review of its multiple award schedule catalog. She said the driving theory is how can the agency operate it more efficiently and deliver more value to agency customers.

“I look at the at the catalog that we run for the multiple award schedule and it has over 100 million items in it. Only 1% or fewer of those items sell, and so this is putting burden on all of you, making sure that you’re meeting all of our terms and conditions, that those items are Trade Agreements Act (TAA) compliant, that they meet the government standards, and that the pricing is fair and reasonable,” she said. “We have contracting officers who have to evaluate those items, and what is the value that either you or the government is getting for that work? I think that this is a big opportunity for us to truly assess where is the government’s demand. As we’re also moving into making transactional data reporting mandatory, how do we effectively have a catalog that delivers on what the government needs? How do we meet those needs effectively? How do we move quickly if we have something that’s not in the catalog? It’s a lot easier to move quickly if we’re not burdened by putting things in there that are not actually being used.”

The post Forst: GSA is the ‘engine room’ that runs government first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File

The DevOps landscape is changing faster than ever. As organizations race to deliver software at speed, they're also inheriting a new class of risk — one driven by open source sprawl, AI-generated code, and increasingly complex software supply chains.

The post Sonatype Named DevOps Dozen Winner for Best DevSecOps Solution appeared first on Security Boulevard.

• The Presidential Rank Awards are back for 2026, and the Office of Personnel Management is now looking for nominations. The prestigious honors program is reserved for career members of the Senior Executive Service and other senior career employees. OPM’s new call for nominations marks a restart of the awards program, which the Trump administration canceled for 2025. Agencies have until Feb. 5 to submit nominations to OPM for any executives they want to be considered for a 2026 award.
  (Call for nominations for 2026 Presidential Rank Awards - Office of Personnel Management)
• Congress takes another step toward fully funding the government this year. House and Senate negotiators have found common ground on the fiscal 2026 Financial Services and General Government, National Security, Department of State and related programs bills. House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee leadership agreed to the full year spending bill over the weekend. Lawmakers said these agencies would see a total of $9 billion less than what they received in 2025. But the Treasury Department, for instance, would see a $700 million increase over the president's request, but more than a $2 billion cut as compared to 2025. House lawmakers passed a mini-bus bill last week to fund several agencies including the departments of Commerce, Justice, Interior and Health and Human Services.
  (House, Senate appropriators agree on another spending bill - House Appropriations Committee)
• There’s been a steep decline in federal employees’ ability to join a union. New data from the Office of Personnel Management shows that currently, about 50% of feds are not eligible to be part of a bargaining unit. That’s a 20% increase in ineligibility from just a year earlier. It leaves about 38% of federal employees who are in a bargaining unit and another 12% who are eligible, but who haven’t officially joined up. The shift is largely due to President Trump’s orders last year for most agencies to terminate their union contracts.
  (Federal workforce bargaining unit status - Office of Personnel Management)
• The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency says some of its cyber directives are no longer needed. CISA is retiring 10 emergency directives issued to federal agencies between 2019 and 2024. Typically CISA issues an emergency directive when a cyber vulnerability poses an urgent and immediate risk to federal systems and data. The ones being retired include the 2021 emergency directive that told agencies to address the SolarWinds Orion software compromise. CISA said the directives are being retired because the objectives were achieved or changes in cyber practices have made them obsolete.
  (CISA retires 10 emergency directives - CISA )
• The National Security Agency is bringing a familiar face back to serve as its number two official. Timothy Kosiba has been named deputy director of the NSA. He’ll serve as the senior civilian official at the agency overseeing strategy execution, policy, operations and management of civilian leadership. Kosiba began his career at the NSA and served in leadership roles including chief of Computer Network Operations and then deputy commander of NSA Georgia. Kosiba spent the last three years in various roles in the private sector.
  (NSA announces Tim Kosiba as next NSA deputy director - National Security Agency)
• The wait for awards under the General Services Administration's Alliant 3 IT services governmentwide acquisition contract may soon be over. GSA said in a new notice on Sam.gov that it plans to make Alliant 3 awards by the end of March. GSA has been evaluating proposals since last April and released the initial solicitation in June 2024. Over those 18 months, GSA issued 12 amendments to the RFP and had to justify continuing the initiative under President Donald Trump's federal acquisition executive order from March 2025.
  (GSA plans to make awards under Alliant 3 GWAC before April - Sam.gov)
• President Donald Trump took aim at defense contractors Wednesday, announcing new restrictions on executive pay and stock buybacks as part of the administration’s push to speed procurement and revitalize the defense industrial base. The government already has a whole set of tools in its toolbox to incentivize, reward or penalize companies based on their performance. What is different here, however, are the remedies the administration is focused on. The main challenge in implementing this executive order will be defining the key parameters contractors are going to be held accountable for. In addition, while Trump promised to cap executive pay at $5 million, the figure did not make it into the executive order. Instead, the president directed the defense secretary to ensure future contracts require executive compensation to be tied to performance, such as on-time delivery and increased production.
  (Trump order targeting defense contractor pay, stock buybacks is ‘full of ambiguity’ - Federal News Network )
• The Defense Department has long tried to simplify and reform the reserve duty status system, which has expanded to more than 30 separate statutes scattered across about 20 different titles of federal law. This complex system has created pay and benefits inequities and frequent administrative delays when National Guard members and reservists shift between duty statuses. A new bipartisan bill would consolidate more than 30 different duty statuses under which National Guard members and reservists can be called to service to just four. If passed, the Duty Status Reform Act would ensure service members performing assignments in the same category receive the same pay and benefits. Rep. Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.), the bill’s sponsor, said the effort is his “number one priority, returning to Congress.”
  (New bipartisan bill seeks to overhaul complex reserve duty status system - Rep. Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.))

The post Presidential Rank Awards return in 2026 first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Brian Domenici

President Donald Trump took aim at defense contractors Wednesday, announcing new restrictions on executive pay and stock buybacks as part of the administration’s push to speed procurement and revitalize the defense industrial base. 

In an executive order issued late Wednesday, Trump said companies “are not permitted in any way, shape, or form to pay dividends or buy back stock, until they are able to produce a superior product, on time and on budget.”

The order directs Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to identify defense contractors providing critical weapons, supplies and equipment that are “underperforming, not investing their own capital into necessary production capacity, not sufficiently prioritizing U.S. government contracts, or whose production speed is insufficient as determined by the Secretary,” while simultaneously engaging in stock buybacks or corporate profit distributions. 

Contractors identified under the review must be notified and given an opportunity to submit a remediation plan within 15 days to address performance issues. 

If disputes over underperformance issues cannot be resolved within 15 days or the remediation plan is deemed inadequate, the defense secretary “may initiate immediate actions to secure remedies for the secretary that will expedite production, prioritize the U.S. military and return the contractor to sufficient performance, investment, prioritization and production, to the maximum extent permitted by law.”

The executive order also directs the Defense Department to ensure that future contracts with new or existing defense contractors include provisions prohibiting stock buybacks and corporate profit distributions during periods of underperformance, contract noncompliance, insufficient investment, or “insufficient production speed as determined by the secretary.”

The government already has a whole set of tools in its toolbox to incentivize, reward or penalize companies based on their performance, and the executive order relies in part on mechanisms the Defense Department already uses. What is different, however, are the remedies the administration is focusing on — and the main challenge in implementing this executive order will be defining the key parameters contractors are going to be held accountable for, Protorae Law member Alan Chvotkin said.

“The remedies of no stock buybacks and caps on executive compensation — that’s not a remedy that the government already has available to it,” Chvotkin told Federal News Network. “It’s not so binary to say it’s 100% of contractor’s problem or zero of the contractor’s problem, and that’s where the hard work is going to come on each of these major programs — defining the specific parameters that the department is expecting.”

Stan Soloway, president and CEO of Celero Strategies and federal acquisition expert, said the executive order seems to presume that any cost overrun is the fault of the contractor without recognizing that “not all cost overruns are created equal.”

“The [executive order] is full of vagaries and ambiguity. It is going to be very interesting to determine how they measure whether a company is performing … There’s no mention about the responsibility the Defense Department has for cost overruns and program delays. While companies are far from perfect, all too often, the delays are driven by changing requirements, by requirement rigidity, lack of flexibility in the requirements and by budget uncertainties,” Soloway told Federal News Network. 

Back in 2007, the Defense Science Board, for instance, examined three troubled programs — the Littoral Combat Ship, the presidential helicopter and the Army’s Comanche helicopter — and found that constantly changing government requirements were a major driver of cost overruns and schedule delays. The Packard Commission reached the same conclusion two decades before the Defense Science Board issued its report.

“Accountability is key here, but there is a shared responsibility between the government and contractors. There are many tools to hold contractors accountable, but way fewer tools to hold the government accountable. This EO doesn’t do anything to make the government more accountable,” David Berteau, former president and CEO of the Professional Services Council and now president of David Berteau & Associates, told Federal News Network.

“The disconnect of this EO is if the desired outcome is better contract performance, how can implementing this EO produce better results? That isn’t clear to me. Someone will have to write implementation guidance that does that. I spent a lot of my career writing implementation guidance, and I have a hard time seeing implementing this in such a way that it produces better performance quickly,” he added.

If the goal of the executive order is to push companies to invest in production capacity and capability rather than shareholder returns, that approach only works if there are returns on that investment, Berteau said.

Lockheed Martin’s recent deal with the Pentagon to increase Patriot missile interceptor production to about 2,000 missiles a year is a significant step toward that approach, Berteau said. Lockheed agreed to fund an expansion of its Patriot missile factory in exchange for a seven-year commitment from the Pentagon.

“We have to wait to see the implementation guidance to get a sense of what the real goal is, better contract performance leading to faster deliveries or what,” Berteau said.

“It is critical that the relationship between the government and contractors be one of shared responsibility and partnership, particularly around defining and deciding what the contract will give you and the structure of the contract to make sure the government will get what it needs. There is a lot about this EO that doesn’t seem to be about strengthening that partnership. It seems to be more about punishing one side of the equation,” he added.

The Defense Department did not respond to questions about whether contractors should expect formal guidance in the coming weeks or how many underperforming contractors it has already identified.

“After numerous years of failing to meet contractual obligations, under President Trump’s order, defense contractors will no longer be allowed to leave our warfighters behind while giving themselves massive payouts from stock buybacks. This will give Department of War the ability to meet national security objectives and ensure efficiency and accountability. Our obligation is to our warfighters; not Wall Street,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell told Federal News Network in a statement. 

Executive pay

In one of his Truth Social posts, Trump said no executive should be allowed to make more than $5 million, but the figure did not make it into the executive order.

Instead, the president directed the defense secretary to ensure future contracts require executive compensation to be tied to performance — such as on-time delivery, increased production and “all necessary facilitation of investments required to rapidly expand the United States stockpiles and capabilities” — rather than short-term financial metrics like cash flow or earnings per share driven by stock buybacks.

If a contractor has “engaged in underperformance, non-compliance, insufficient prioritization of the contract, insufficient investment, or insufficient production speed,” the department could cap executive base salaries at current levels.

Executive compensation was a contentious issue in 2013, when President Barack Obama called on Congress to cap executive pay at $400,000.

A cap on executive compensation already exists in some form — contractors can pay their executives whatever they choose, but the government only reimburses costs up to a certain limit.

The executive order, however, goes a step further — it’s shifting from how much the government will reimburse the contractor to limiting how much the company can pay its executives.

“Pretty significant difference, but maybe they’ll fall back on the same mechanisms. I don’t know that yet. Nobody in the department is talking yet about how they’re going to implement this. I’m sure they’re still trying to work that out,” Chvotkin said.

“I think there’s a fair question, broadly speaking, in commerce, generally, not just in the government market, about executives having the right incentives to drive long-term performance and excellence. But I don’t know what the standards are going to be, what the metrics are going to be.  There’s a ton of ambiguity in here,” Soloway said.

Who does the EO apply to?

While the executive order targets contractors that provide “critical weapons, supplies and equipment,” it doesn’t clearly define the term “critical.” 

Chvotkin said new contracts could easily specify which vendors qualify as critical suppliers or require all new contracts to include the provisions laid out in the executive order.

And while the executive order is broadly aimed at “all contractors,” Chvotkin said its likely target is traditional defense contractors rather than the commercial firms the Pentagon has been trying to attract. 

“I think it’s all contractors, but fixed-price contractors — less likely, they’re going to have binary decision. Commercial contractors, where the effort is to bring more of them in, but probably not as many of them have the triggers, the buyback, the sort of where the government is reimbursing for executive compensation as they do for many of the traditional defense contractors,” Chvotkin said. 

What’s next?

Chvotkin said the Defense Department is likely to issue general guidance to programs on how to carry out the secretary’s review.

“I think they’ve already done quite a bit of that, but I would expect [the undersecretary for acquisition sustainment office] to lead a fair amount of that responsibility to describe what those contracting provisions are relating to critical weapon systems and supplies and equipment. They’ve got to identify those first, then catch up with everybody else on a rolling basis,” Chvotkin said. 

“From the contracting folks, I would expect a broad set of contract provisions, both modifications to existing contracts, as well as provisions to go into new solicitations and new contracts to be awarded. That includes the identification of the key performance parameters for each solicitation and new award, the requirement for the company if notified by the Department of Defense or the contracting officer of the failure to adequately meet the performance objectives, the requirement for the remediation plan and then the additional remedies that the department might ask for as part of either the failure of the contractor to meet the original contract performance of projections or the remediation plan,” he added.

Jason Miller contributed to this report.

If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email anastasia.obis@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at (301) 830-2747.

The post Trump order targeting defense contractor pay, stock buybacks is ‘full of ambiguity’ first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

President Donald Trump put defense contractors on notice today. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said his administration is capping executive compensation at $5 million and prohibiting companies from doing stock buybacks and paying out dividends to shareholders.

President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday evening putting these restrictions in place at a policy level.

“All U.S. defense contractors and the defense industry as a whole, BEWARE: While we make the best military equipment in the world (no other country is even close!), defense contractors are currently issuing massive dividends to their shareholders and massive stock buybacks, at the expense and detriment of investing in plants and equipment. This situation will no longer be allowed or tolerated!” President Trump wrote in a post this afternoon. “Also, executive pay packages in the defense industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these companies are delivering vital equipment to our military, and our allies. Salaries, stock options, and every other compensation are far too high for these executives.”

President Trump said going forward, until these companies build new and modern production plants for military equipment, no executive should be allowed to make in excess of $5 million.

The limiting of executive compensation isn’t a new idea. President Barack Obama called on Congress to limit executive competition to $400,000. In 2013, the White House said under current law, government-reimbursed contractor pay is tied to a formula that mimics the compensation levels of top private-sector CEOs, which has grown by more than 300% since 1995.

An hour later, President Trump sent out a second post taking specific aim at Raytheon, now known as RTX. He said Raytheon has been “the least responsive to the needs of the [DoD], the slowest in increasing their volume, and the most aggressive spending on their shareholders rather than the needs and demands of the U.S. military.”

Trump said if Raytheon wants to do further business with the government, it will not be allowed to do any further stock buybacks.

“Either Raytheon steps up, and starts investing in more upfront investments like plants and equipment, or they will no longer be doing business with [DoD],” President Trump wrote.

An email to RTX seeking comment was not immediately returned.

The defense giant said 54% of its $80.8 billion in revenue came from its defense business worldwide in 2024.

In fiscal 2025, USASpending.gov shows RTX held 1,652 contracts worth more than $7.2 billion. The Navy and Air Force are among RTX’s biggest DoD customers.

RTX is known for providing systems like Patriot, National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) and Upgraded Early Warning Radars.

Federal procurement experts question whether the executive order would even be legal and how this would “chill” the markets.

“So much of this ignores that the speed to build/buy/repair is often the fault of the government, not the contractor,” said one industry expert, who requested anonymity.

President Trump went even further in a third post, calling on Congress to increase the DoD’s fiscal 2027 budget to $1.5 trillion.

“This will allow us to build the ‘dream military’ that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us safe and secure, regardless of foe,” the president wrote. “If it weren’t for the tremendous numbers being produced by tariffs from other countries, many of which, in the past, have ‘ripped off’ the United States at levels never seen before, I would stay at the $1 trillion dollar number but, because of tariffs, and the tremendous income that they bring, amounts generated that would’ve been unthinkable in the past … we are able to easily hit the $1.5 trillion number, while at the same time producing an unparalleled military force and having the ability to, at the same time, pay down debt, and likewise, pay a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots without our country!”

DoD requested $848.3 billion for fiscal 2026 which was slightly lower compared to its $849.8 billion request in 2025.

Industry associations like the Professional Services Council, the National Defense Industrial Association and Aerospace Industries Association all declined to comment or didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The post Trump calls for capping executive pay at defense contractors first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Alex Brandon

If you only read the contract clause, you’re missing the playbook.

As of Nov. 10, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7021, also known as the “Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification [CMMC] clause,” is now in effect. With implementation officially underway, contractors are under pressure to understand not only what 7021 demands of them, but also what contracting officers (KOs) are required to do behind the scenes. Those instructions, which are buried in DFARS subpart 204.75, tell KOs when to include 7021, when they cannot award, and what they must verify before exercising options or extending a period of performance.

Contractors often treat 7021 as a black box dropped into their contracts. Now that the clause is active across new awards, KOs are following explicit procedures you never see. Understanding those procedures gives you visibility into how requirements are determined, enforced and sustained over the life of your award.

Where 7021 really comes from — and what KOs must do

The CMMC clause doesn’t appear in your contracts out of nowhere. It’s part of a stack. At the top is 32 CFR Part 170, the Defense Department’s CMMC program policy (effective Dec. 2024). DFARS 204.75 translates that policy into concrete guidance for contracting officers: policy, procedures and instructions on when to use the clause. You see it in practice as DFARS 252.204-7021, paired with 252.204-7025. DFARS 204.7500-7501 set the scope and definitions. The point is that DFARS isn’t inventing anything new; it’s carrying out CMMC program policy and telling KOs how to enforce it.

The KO instructions are unambiguous. Under DFARS 204.7502, a KO shall insert the required CMMC level when the program office or requiring activity tells them to. The KO doesn’t decide the level, as that comes from the program office based on the data and mission, but they are responsible for putting it into your contract language. Just as clearly, KOs shall not award a contract, task order or delivery order to an offeror without a current CMMC status at the required level.

Two qualifiers matter. First, “CMMC status” doesn’t mean “in progress.” It means you’ve achieved the minimum required score for the assessment, and your status is recognized (self or third-party; final or — at Levels 2 and 3 — conditional). Second, “current” matters. Status is generally valid for three years, and you must maintain it for the life of the award.

To make sense of this, it helps to decode what “status” really means at each level:

• Level 1: Only a final self-assessment counts and no plans of actions and milestones (POA&Ms) are allowed.
• Level 2: Can be self- or certified third-party assessor organization (C3PAO)- assessed, in either final or conditional status.
• Level 3: Always a government assessment — Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity Assessment Center (DIBCAC) — which can be final or conditional.

KOs may award if your status is final or conditional at Level 2 or 3, provided it meets the required level in the solicitation and any open items are limited to those allowed by 32 CFR §170.21. But conditional status is time bound: 180 days from the status date. If you achieved conditional four months ago and bid today, you’ve only got about 60 days left to close those POA&Ms. There is no conditional path for Level 1.

The message is clear: While conditional paths exist, they are narrow and tightly limited.

The SPRS/UID reality check

Before a KO awards, extends or exercises an option, they verify your status in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) using your 10-character alphanumeric CMMC Unique Identifier (UID), which is tied to the specific system or enclave that was assessed. This binding matters. The government wants traceability from the contract to the exact enclave processing its data. If your UID points to System A, but CUI ends up in System B, you’ve created a mismatch with contractual — and potentially False Claims Act — implications. Keep your boundary, documentation and operational reality aligned to the UID you present.

This KO check isn’t one-and-done. KOs verify at initial award, again at option exercise or performance extensions, and again if you introduce a new UID mid-performance (for example, after a significant scope change requiring a new assessment). If your status isn’t current at any of those points, the instruction is simple: no award, or no option for extension.

When 7021 must be used — and when it isn’t

The rule is now active, placing us in the phased rollout period that runs through Nov.9, 2028. During this stage, DFARS 204.7504 requires KOs to insert 7021 whenever the program office identifies a CMMC level and no waiver applies. Waivers remain rare and are issued only at the contract level, not as carve-outs for individual contractors.

When the rollout ends on Nov. 10, 2028, the requirement broadens: 7021 must appear in any contract involving the processing, storage or transmission of federal contract information (FCI) or CUI, unless formally waived. Wherever 7021 is used, 7025 follows to ensure all offerors see the requirement before bidding.

What this means for the contractor

Contractors should assume that KOs are already verifying CMMC status in SPRS today, not at some future point. Here’s how the KO’s world translates into your action list:

• Don’t “strategy-bet” on KO discretion: The KO isn’t picking your level. The program office is. The KO’s job is execution and verification under “shall” language.

• Know your status category and the timeline: If you’re planning to bid with conditional Level 2, track the 180-day closeout window from your status date. Build that into proposal schedules and risk plans.

• Engineer your scope and keep it stable: Your CMMC UID binds the assessment to the specific system that will handle DoD data. Avoid unnecessary “significant change” events mid-performance that would force a new assessment/UID, unless you’ve planned for it.

• Keep status current through the entire period of performance (PoP): Treat the three-year validity like a maintenance interval. If your status expires during performance, you’ve put option exercises and extensions at risk.

• Map data flows to the assessed system: Ensure your CUI boundary and your assessed enclave are the same in reality, not just on paper. Align your system security plan (SSP), network diagrams, asset inventory and boundary controls to the UID’s scope.

• Bid packages should include UID clarity: Make it easy for the KO to verify SPRS entries. Label the UID, level, status (final or conditional), status date and expiration in your cover letter or compliance matrix.

• Have a POA&M closure plan you can execute: If conditional, your plan should show who/what/when, procurement lead times and validation steps. Assume the government will ask for evidence of progress.

• Prepare for options early: Six months before option exercise, review your status currency, any scope drift, and whether new UIDs have appeared. Give your KO a smooth verification path.

The KO’s lens

Now that 7021 is in effect and being applied to new awards, KOs are already following the same mandatory procedures across solicitations, evaluations and option exercises. From the KO’s perspective, 7021 is not subjective. It’s a procedure backed by “shall” language: Include the required level, verify status in SPRS by UID, and do not award or extend if the status isn’t current at the required level. Conditional Level 2/3 can win you work, but only within the 180-day window and only with allowable POA&M items per policy.

By understanding the KO’s checklist, contractors can predict how requirements will appear in your contracts, anticipate when status checks will occur, and avoid surprises that might otherwise cost you awards or option years.

Jacob Horne is the chief cybersecurity evangelist at Summit 7.

The post CMMC DFARS clause explained: The KO’s checklist contractors never see first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

 

Interview transcript:

Stephen Bacon We’re seeing a lot more protests, particularly at the Government Accountability Office, in the last several months that have been filed using AI — a party that’s not represented by counsel using AI to generate the protest and then file it. But we’re seeing some problems with that in some of the decisions that are coming out of the GAO.

Terry Gerton So tell me more about how companies are using AI. You mentioned that they’re doing this without the help of legal counsel as well.

Stephen Bacon That’s right, at least the ones that we’ve seen so far in public decisions at GAO. It’s not entirely clear how the protesters are using it, but we can imagine that maybe they’re taking the debriefing information that they’re getting from the agency, they’re uploading that into an LLM like ChatGPT or Claude, and using it to develop a protest argument that they can file with the GAO. And what we’re seeing in the decisions is that many of the protests that have been filed using AI contain hallucinations. Case citations that don’t exist to actual cases that have decided by GAO. So the legal precedent that the protesters are relying on, in fact, don’t exist. And that’s one of the inherent limitations of LLMs is that they hallucinate. They come up with decisions, citations that don’t exist. To be clear, we’re not just seeing this by protesters that are not represented by counsel. This is happening in courts all across the country where attorneys are using AI to help generate legal filings and then getting in trouble with the courts when those citations don’t actually exist. Because when you file a protest or any kind of legal filing that has a citation in it, the court is relying on you to make an accurate representation that the legal authority that you’re relying on is in fact correct and is in fact a decision that has been issued in the past. And so both courts and the GAO now are saying that you can get in trouble, you can be sanctioned as a protester if you submit a protest that has some kind of fake citation that’s inaccurate.

Terry Gerton What does that mean to be sanctioned as GAO reviews the case?

Stephen Bacon At GAO, they have inherent authority to sanction protesters, and really the main sanction that they have is to dismiss a protest. If you happen to file a protest that contains fake citations, they reserve the right to dismiss your protest. Even if you have legally valid grounds to protest — maybe you have identified an error in the agency selection process — if GAO determines that you relied on fake citations in your protest, they could dismiss the protest, even if the actual merits of it may have some validity to it.

Terry Gerton So there’s some interesting intersections of situation going on here, I think. There’s a lot of uncertainty on the contractor side about the new FAR regulations and how those are going to be enforced, certainly across different agencies. We’ve had a reduction in the contractor workforce, so there are fewer contractors managing more acquisitions. And now we have AI coming in to sort of simplify, but potentially also make much more complex, the whole protest market. So do you expect all of this to be leading to an increase in protests? And what does that mean for GAO as they’re trying to sort out the validity of all the claims?

Stephen Bacon I think it certainly has the potential to, if what we’re seeing in the decisions is a trend towards more pro se protesters — pro se being parties that are not represented by counsel — using AI. To the extent that that trend continues, I think that there’ll be a lower barrier for protesters to file at GAO if they think that they can use an LLM to generate a protest without having to spend legal fees on outside counsel. Which is understandable, particularly for small businesses who may have resource constraints. If they feel like they can use an LLM to help them challenge an award decision, we may see more of that at GAO. I think what GAO is saying in these opinions that have come out…at first, they’re warning protesters that using LLMs that create fake citations is sanctionable. They didn’t actually take the step of issuing a sanction. But finally, in the last several months, we saw that they did, in fact, take that step of dismissing a protest, actually several protests that were filed by the same company, that contained fake citations. They actually took that step and dismissed those protests on the grounds that they misrepresented legal authority in their filings with the GAO.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Stephen Bacon. He’s a partner in the government contracts practice group at Rogers Joseph O’Donnell. You mentioned small businesses and their capacity constraints in terms of they may not have in-house counsel, they may have a lot of folks who can review all of this. But does this have the effect of sort of adding some equality into the protest market where they can use AI to submit? And do you think then that that’s going to change the protest space? Is this just the tip of the iceberg in terms of transformation?

Stephen Bacon It certainly lowers the barrier for companies. The GAO was set up to be a relatively informal forum to allow for the quick and efficient resolution of protests. I don’t think what GAO is saying necessarily is that AI cannot be used. But what they are saying is that we have a process to resolve bid protests and we want to maintain the integrity of that. And if you’re going to use AI, you need to be sure that you verify that what you’re filing is accurate. For anybody that is thinking about using AI to generate a protest, there needs to be some level of quality-checking of what is in the draft that’s generated by an LLM to be sure that you’re making accurate representations to the GAO in your protest. So that means checking the legal citations to make sure that the cases actually exist. That basic level of quality-checking needs to happen. Otherwise, GAO could just be flooded with protests that have no merit and that have lots of inaccuracies in them. And that’s not going to help them resolve protests in a way that’s efficient and achieves their ultimate goal.

Terry Gerton So where do you think we go from here, and what’s your guidance to the companies who are considering using AI to file their protests?

Stephen Bacon For any company that’s contemplating using an AI to generate protests, the basic point: If you’re going to do it, you have to verify that the citations are accurate. You have verify that what an LLM is generating is citing to a decision that has been published by GAO in the past. And that’s relatively easy to do. GAO has all of their decisions on their website, and you can go and check those and verify not only that the citations are accurate, but the legal proposition that you’re asserting is supported by the case that’s being cited. That’s important, too. That’s kind of table stakes. But the other thing I would say is that what we’re seeing in a lot of these decisions, where it’s obvious from the decision that AI has been used and that GAO is pointing out that there are these fake citations, is that oftentimes those protests are being dismissed for procedural defects as well. So things like timeliness and bid protest standing. Those kinds of procedural issues are being missed by the protesters who are using LLMs to generate the filings. And that’s because of another inherent limitation of an LLM; it often will tell you what you want it to say in a lot of ways. So if you tell the LLM, generate me a protest on this issue or that issue, it will do that and it might produce something that looks, on its face, credible and compelling. But if you don’t have the domain knowledge of the timeliness rules and the standing rules, you’re often going to overlook those things and the LLM is not going to catch it for you. And so you may be in a situation where you file something that looks on its face credible, but is in fact an untimely protest.

The post AI-crafted bid protests are on the rise, but what’s the legal fallout? first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/tadamichi

Interview transcript:

Terry Gerton I want to start by taking a look back. You took over at PSC this spring. What has been the most surprising thing you’ve encountered in your first year on the job?

Jim Carroll It’s hard not to look back on the first year and think of the disruption caused by the record-breaking shutdown as being something very, honestly, traumatic. The fallout from DOGE and the impact that has had — those two things stand out as the biggest opportunities and challenges to overcome. Certainly the shutdown and the duration of it was a surprise. I think everyone sort of expected two weeks out, or three weeks out, that it was going to happen, but the fact that it lasted so long. The wonderful surprise really has been the dedication of the companies that are members of PSC to fulfill the mission. I’ve spent my entire career in the government, with one stint in the private sector. Being able to work with these member companies, they truly feel that they are doing the best work for and on behalf of the country. The significance and seriousness with how they approach their job has been just a wonderful affirmation of the work that they’re doing.

Terry Gerton So Jim, coming off of that, one of the things that happened just before the Senate left town was the confirmation of 97 more political appointees. You’ve said this is really important to PSC and industry. Walk us through what you’re watching in terms of political confirmations.

Jim Carroll At the beginning of the administration, we did see members of the cabinet and the deputies confirmed very quickly and getting them through the process. Since then, it’s been bogged down getting these assistant secretaries and a few deputy secretaries confirmed. What that means with getting 100 more people on the job is what you would expect: They’re on the job, they are going to be the decision-makers. We’re excited because we believe that things are going to start moving a lot faster. And we sincerely appreciate the willingness of those people that were willing to serve in an acting capacity. But those people have some constraints on how they move, what decisions they can make; now getting the new political appointees in, it means that they’re really going to start moving faster. We’re hoping to be able to see more long-range and not just some of the short-term things, so we’re excited about that. We think it’s in the best interest of everyone to get these folks onboarded and get them moving. We are certainly going to take advantage of that and be coming to them to tell them exactly how these things impact the industry — and therefore impact the country.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Jim Carroll. He’s the CEO of the Professional Services Council. Jim, you mentioned up front the surprise around the government shutdown. Hopefully we won’t have another here at the end of January. But what, then, are the contractors in your community expecting in terms of procurement momentum? Is it going to pick up from what we’ve seen?

Jim Carroll Yes, we absolutely believe that. And I am not as worried about the shutdown of the end of January as I was back in the fall. Hopefully you feel the same way, Terry. I don’t think either side won. I think both sides lost during that shutdown. I’m hoping, and we’re certainly telling people, that that is the situation. With the these people on board, there’ll be renewed excitement. They are eager to get the job done. A lot of them have been waiting, really, a year since they were announced by the president, so they’re going to be incredibly motivated to work and to get decisions made, to get acquisitions going and really sort of set the policy for working with industry. We’ve heard from some of them already. We’re looking forward to meeting with some of them as they get settled in and find their office. We will be meeting with them and making sure that they understand the broad significance of what they’re doing and letting them know we’re a willing partner to achieve those objectives.

Terry Gerton Jim, one of the big challenges for the government contractors in 2025 was just the delay in terms of invoices, the disruption in contracts, terminations. Are you expecting that these backlogged invoices and stalled new awards and recompetes are going to pick up speed?

Jim Carroll Yes. We went in with some of our members to meet with the Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, and the White House counsel. We told them — and this was while the shutdown was ongoing — that we needed, once it ended, to be able to move on these. We have followed up with the White house leading up to Christmas. The Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, was very receptive to it and was, we believe, to be really on message with this. We talked about the communication and how to best achieve it through the departments and agencies. So we’re optimistic that these invoices will be paid. Because this is work that has been done, and for these companies, for the most part, they have been paying their employees. Some, sadly, had to put folks on the bench and furlough people temporarily. But a lot of them kept working, did what they needed to do, and now there’s cash flow issues for some of these companies. That’s what we’re pressing on to the White House. That is what we’re talking about with the members of the cabinet on some of the issues, is to get these invoices paid and get these companies up and running fully.

Terry Gerton Well, speaking of paying one of the few agencies that has a significant appropriation is Department of Defense. You’ve got a lot of your constituents, your member organizations, in the defense sector. What’s driving the agenda for defense in 2026?

Jim Carroll Certainly the meeting that the president announced with the top defense contractors, who are members of PSC, is that they do want to contain costs. What we’re doing now is explaining that they are containing costs and it’s just like anything. Change orders — if you’re building a home and submit a bunch of change orders while the contractor is building your house, that costs extra money. So we’re explaining the same thing is happening with government contracts. That the procurement process can be streamlined, there can be a focus more on deliverables as opposed to some of the issues of the contract that have no impact. We’re seeing some of those smaller things, companies were going to certain sections within the Department of War and saying, hey, we have a new way to do things, we can do this in a more efficient way and deliver results faster. We’re going to use, maybe it’s AI which obviously is going to be a continuing a big issue in ’26, and we can reduce the number of people that we have in seats by 20% or 30%. And the department would say, no, we contracted for 90 or 100 people and we want 90 and 100 people sitting in seats — without really focusing that we can deliver better, faster, cheaper results if we amend the contract. So it’s some of that we think we’re going to be able to overcome because Secretary Hegseth and the White House have been so focused on getting the results, that if we can work together with these new folks that have been confirmed, these new 97 people  — not all of them in the [DoW], some are in the [DoW], some are in other key departments where we work — we really are optimistic that things are going to move much faster in ’26.

Terry Gerton Well, it sounds like with all of the new appointees, and perhaps some stability in terms of funding, that you’re hoping that 2026 is a more predictable year for government contractors. What exactly is PSC going to be focused on as you look into the new year?

Jim Carroll What we’re doing is focusing on meeting with not only the people that are just confirmed, as I said, a lot of these assistant secretaries. But now that things are a little more predictable, we’re going in, and we bring our members with us. It is important that our CEOs, our significant C-suite executives are with us when we’re going in to meet with members of the cabinet. And truly, we’re setting up meetings with secretaries and other key decision-makers so they can hear from us — and when I say “us,” I’m talking about the industry — about how to achieve the results that they want in 2026. That’s one of the things that we’re doing, now that there are more people in place, now that they want direction and want results, we are going in with our members and we are absolutely going to be leaning into explaining to them the best ways we can help drive the objectives that they want.

The post Will 2026 be the year GovCon shifts from disruption to execution? first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

At the recent Professional Services Council’s Vision Conference, one of the presentations on acquisition trends highlighted as many as 10 agency specific multi-award technology contracts that have been cancelled or put on indefinite hold.

These included COMET 2 from the General Services Administration, the Army’s Modern Software contract and the IRS’s digital services blanket purchase agreement.

The leaders of the vision team said agencies made the decision to cancel these and other contracts based on the requirements outlined in President Donald Trump’s executive order from March calling for the consolidation of contracts.

One of those acquisition programs that is bucking the cancellation trend is the Army’s huge multiple award contract for professional services.

The service said in a Dec. 19 posting on SAM.gov that it will proceed with the Marketplace for the Acquisition of Professional Services (MAPS) contract after all.

The Army had shelved the program back in March when the White House issued the EO.

“We are pleased to announce that after careful consideration the Government has decided to PROCEED forward with the MAPS acquisition!” the Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground wrote.

MAPS would bring together two existing contracts, IT Enterprise Solutions-3 Services (ITES-3S) and Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services 3 (RS3), and would have a 10-year life with a $50 billion ceiling.

The Army planned to combine the two contracts in MAPS back in 2024. Instead of recompeting its RS3 as a vehicle called Ascend and moving to version four of ITES-3S, the Army wanted to create its own broad-based professional services contract. Baker Tilly says in a blog post that the Army awarded RS3 in multiple phases between 2017 and 2019, with 260 companies currently participating in the $37.4 billion vehicle. The advisory firm says the service awarded ITES-3S in 2018 and includes 135 companies, and it has a $12 billion ceiling.

The Army had considered moving its requirements that MAPS will address to OASIS+ since there is some overlap of professional services requirements. Under MAPS, the Army is looking for a wide variety of IT and engineering professional services, including program management, business process reengineering, cybersecurity and many others. Baker Tilly says while more details are coming, it believes “MAPS is currently proposed as a full and open competition with small business reserves. The government intends to make 100 awards in total, 20 awards per domain with an unknown number of small business reserves for each of the five domains.”

Now MAPS is back on tap and the Army will hold an industry day on Jan. 28 at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland to discuss the rebooted solicitation.

The Army’s decision comes as the General Services Administration is opening an on-ramp and expanding its OASIS+ contract.

GSA to expand OASIS+

GSA said it will enter phase 2 of OASIS+ on Dec. 4. This means the updated multiple award professional services contract will add five new service domains across all six current contracts. OASIS+ eventually will have 13 total domains. The five news ones are:

• Business administration
• Financial services
• Human capital
• Marketing and public relations
• Social services

GSA says this expansion is a direct response to the market research and feedback it received from federal and industry partners.

“Through in-depth spend analysis, customer engagement and a formal request for information (RFI) that was posted on June 17, 2025, GSA identified critical service areas that represent a significant portion of unmanaged government spending,” GSA said in a release.

GSA expects to release the RFP for OASIS+ phase 2 on our about Jan. 12. Additionally, on Dec. 16 the agency posted draft scorecards outlining the evaluation criteria for all 13 domains combined under the six solicitations.

In its first year, OASIS+ saw agencies obligate more than $366 million through 102 task orders, according to GSA’s data-to-decisions dashboard.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Air Force accounted for the biggest agency customers based on total task orders, awarding 31 and 29, respectively, in fiscal 2025.

Deloitte Consulting won the most task orders with four, and Leidos won the largest task order for $219 million.

And speaking of GSA contracts, its Polaris small business governmentwide acquisition contract is moving forward. As of Dec. 3, agencies can place task orders against Polaris service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) and Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) pools.

Among the IT services included on Polaris are:

• Artificial intelligence and automation
• Cloud and edge computing
• Distributed ledger technologies
• Immersive and emerging technologies

“More awards in both pools are expected in Fiscal year 2026. Through this approach, GSA can ensure strong program oversight, manage vendor onboarding effectively and create room for additional opportunities,” wrote Larry Hale, GSA’s assistant commissioner in the Federal Acquisition Service’s Office of Information Technology Category (ITC), in a blog post. “Polaris was built from the start with flexibility in mind. The contract includes key features that help it stay current and responsive, such as on-ramps, no contract ceiling, and technology refresh capabilities.”

GSA still is reviewing bids for the small business and women-owned small business pools.

GAO dismisses AI contract protests

Another program that has garnered a lot of interest and attention received some good news last week as well.

The Government Accountability Office dismissed the protest by AskSage of GSA’s awards to artificial intelligence providers under its OneGov initiative.

GAO rejected the complaint not on its merits, but because it doesn’t have jurisdiction over contract modifications. GSA modified its schedule contracts with Carahsoft to offer access to AI providers for $1 or less.

“Under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and our bid protest regulations, we review protests of alleged violations of procurement statutes and regulations by federal agencies in the award or proposed award of contracts for the procurement of goods and services, and solicitations leading to such awards,” GAO wrote in its decision. “Once a contract is awarded, our office will generally not review protests of allegedly improper contract modifications because such matters are related to contract administration and therefore not subject to review pursuant to our bid protest function.”

GAO says because AskSage challenges the reasonableness of the modification of the schedule contract between GSA and Carahsoft, “AskSage’s protest raises matters of contract administration and therefore is not subject to review pursuant to our bid protest function.”

GAO also determined that AskSage isn’t an “interested party” and therefore not in a position to challenge the modifications.

“To challenge the scope of a contract modification, a protester must demonstrate its direct economic interest with respect to its status as an actual or prospective offeror,” GAO stated. “Here, AskSage is a subcontractor or supplier to Carahsoft, not an actual or prospective offeror for the FSS contract between GSA and Carahsoft that has been modified.”

Nic Chaillan, the founder of AskSage, wrote LinkedIN that there are always loopholes when it comes to federal acquisition rules.

“We are obviously right on the merits. Sad day for America. Now [F]ortune 500 can build a $1 dollar unlimited offering in a contract modification for 12 [months], get agencies locked in and charge billions [in] year 2. Uncompeted. Sad day,” Chaillan wrote in response to others’ comments. “Sad to watch the administration letting those shenanigans happen.”

AskSage filed protests with GAO in August, claiming the awards for access to Anthropic and OpenAI tools violated several laws and regulations, including the commercial item pricing requirements under FAR Part 12 and CICA.

GSA said at least 43 agencies have taken advantage of the low-cost OneGov agreements for AI tools.

The post Army bucks trend, to move forward with $50B MAPS contract first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/Niyazz

New Delhi, October 3rd: The 12th edition of The Big F Awards, hosted by food critic Pawan Soni and presented by Indian Food Freak, lit up Le Meridien New Delhi last evening as the city’s most celebrated chefs, restaurateurs, and food personalities came together to honour excellence in the dining industry.

From stalwarts like Rohit Khattar, AD Singh, Rocky Mohan, Zorawar Kalra, RJ Khurafati Nitin, Rocky Singh and Mayur Sharma, to culinary leaders such as Chef Manisha Bhasin, Chef Manish Mehrotra, Chef Kunal Kapur, Chef Ajay Chopra,  Chef Saby Gorai amongst others, the gathering reflected the depth and diversity of Delhi NCR’s food culture.

A Fair and Transparent Process
What sets The Big F Awards apart is its uncompromising commitment to fairness. The honours are not influenced by sponsorships or lobbying. Each year, an independent jury visits nominated restaurants, experiences their food, and casts a single, non-revisable vote. Winners are revealed only on the night of the awards, ensuring transparency and keeping the suspense intact till the very end.

The 2025 jury featured some of the most respected names in the culinary and hospitality world: Chef Kunal Kapur, Chef Sabyasachi Gorai, Sameer Bawa, RJ Khurafati Nitin, Chef Nita Mehta, Rocky Singh, Chef Ashish Bhasin, Diwan Gautam Anand, and host Pawan Soni himself.

Celebrating Food Stories that Matter
“The Big F Awards have always stood for honest recognition,” said Pawan Soni during his address. “This gathering reflects the incredible depth of talent, passion, and creativity that defines Delhi NCR’s dining culture. We celebrated chefs who preserve heritage with pride, visionaries who are redefining how we experience food, and restaurants that have earned trust through years of consistency. Awards matter only when they are deserved, not when they are bought, and last night was about applauding the people who bring joy, comfort, and inspiration to our lives through food.”

Highlights of the Winners
The evening recognised some of the most inspiring names in the industry. Rohit Khattar was honoured with the Culinary Icon Award. Varun Tuli was named Best Restaurateur and Sahil Sambhi received the award for Best Nightlife Entrepreneur. The legendary Bukhara at ITC Maurya joined the Hall of Fame, where it will be recognised each year but will no longer compete in the awards.

Other notable winners included:

• Comorin as Best Modern Indian
• Lair as Best Cocktail Bar
• Fort City as Best Microbrewery
• Varun Sharma as Best Mixologist
• Megu at Leela Palace as Best Japanese Restaurant
• Orient Express at Taj Palace as Best European Restaurant

For the complete list of winners, visit the official Instagram page www.instagram.com/thebigfawards

An Evening of Camaraderie and Inspiration
The ceremony wasn’t only about competition. It was also a night of meaningful conversations, reunions, and collaborations. Guests enjoyed a specially curated menu by the Le Meridien team that added to the flavour of the celebration. The winners represented every facet of the dining landscape, from boutique spaces to landmark establishments, showing how Delhi NCR continues to evolve as a culinary powerhouse.

Since its inception in 2014, The Big F Awards has grown into one of the capital’s most authentic platforms for recognition, dialogue, and exchange. The 2025 edition carried this legacy forward, with conversations spilling beyond the stage and sparking collaborations that promise to shape the future of dining in the region.

For the many who gathered, the night was more than an awards ceremony. It was a celebration of food, community, and the people who make dining in Delhi NCR unforgettable.

The post Twelve Years Strong: The Big F Awards 2025 Showcases the Best of Delhi NCR’s Dining Scene appeared first on Indian Food Freak.

The Pacific Northwest BBQ Association is hosting a charity competition at Camp Korey, north of Seattle, September 6 – 8, 2024.  Camp Korey is a ... Read More

If you missed the Early Bird Special, it's okay. You still have time to enter the 2024 Scovie Awards. The final deadline to receive products is September 12th

The post 2024 Scovie Awards Call for Entries first appeared on Burn Blog.

Hey, this is just a quick reminder that the Early Bird Special for the 2024 Scovie Awards ends in three days. After that, the entry prices start to go up.

The post 2024 Scovie Awards Early Bird Special: 3 Days Left first appeared on Burn Blog.

The 2024 Scovie Awards Early Bird Special ends July 1. Enter your spicy products today and save on your shot at nabbing a Scovie.

The post 2024 Scovie Awards Early Bird Deadline Looms first appeared on Burn Blog.

Looking to exhibit at the Fiery Foods Show? You can become one as there are still a few good booth spaces left. Reserve yours now.

The post Fiery Foods Show Booth Space Still Available! first appeared on Burn Blog.

(Gurgaon, Haryana), India, 1st September 2022: The 9th edition of Big F Awards, organized by Indian Food Freak concludes amid much fanfare. Held on the 31st of August, Wednesday at The Westin, Gurgaon, the awards ceremony was nothing short of spectacular with the who’s who of the food and entertainment industry gracing the evening with their presence. The food gala was a celebration of
Gurgaon’s culinary culture where untapped local food marketers, home chefs, and home bakers got their share of recognition in addition to commercial establishments. In fact, the event’s sole objective was to provide a platform for small-scale but passionate food-preneurs to showcase their talent and
participate in the F&B space.

The Big F Awards started in the year 2014 and have steadily become the most sought-after and prestigious awards for culinary enthusiasts of Gurgaon. These Gurgaon-specific awards have helped showcase the city’s love for food and get recognised as a culinary capital. The Big F Awards 2022 honoured a variety of food categories ranging from local takeaway joints to fine dining restaurants and bars, in addition to a community of home bakers among others. The list of winners included Vir Sanghvi who was facilitated with Star of India, Lifetime Achievement award was awarded to Chef Manjit Singh Gill while Comorin won the Restaurant of the year award. Arvind Saraswat Young Chef award by Chef Ranveer Brar was bagged by Aditya Murali Shankar from Varq at Taj Mahal Hotel. Chef Aditya won
Rs50,000 apart from the trophy from the personal fund of Chef Ranveer Brar.

These awards are judged by some of the best Chefs and Food critics in the country including Chef Nita Mehta, Diwan Gautam Anand, Chef Manisha Bhasin, Mayur Sharma, Chef Sabyasachi Gorai, Pawan Soni, Chef Rakesh Sethi, and Rocky Singh. The awards provided chefs, bakers, and restaurateurs with a pool of opportunities to establish their identity and get recognised by the industry. Speaking on the same Pawan Soni, Founder of Indian Food Freak and The Big F Awards said, “We’re very happy with the way things have unfolded this year marking the 9th edition of Big F Awards. I humbly acknowledge and thank all our sponsors, jury members, attendees, and participants for making this event a huge success.”

Shibani Kashyap’s melodious performance enthralled the audience. Other key people who attended the awards include Chef Manish Mehrotra, Chef Kunal Kapur, Chef Ajay Chopra, Zoraward Kalra, AD Singh, Pankaj Bansal – Director, M3M India, Neeraj Kumar – MD, Beam Suntory, Nitin Seth – Vice Chairman, Tops, Kabir Suri – President NRAI amongst many others.

The post The 9th edition of ‘Big F Awards’ marks the celebration of Gurgaon’s culinary marvel -2022 appeared first on Indian Food Freak.