Recent developments related to government contracting include efforts to expand emerging-technology companies’ access to classified work, the next major tranche of proposed changes under the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul, and revisions to US Department of Justice (DOJ) policies governing False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement. Together, the developments could affect how companies enter the classified marketplace, compete for federal work, and respond to government and whistleblower enforcement.
DCSA Creates Accelerated Path into Classified Contracting
The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) recently announced that it is developing an accelerated facility security clearance (FCL) pathway for emerging-technology companies that lack an existing classified contract.
Through the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) Bridge Program, companies could receive limited, low-cost prototype contracts that would allow DIU to sponsor FCL processing. DCSA would then use an accelerated FCL review process without changing the substantive eligibility or security standards.
Participation is expected to be limited to selected technology areas and a relatively small cohort, meaning the initiative is not a wholesale restructuring of the FCL process. The program nevertheless may shorten the current approximately nine-month timeline for obtaining an FCL. Contractors will still need appropriately cleared personnel and any required program-specific authorizations.
For emerging-technology companies, the initiative could help address a longstanding barrier to classified contracting.
FAR Council Releases Second Batch of Proposed FAR Overhaul Changes
On September 18, the FAR Council released four proposed rules revising 16 FAR parts and related Part 52 clauses as part of the ongoing Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. Comments are due October 19, 2026. Highlights of the proposed changes include:
Commercial, simplified, and negotiated acquisitions: The first proposed rule would consolidate commercial buying procedures in FAR Part 12 and require agencies to prioritize acquisitions through existing government-wide vehicles. It would eliminate FAR 52.212-3 and 52.212-5, shifting responsibility for determining applicable commercial provisions and clauses to contracting officers. Revised Part 15 would also permit acceptance of late proposals when doing so is in the government’s best interest.
Contractor responsibility, intellectual property, and transportation: The second proposal would remove or relocate duplicative provisions from Part 9 while adding noncompliance with the proposed contractor DEI-discrimination clause as a basis for suspension or debarment.
Part 27 would be revised to adopt data rights provisions from the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and establish a single, nonextendable 20-year data-protection period for the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Small Business Technology Transfer program, after which the government would receive government-purpose rights rather than unlimited rights. The proposal would also remove 33 clauses from Part 47, many involving transportation requirements.
Sealed bidding, bonds, and construction contracting: The third proposal would update Part 14 to remove obsolete sealed-bidding requirements. Changes to Part 36 would separate rules for construction contracts from architect-engineer contracts, eliminate several clauses, and move requirements concerning preconstruction conferences and site visits to individual solicitations.
Contract types, options, and research and development contracting: The final proposal would revise Part 16 to provide greater flexibility in selecting contract types while establishing fixed-price, performance-based contracts as the default and requiring written justification and heightened approval for nonfixed-price arrangements.
The proposed Part 17 would eliminate the general five-year contract duration limit, broaden option clauses, and allow parties to toll option deadlines during a lapse in appropriations. The proposal also provides new definitions and clarifies when and how agencies may use alternative contracting mechanisms for research and development.
The proposals continue the FAR Council’s effort to streamline acquisition requirements while also making several substantive changes that could affect commercial contracting, intellectual property rights, contract structures, and competition. Contractors should assess the proposed changes relevant to their portfolios and consider whether to submit comments before the October 19 deadline.
DOJ Revises FCA Policies on Agency Guidance and Qui Tam Dismissals
DOJ recently modified the Justice Manual to reinstate and expand a 2017 policy concerning the role of agency guidance in enforcement actions. Under the revised policy, prosecutors may not base civil or criminal enforcement solely on noncompliance with agency guidance. Instead, DOJ must identify a violation of a statute, regulation, or binding contractual obligation.
Agency guidance may nevertheless remain relevant as evidence of scienter, notice, industry standards, or factual context. Noncompliance also may support liability where a contract expressly incorporates the relevant guidance.
DOJ also revised its approach to declined qui tam cases. Lawyers must assess whether the government’s interests favor dismissal when recommending that DOJ decline intervention and may revisit that determination as litigation proceeds. Potential grounds for dismissal include meritless claims, interference with agency programs, the risk of adverse precedent, national security concerns, and preservation of government resources.
For contractors who are facing qui tam allegations, the revisions may provide an enhanced opportunity to present arguments for government dismissal, particularly before DOJ makes its intervention decision. Since the changes largely preserve prior DOJ policies and approval procedures rather than require DOJ to dismiss declined cases, their practical effect may be incremental.
Looking Ahead
These latest developments reflect continued efforts to lower certain barriers to federal contracting while recalibrating the rules governing acquisition and enforcement. Emerging-technology companies should monitor DCSA’s new clearance pathway as a potential route into classified work, while contractors should more broadly assess how the latest FAR proposals could affect acquisition strategies and contract requirements.
Companies facing FCA scrutiny should also consider how DOJ’s revised guidance and dismissal policies may affect engagement with the government during the investigative stage.