Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights provides our in-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting. Through Insights, our attorneys offer a real-time assessment of the statutory, regulatory, legal, and business-related developments and trends that are shaping the industry. We also examine a full array of non-U.S. public procurement issues, mindful that our clients compete in a global marketplace.Morrison Foerster’s nationally recognized Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice represents the world’s leading companies in the aerospace and defense, intelligence, cybersecurity, information technology, financial and professional services, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and logistics support sectors. We are enlisted to address our clients’ most complex and important legal issues. Our work includes contract and subcontract negotiation and other transactional matters, business and regulatory compliance counseling, internal investigations, bid protests, and a wide array of enforcement and litigation matters. Our clients range from Fortune 50 companies to small and medium-sized companies just entering the public sector. We advise both U.S. and non-U.S. companies involved in municipal, state, federal, and non-U.S. procurement matters.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

GAO Protest Timeline

govcon-gao-protest-timeline-thumb.jpg

Govcon GAO Post Award Protest Timeline Article

Contract Disputes Act Claim Timeline

govcon-contract-disputes-timeline-thumb.jpg

The Bayh-Dole Act

govcon-bayhdole-thumb.jpg

Anatomy of a Protest

govcon-federalclaimsprotest-thumb.jpg

Allowability of Legal Costs

govcon-allowabilityoflegalcosts-thumb.jpg

Procurement Integrity Act

240715-procurement-integrity-act-resized.jpg

Govcon-Resources

Tina is Co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. She represents a wide variety of government contractors including information technology, defense, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical companies, with a focus on general contract counseling and compliance, particularly concerning intellectual property, and cybersecurity matters and federal grant funding.Tina counsels contractors on compliance with federal, state and local acquisition and ethics regulations and with the evolving myriad of requirements pertaining to data security and cybersecurity. She has been involved with numerous internal investigations and compliance reviews, and with mandatory and voluntary disclosures to agencies, and litigation of False Claims Act matters.Tina routinely advises clients concerning:<ul><li>Prime-subcontractor relationships</li><li>Sources of supply and country of origin requirements</li><li>Price reductions and price reporting issues</li><li>Organizational conflicts of interest</li><li>Safeguarding of intellectual property and other proprietary interests</li><li>Licensing and data rights issues</li><li>Handling of classified materials and controlled unclassified information</li><li>Agency suspension and debarment proceedings</li></ul>She also assists clients with due diligence and other activities related to the acquisition of government contracting concerns, and with the drafting and negotiation of teaming agreements, subcontracts, licensing agreements, and cooperative research and development agreements. She also assists clients applying for federal grants (including SBIR and STTR agreements), and those who seek to obtain other transactional authority agreements, as well as those competing for state and local government work.Tina’s litigation experience includes government contracts claims litigation in federal courts and before boards of contract appeals, bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims, and complex disputes in federal courts, including civil fraud and False Claims Act litigation and reverse Freedom of Information Act litigation.Prior to joining Morrison Foerster, Tina worked at another large national firm and as a trial attorney in the Office of the General Counsel of the Navy, Navy Litigation Office.<h4>Representative Experience</h4><ul><li>Negotiation of largest CHIPS Act federal funding agreement between multinational semiconductor corporation and U.S. Department of Commerce.</li><li>Negotiated prime contract and major subcontracts related to the Department of Energy’s next generation supercomputer program, including extensive IP rights negotiations and negotiation of associated patent rights waivers.</li><li>Negotiated series of other transaction authority agreements with DARPA and associated subcontracts with more than a dozen research universities on behalf of a firm biotech client, including complex IP rights allocations and material transfer agreements.</li><li>Assist clients with FedRAMP authorization process and with development of license agreements for software products sold to federal, state and local government agencies.</li><li>Cyber incident response counseling to some of the largest companies and organizations impacted by security incidents.</li><li>Advises clients on Bayh-Dole reporting of inventions and IP strategies for contracts and grants.</li><li>Conducts due diligence for major government contract mergers and acquisitions.</li></ul>

reynolds_tina_blog_150x150.png

reynolds_tina_common_640x280.jpg

reynolds_tina_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

reynolds_tina_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

reynolds_tina_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Our government contracts and procurement attorneys counsel businesses on legal and compliance issues encountered when doing business with government entities.

Government Contracts + Public Procurement

Government Contracts and Procurement Attorneys

Band 1: National: Government Contracts

Tier 1: Government Contracts

Readers Choice Award: Government Contracting

Tina is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts & Public Procurement practice. She counsels a wide variety of government contractors on compliance with federal acquisition and ethics regulations. She drafts and negotiates contracts on their behalf and has been involved with numerous internal investigations and compliance reviews, and with bid protest, contract claims, and False Claims Act litigation. She also advises on M&A transactions involving government contractors.

Tina D. Reynolds

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litigation and counseling in federal procurement matters, with an emphasis on bid protests, Cost Accounting Standards disputes, and small business matters. He has represented both protesters and awardees in scores of protests before the Government Accountability Office, the Court of Federal Claims, and procuring agencies, in acquisitions ranging from small business procurements to multibillion-dollar contracts of global significance. His representative protest matters span the aerospace sector, the Intelligence Community, base operations and logistics, healthcare, nuclear and environmental work, and information technology and software acquisitions. His protests have included both classified and unclassified programs. In addition to prevailing in published decisions, Jim has also secured favorable corrective action on behalf of clients in a wide variety of protests that were resolved without a published decision.Jim’s work also focuses on disputes over cost allowability and compliance with the Cost Accounting Standards, and he has appeared before the Armed Services and Civilian Boards of Contract Appeals, in size and status protests before Small Business Administration (SBA) area offices, and appeals before the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals. Jim regularly counsels clients on contract interpretation, organizational conflicts of interest, and small business compliance.Jim graduated with high honors from the George Washington University Law School, where he focused his studies on federal procurement law, was a member of the Law Review, and interned with the General Services Administration’s suspension and debarment office. Jim also holds a degree in theology magna cum laude from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and a bachelor’s degree in classical languages and literature summa cum laude from the University of Kentucky, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa.

tucker_james_blog_150x150.png

tucker_james_common_640x280.jpg

tucker_james_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

tucker_james_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

tucker_james_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Jim maintains an active practice in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and contracting agencies and counsels clients in contract disputes and compliance obligations.

Jim Tucker is of counsel in Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement Practice Group and is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Jim’s practice runs the gamut of litigation and counseling in federal procurement matters, with an emphasis on bid protests, Cost Accounting Standards disputes, and small business matters.

James Tucker

<div style="margin-bottom: 15px;" class="videoWrapper"><iframe class="sticky-video" title="Meet Alex Ward, Government Contracts Practice Co-Chair" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/TkliwdSlTaQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="1" title="iframe"></iframe></div>J. Alex Ward is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement group. His practice covers a full range of government contracts matters, including investigations, bid protests, claims, general litigation, corporate transactions, and counseling. Alex strives in all matters is to provide his clients the highest level of efficient and effective representation.Alex represents contractors in internal and external investigations, disclosures to the government, and qui tam litigation, with great success in reducing or eliminating his clients’ exposure through active engagement with the government. His work in this area includes obtaining numerous declinations and dismissals of False Claims Act cases in their earliest stages, sparing his clients the cost, risk, and exposure of litigation.He has also served as lead counsel in dozens of bid protests involving military and civilian agency procurements of a wide range of products and services, including all manner of pre- and post-award protests in the GAO, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and state tribunals, as well as appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and size protest appeals before the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals.Alex handles all aspects of the claims process, from the initial assessment and drafting of requests for equitable adjustment through litigation in the Boards of Contract Appeals and the Court of Federal Claims. Alex’s practice also covers the full gamut of other controversies confronting government contractors, including prime-sub, teaming partner, employer-employee, competitor, and indemnification disputes. His litigation work also includes a wide variety of pro bono engagements, in which he has represented both individual and institutional clients in matters ranging from immigration and criminal defense to sustainable procurement and protection of the environment.Prior to joining the firm, Alex served in the U.S. Army as a commissioned officer and an Assistant to the General Counsel of the Army responsible for civil works and international matters, and as a clerk for judges on the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the D.C. Circuit. He is a member of the Boards of the Morrison & Foerster Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and of Law360’s Government Contracts Editorial Board.

ward_alex_blog_150x150.png

ward_alex_common_640x280.jpg

ward_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ward_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ward_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alex is co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice. His practice covers a full range of government contracts matters, including bid protests, claims, investigations, corporate transactions, and counseling.

J. Alex Ward

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights blog provides an in-depth analysis of news, developments, and trends impacting government contracting and procurement. Through Insights, attorneys from our nationally recognized Government Contracts and Public Procurement practice will offer a real-time assessment of the statutory, regulatory, legal, and business-related developments that are shaping the industry. This blog will also examine a full array of U.S. and non-U.S. public procurement issues, mindful that our clients compete in a global marketplace.Read about our <a href="https://govcon.mofo.com/editors/">Authors</a>.Never miss a post. Subscribe to get real-time updates.

gov-con-feature-image-thumb1.jpg

Welcome to the Government Contracts Insights Blog

Welcome to the Government Contracts Insights Blog

gov-con-feature-image_(1)1.jpg

The United States Capitol building

Morrison Foerster’s Government Contracts Insights blog provides an in-depth analysis of news, developments, and trends impacting government contracting and proc

Announcements & Press

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

News and thought leadership from lawyers who are adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

  External-Link

MoFo + Blog

Mofo+

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

Our Government Contracts Insights blog provides in-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting U.S. government contracting and non-U.S. public procureme

Government Contracts Insights

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Blog - Govcon RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Government Contracts Insights. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The latest updates and analysis from Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster - Footer

On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based...

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Acquisition Regulations

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

President Trump’s DEI Certification for Federal Contractors Creates Significant FCA Risk | Government Contracts Insights

Andrew R. Turnbull

On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/" target="_blank">Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity</a>” (the “Order”), rescinding affirmative action under Executive Order 11246 and other anti-discrimination policies applying to federal contractors. We provided an <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/250122-trump-rescinds-affirmative-action-federal-contractors-dei-private-companies" target="_blank">in-depth review</a> of that Order, while noting that much remains to be seen given the Order’s minimal execution details and the current legal challenges to the Order. We focus here on one particular feature of the Order: its threat of proactive—and unprompted—private sector enforcement through the civil False Claims Act (“FCA”).The FCA imposes civil liability for anyone who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. government, or who knowingly makes or uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the U.S. government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A)-(B). It also imposes liability for conspiring to commit such conduct. Id. § 3729(a)(1)(C). Defendants liable under the FCA may be subject to treble damages as well as civil penalties per false or fraudulent claim. Id. § 3729(a)(1).President Trump’s Order aims to leverage the FCA to force companies to comply with the Order’s mandate against “illegal” diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs. It not only authorizes but mandates the Attorney General to collect a report for agencies identifying “up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars.” And the Order requires the head of each agency to include in every contract or grant award: (1) “[a] term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code” [the False Claims Act]; and (2) “[a] term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”In other words, President Trump has laid the groundwork for the government to use the FCA to enforce compliance with the administration’s anti-DEI policy objectives. Combined with the likelihood that this Order will empower private individuals to file qui tam actions based on perceived unlawful DEI practices, the threat of government investigation sets the stage for a significant increase in FCA enforcement activity going forward—even above that seen in <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/250121-doj-announces-2-92-billion" target="_blank">Fiscal Year 2024</a>.Below, we discuss the FCA-related implications of this far-reaching Order and what steps companies should consider taking now.Key Risks<ol><li>Unclear What Constitutes Unlawful DEI: Because the Order does not define “DEI” or provide context on what this administration believes might be an “unlawful” DEI program, we will have to wait and see if the administration provides more guidance. This administration, however, will likely take a broad view of what DEI programs it believes are illegal. What this administration has done at federal agencies to eliminate essentially all DEI programs may offer a prelude to some of the DEI programs that it might target in the private sector. The Order, however, does not change the law on DEI programs. Even before the Order, preferences, quotas, or set-aside programs based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics were unlawful under federal anti-discrimination law except in very limited contexts, such as remedial programs created in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Many DEI programs remain lawful under existing federal antidiscrimination laws, including mentorship/fellowship/internship programs and employee resource groups that are not limited to certain races, genders, or other protected demographic groups. Companies also must continue to comply with antidiscrimination laws at the federal and state levels, so they should continue to review their practices for bias or discriminatory barriers, such as conducting pay equity reviews.</li><li>Increased Whistleblower Activity: At any company, there is always the risk that an employee, former employee, or competitor with knowledge of corporate practices could identify wrongdoing or contractual noncompliance and become a qui tam relator. Companies can mitigate this risk by establishing robust ethics and compliance programs and investigating employee concerns proactively. President Trump’s Order takes this long‑standing and well‑understood risk and elevates it significantly by sweeping certain undefined DEI practices within the FCA’s purview. The Order will almost certainly result in increased politicization of employment decisions—such as hiring, firing, and promotions—and will give disappointed or disgruntled employees a basis to claim that any adverse employment decision was a result of illegal diversity-related considerations. Indeed, in the last few years, companies have experienced a growing number of employee claims that their DEI programs are unlawful or violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. Depending on the nature of these objections, employees may have FCA whistleblower protections that will require employers to proceed cautiously, especially before taking disciplinary or other adverse actions. This Order effectively deputizes corporate employees to police corporate DEI programs or anything that might look like a DEI program. It is not hard to envision a drastic uptick in whistleblower complaints as a result, and it appears quite likely that the government will be more prone to intervene in such suits than has historically been the case.</li><li>Unprompted Government Investigations: Typically, the Department of Justice does not investigate a company for potential FCA violations without some indication of wrongdoing, such as a whistleblower complaint or concerns raised by a federal agency. The Order, however, calls for “civil compliance investigations” of publicly traded corporations, large nonprofit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of $500 million or more, state and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion. This suggests the administration could use its investigative authority not only to investigate suspected unlawful activity, but also simply to determine whether certain large organizations might have an “illegal” DEI program. Depending on the outcome of any such investigation, the costs a federal contractor would likely incur cooperating with the government or independently investigating government concerns could be unallowable.</li></ol>Risk Mitigation<ol><li>Audit DEI Programs Under Privilege: Although President Trump’s Order rescinded prior executive orders and policies aimed at promoting “illegal” DEI, it did not nullify existing anti-discrimination laws. If a DEI program was lawful before the Order, it remains lawful after the Order. That said, given this administration will likely take a broad view of what DEI programs are “illegal,” it is critical now to inventory and audit existing and proposed DEI initiatives through experienced counsel and under attorney-client privilege. The scope of these audits can vary, but, at a minimum, should include: (1) assessing DEI initiatives to ensure they do not create unlawful preferences, quotas, or set-asides based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics; (2) ranking currently lawful DEI programs by risk level (i.e., high, medium, low) based on DEI programs that may be more prone to challenge in the current environment (e.g., aspirational targets and goals that are perceived as quotas); and (3) documenting the business and legal value of these initiatives to the company and risks for curtailing or ending those programs. The outcome of this audit can be used to inform companies’ DEI strategies moving forward based on risk tolerances and preferences. This audit is even more critical for federal contractors so they can certify the lawfulness of their DEI programs to the government when the new contractual certification requirements are added to their federal contracts. These audits should be done under attorney-client privilege to minimize risk of having to disclose the audit findings in response to litigation, government investigations, or shareholder proposals.</li><li>Review Communications About DEI and EEO Plans for Risk: Companies should review all public-facing DEI communications and disclosures (e.g., SEC filings, websites, recruiting materials, and messaging to employees) to ensure that they are vetted appropriately based on the company’s risk tolerances and preferences. In particular, companies should consider derisking communications based on terminology that might be more prone to challenge in the current landscape (e.g., DEI, equity, diversity, etc.) or could be used as circumstantial evidence that the company is operating an “illegal” DEI program. Companies also should consider how to message changes to DEI terminology and communications. Such changes could be viewed negatively by certain employees, customers, or other stakeholders as giving up on DEI and might create reputational and business risks. Also, changing terminology, without more, may not eliminate or substantially reduce risk. Indeed, public statements by administration officials suggest that they are looking for DEI programs that have been “disguise[d]” using “coded or imprecise language.” </li><li>Train Human Resources and Managers on Handling Employee DEI Opposition: Companies should arm managers and human resources with guidance on how to address employee complaints about DEI programs. Companies should also review their policies and practices for accommodating sincerely held religious beliefs to ensure that they are adequately prepared to address employees seeking accommodations from certain DEI practices, such as EEO/diversity trainings, LGBTQ celebrations, use of preferred pronouns, and others.</li><li>Document Employment Decisions Carefully: As noted above, the Order effectively deputizes corporate employees to scrutinize DEI programs and increases the risk of claims that certain employment decisions—e.g., hiring, firing, promotions, etc.—were due to allegedly “illegal” DEI programs or related to employee complaints about “unlawful” DEI programs. This means employment decisions are likely to be the subject and focus of increased scrutiny and litigation, including FCA qui tam actions. Companies therefore should review their procedures for documenting and justifying employment decisions to ensure they are sufficient to document the legitimate business reasons for those decisions, with extra emphasis on demonstrating that particular employment decisions were based on merit—not unlawful consideration of race or other protected characteristics.</li><li>Develop an Investigation Protocol: Companies should also review their practices for investigating discrimination complaints and concerns about their DEI programs. Although many companies investigate discrimination complaints under their current policies and practices, the need to conduct and document proper investigations is even more important given potential liabilities related to the Order. It is prudent for companies to review their current procedures (or proactively develop them) to use in the event of any allegation, rather than to develop ad hoc procedures that may, themselves, be subject to scrutiny.</li><li>Don’t Overcorrect: Companies should avoid rolling back DEI programs too far, as such rollback could create other legal and business risks. For example, removing certain DEI programs, such as those targeted at eliminating bias, could increase risk of traditional discrimination claims or hinder recruitment and retention efforts. Moreover, the Order itself carves out lawful federal or private-sector employment and contracting preferences for veterans of the U.S. armed forces or persons protected by the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. § 107 et seq., meaning this administration still views at least some affirmative action as appropriate. Federal contractors also must continue to comply with the affirmative action and nondiscrimination protections for individuals with disabilities under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and for protected veterans under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act.</li></ol>

Labor & Employment

False Claims Act

President Trump’s DEI Certification for Federal Contractors Creates Significant FCA Risk

More

Co-Chair, Global Employment and Labor Practice

Bid Protest Spotlight: Jurisdiction, Price Range, Late-Is-Late

Trump Issues Executive Order on Cybersecurity Rolling Back Some Prior Policies and Introducing New Ones

GAO Reaffirms Agencies’ Discretion to Award Sole-Source SBIR Phase III Contracts (Even to a Successor-in-Interest)