DoD Advances Proposed Rule on Enhanced Debriefings
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.24.21
On May 20, 2021, the FAR Council issued a proposed Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rule on post-award debriefings that largely codifies—and in a number of ways bolsters—the existing enhanced post-award debriefing rules established by the Department of Defense’s (DoD) March 22, 2018 Class Deviation on Enhanced Postaward Debriefing Rights. The proposed rule requires that the awarding agency provide an oral or written debriefing, when requested, for all contracts, task orders, and delivery orders valued in excess of $10 million. The rule further augments the DFARS clause on DoD debriefings, requiring (1) debriefings to include a redacted version of the source selection decision document (SSDD) for all awards in excess of $100 million; and (2) the option for a small business or nontraditional defense contractor to request a redacted version of the SSDD for contract awards between $10 million and $100 million. And as with DoD’s Class Deviation, if an offeror submits additional questions in response to the initial debriefing within two business days of being debriefed, the debriefing shall not close until the agency responds to those questions. Under those circumstances, the protester’s clock for filing a protest at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (including the five-day window in which to file and obtain the Competition in Contracting Act’s automatic stay of performance) does not begin to run until such time as the agency provides its response. If no questions are posed, the protest timelines are unchanged.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
