Nextgov/FCW - Acquisition

DOD suspends CMMC Phase 2, launches 60-day ‘reform’ review

Nick Wakeman — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:55:00 -0400

The Defense Department has essentially ended the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program by suspending its second phase requirements.

DOD is keeping in place Phase 1, which requires self-assessments for how companies protect controlled unclassified information in their systems. But DOD said Monday it is suspending Phase 2, which was to begin on Nov. 10 and requires third-party certifications.

DOD is also launching a review of CMMC to make sure it aligns with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s acquisition initiatives, which prioritizes speed, and lowering barriers for new entrants. The Acquisition Transformation System directives also aim to replace bureaucratic compliance with what DOD calls “scalable, resilient cybersecurity measures.”

The CMMC program got its start during the first Trump administration and was revised and streamlined during the Biden administration. CMMC has been envisioned as a cyber and supply chain security standard for the defense industrial base.

According to DOD's Monday statement, the department is responding to complaints that CMMC was increasing compliance costs and adding bureaucratic burdens.

The Small Business Administration also reported that CMMC compliance had caused some companies to leave the defense industrial base, which DOD said is delaying the deliveries of critical capabilities to operators.

"In support of Secretary Pete Hegseth's directive to reduce compliance barriers for small and medium sized businesses, we are today suspending the CMMC Phase II requirements and initiating a 60-day study of the future of this program," said DOD Chief Information Officer Kirsten Davies.

Davies said that cybersecurity and operational resilience are critical priorities.

“We believe the DIB can achieve both, while we reduce unnecessary government red tape,” she said.

Phase 3 of CMMC, which was to begin in November 2027, and Phase 4 for full implementation are also all suspended.

In the meantime, the department said it would rely on “self-assessments and select government-led assessments.”

DOD's announcement said that Davies made the decision.

“The CIO's decision ensures we maintain a strict security baseline while removing paralyzing costs and keeping innovators and competition growing in the defense supply chain," said Michael Duffey, defense undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment.

DOD has also formed a CMMC Reform Task Force to conduct a review of the certification program. Part of their role will be to review comments in responses to a request for information, which DOD posted Monday.

The department wants feedback from companies on cost drivers, administrative burdens tied to CMMC compliance, and which NIST 800-171 security controls deliver meaningful risk reduction.

DOD also wants to know know how companies are already using commercial cybersecurity tools and managed services, and how the department might recognize those in a compliance framework instead of requiring separate assessments.

Responses to the RFI are due Aug. 14.

]]>

OPM’s HR systems award clears protest window

Nick Wakeman — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 16:41:00 -0400

The Office of Personnel Management’s plan to consolidate human capital management systems was a hotly-contested contract that Oracle won in June.

Seven companies in total submitted bids, but Oracle has begun work on the 10-year, $395.8 million contract and the protest window has closed. Companies generally have 10 days to file a protest following a debriefing.

Other bidders for the contract included Workday, IBM, SAP and Economic Systems inc.

With no protests, the company is now working with OPM to modernize human resource systems that serve 2 million federal employees.

IBM and Economic Systems filed pre-award protests, objecting to terms in the solicitation. IBM later withdrew its protest and GAO denied Economic Systems protest on June 1, clearing the way for OPM to make its award.

OPM structured the contract as a firm-fixed-price award with a 10-year ordering period. Requirements include core HR and personnel action processing, payroll and benefits integration, audit-ready reporting, and time and attendance tracking.

The system also must comply with security standards such as FISMA and FedRAMP, as well as be interoperable with existing federal IT systems.

OPM wants Oracle to finish the core implementation by the fall. Other phases will follow for agency transitions and then licensing and sustainment.

More than 100 HR systems currently operate across the federal government. Federal HR 2.0 is OPM’s attempt to wrangle all that into a single, integrated platform.

Some of the functions OPM wants include position management, personnel action, records processing, workforce analytics, and employee and manager self-service capabilities.

Much of what OPM uses to manage HR functions runs on PeopleSoft, which Oracle acquired in 2005. Oracle recently extended its support for PeopleSoft through 2037, which includes updates and fixes.

]]>

AWS includes government in BVR Competency program

Alexandra Kelley — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 11:00:00 -0400

Amazon Web Services is expanding its Business Value Realization Competency framework to government partners, offering the public sector its seal for evaluating the efficacy of technology partners and their products.

Unveiled on Wednesday, the availability of the BVR to government partners is intended to help qualify the value of third-party implementations of AWS tech product deployments. Including government customers in the BVR is intended to offer AWS partners who are public sector contractors more funding and transparency in their government deliverables, primarily through quantifying tangible results during the procurement process.

Metrics that the BVR measures across its qualified partners include cost savings, productivity gains, processing speeds and other real-world outcomes that can help an organization understand the benefit of their technology acquisitions and partnerships. Partner companies that receive AWS BVR Competency stamps effectively communicate to government customers that they have a track record of delivering measurable results.

“Today, we are announcing that government customers — federal, state, local and education — now qualify for BVR through a [Public Sector] Legal-approved compliant framework,” Rishi Bhaskar, the public sector partnership lead at AWS, told Nextgov/FCW in a statement. “Government customers benefit directly from BVR funding because partners are required to pass through the full value of their funding to the customer. Every dollar of outcome-based funding flows to the government customer as professional services value — meaning the investment AWS makes in driving measurable outcomes ultimately reduces cost for the end customer.”

Under the BVR structure, AWS rewards partners for their implementation services having a tangible impact, which in turn provides lower costs to government clients. Bhaskar said that the insights offered by AWS’s BVR approach go beyond standard timelines and budget, analyzing what the new technology product adoption has given to agencies.

“Public sector organizations are raising the bar on accountability for technology investments, and every dollar spent is being evaluated for demonstrable return,” Bhaskar said. “The need is urgent, but evaluating ROI in government is more complex than in commercial settings. Procurement cycles are longer, stakeholders are more numerous and success metrics must be operational. Partners and customers need a structured way to prove that AI investments represent measurable progress toward mission outcomes.”

]]>

AWS launches Secret Cloud for industry’s classified workloads

Frank Konkel — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:21:00 -0400

Amazon Web Services on Tuesday announced a new cloud offering designed to run contractor-owned classified workloads, a first for the defense industrial base and select research institutions that historically have had to build and maintain costly on-premesis infrastructure to support classified programs.

The AWS Secret Cloud for Industry, or ASCI, is designed to reduce the provision time for classified environments up to the Secret classification level from months to days, according to Dave Levy, vice president of AWS Public Sector. The cloud is designed for cleared U.S. defense contractors, research institutions and other organizations in the National Industrial Security Program.

"America's defense industrial base builds the capabilities that keep this nation safe, and it's time they have the tools to match the urgency of the mission," Levy said. "AWS Secret Cloud for Industry puts the full power of cloud computing and AI directly into the hands of the engineers and scientists working on our most sensitive programs. Now, the Defense Industrial Base can innovate at the speed the moment demands, using the same classified infrastructure trusted by the Department of War.”

AWS Secret Cloud for Industry now holds a provisional authorization at the Impact Level 6, or IL6 — the standard for Secret-classified information — and leverages the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency compliance framework that cleared contractors and personnel already use for on-premesis classified systems to the cloud.

Northrop Grumman is the first defense contractor to deploy classified workloads on ASCI. Without the purpose-built cloud, their initial workload in the AWS Secret-East Region would have taken months.

“Migrating our critical classified programs to the AWS Secret Cloud for Industry solution fundamentally changes how we develop and scale sensitive programs at speed to deliver when it matters most,” Drew Barnes, vice president of IT infrastructure and operations at Northrop Grumman, said in a statement.

In a press call with reporters in advance of the AWS Summit in Washington, D.C., Levy said there has been “a lot of demand for a solution like this for a long time.”“I’m excited that we, along with the government and the DIB, have been able to figure it out,” said Levy, crediting the Defense Information Systems Agency and DCSA for their partnership in the yearslong effort.

During a keynote speech at AWS Summit, Levy also announced the ASCI Accelerator Initiative, providing up to $20 million to qualified DIB contractors, federally funded research and development centers, independent software vendors and system integrators. Levy said the funding will help select organizations migrate classified workloads to the cloud and improve mission outcomes.

That announcement follows a $50 billion investment the company made in November to improve AI and supercomputing infrastructure for U.S. federal agencies.

“We're also investing up to $50 billion to expand AI and supercomputing infrastructure across all GovCloud, secret and top-secret regions,” Levy said. “The goal is to provide 1.3 gigawatts of AI capacity, making a generational commitment to the future of government that government runs on secure, intelligent cloud.”

A 15-year focus on government

AWS launched AWS GovCloud (US-West) — the first cloud infrastructure designed for government customers — in 2011, providing many federal agencies with their first opportunity to shift workloads to the cloud. In 2013, AWS inked a groundbreaking $600 million contract, C2S, with the CIA to supply commercial cloud services to all 18 intelligence agencies.

The cloud provider later launched its first secret cloud region in 2017. It also operates multiple top-secret regions and has been awarded multiple major, multi-billion dollar contracts, including the C2E contract from the intelligence community, as well as the Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability contract for the Defense Department and the National Security Agency’s “Wild and Stormy” contract. Today, nearly all U.S. federal agencies are AWS customers in some capacity, along with some 15,000 government agencies across the globe.

Last August, AWS worked with the General Services Administration — through its OneGov program — to discount $1 billion worth of its software to customers across the federal government through December 2028. The discounts have provided dividends for AWS.

“We’ve seen not just new agencies [coming to AWS], but agencies already doing business with us accelerate their modernization efforts through the OneGov agreement with GSA,” Levy said in an interview Tuesday.

More investment in the U.S. intelligence community

Following AWS’ OneGov deal, the company engaged the U.S. intelligence community by proposing a similar effort, according to Levy.AWS on Tuesday announced the result of that engagement: an investment of up to $1 billion in cloud credits to help the 18 agencies within the U.S. intelligence community through October 2030 to modernize their IT systems.

“It’s like GSA OneGov, but for the IC,” Levy said. “The same $1 billion opportunity we put forth for OneGov, we wanted to do the same thing for the IC.”

Called the Intelligence Community Accelerated Modernization Framework, or ICAMF, the program makes use of AWS’ existing C2E contract with the U.S. intelligence community to provide credits for qualified workloads “to accelerate cloud migration and modernization” across the IC, according to David Appel, vice president of global government at AWS.

In a statement, Appel said “outcome-based credits based on post-migration value dramatically lower the financial barrier to moving to the cloud.” In addition, he said the investment would accelerate migration timelines, enable mission-critical capabilities and align investment with outcomes.

“The ICAMF supports the Intelligence Community's strategic priorities to modernize IT infrastructure, improve data interoperability, and adopt advanced technologies at pace with evolving threats,” Appel said. “The program enables agencies to leverage the most advanced cloud capabilities while achieving meaningful cost efficiencies — delivering improved mission outcomes with the speed and agility that national security demands.”

]]>

GSA taking measured approach to SEWP takeover

Nick Wakeman — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:02:00 -0400

EDITOR's NOTE: This article has been updated to include the correct terminology for the authority to operate a governmentwide contract -- executive agent designation.

The General Services Administration still plans to take over NASA’s SEWP IT contract vehicle, but is taking a slow and steady approach.

“Continuity is my number one priority,” Laura Stanton, acting commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, told WT on Wednesday after she spoke at the GovExec-produced SAP NOW event in Washington, D.C.

GSA has people embedded with the SEWP office to understand processes and help determine the timing of when the contract moves to GSA, she said.

On Tuesday, NASA announced 2,100 awards across three functional areas. The bulk of the awards came in Category 3 for standalone services, a new business area for SEWP.

GSA wants to be careful with the transition because it does not want to disrupt the agencies that rely on SEWP and the vendors who have done billions of dollars of business through the vehicle, Stanton said.

NASA no longer has the official “executive agent designation” needed to operate a government-wide acquisition contract. NASA, the National Institute of Health, and GSA were the only agencies with the authority.

But GSA is the only agency with that authority now.

NIH is letting its CIO-SP vehicles run out. Task orders can be awarded through October, but the period of performance must end by Dec. 31, 2028

NASA’s SEWP VI has a $60 billion ceiling over a 10-year period.

The move to consolidate government-wide contracts is part of the Trump administration’s initiative to centralize how agencies buy common goods and services through GSA.

]]>

GSA’s centralization push is a return to its roots, not just a Trump priority

Nick Wakeman — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 10:12:00 -0400

The General Services Administration’s push to centralize government buying is as much a return to its roots as it is a Trump administration initiative, according to one of the leading architects of the consolidation.

Laura Stanton, acting commissioner for GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, gave a bit of a history lesson during remarks at the GovExec-produced SAP NOW event on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. GSA started in 1949 as part of a series of recommendations from the Hoover Commission.

“The reasons we were founded as agency are the same reasons and the priorities that I’m going to talk about today,” Stanton said. “Going back to those founding principles is really important to understanding where GSA is and what we’re doing.”

GSA wants to consolidate more government buying through its vehicles. There is plenty of room for that growth with GSA contracts accounting for about 25% total government buying. In 2025, $110 billion in order volume flowed through GSA vehicles.

“That’s a great baseline, but I also think that it’s an indication that we still have a lot of decentralization across the government,” Stanton said.

GSA has long had its Assisted Acquisition Services, but that organization concentrates on contracts and task orders exceeding $50 million.

“There are lot of common goods and services that everybody needs to deliver everyday that are far below that level,” Stanton said.

To fill that niche, GSA created the Office of Centralized Acquisition Services. A lot of routine buying was happening agency-by-agency.

Stanton said that agency-by-agency buying led to inconsistent pricing, duplicative contracts for the same items and negotiations that left money on the table.

OCAS will step into the void and manage actual transactions, not just create master contracts. The theory is that by aggregating demand across agencies, GSA can negotiate better and drive consistency in pricing.

“This means we have to understand the demand for common goods and services across the agencies, so data becomes key,” she said.

OCAS is already working with the Small Business Administration, Office of Personnel Management, other smaller agencies and a few larger ones on the acquisitions of common goods and services.

The office is in a growth mode and Stanton recommended that industry get to know them through their quarterly pipeline reviews.

“You can hear directly about what’s going on in that group and you can figure out how to align to the needs they are articulating,” she said.

OCAS will act as a shared services center actually executing transactions, not just as a contract vehicle shop.

“The more that we’re able to bring into the centralized acquisition group, the more we can begin to work at scale and get those benefits for the federal government at the task order level, not just at the master contract level,” Stanton said.

]]>

FAA awards software and AI contract as part of air traffic control modernization

Edward Graham — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 14:53:00 -0400

The Federal Aviation Administration announced on Monday that it awarded Air Space Intelligence a 12-year, $875 million contract for new software and artificial intelligence capabilities, part of the agency’s ambitious effort to modernize the nation’s outdated air traffic control system.

The software company will provide “two complementary, cutting-edge technologies that will improve how flights are scheduled and managed throughout the National Airspace System,” according to the FAA. Twelve companies bid for the contract, according to SAM.gov data.

These include Flow Management Data and Services, which the agency said will serve as “the new technological backbone” of a modernized Air Traffic Control System Command Center. ASI is also tasked with delivering a Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes and Trajectories — or SMART — system.

In a fact sheet, the agency said “Using AI, SMART analyzes airline schedules, weather, airport capacity, airspace conditions, and operational constraints to predict traffic flows and identify potential conflicts before they occur.”

The FAA said it is hoping to begin initial deployments of SMART as soon as this fall. ASI said it expects both systems to be rolled out over the next 12 to 24 months.

“Every day, our air traffic professionals knowingly manage thousands of scheduling conflicts across the National Airspace System, which ultimately end up as delays for the traveling public,” FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said in a statement. “FMDS with the SMART capabilities will help us address that challenge by improving how we manage airspace before flights depart, reducing congestion, easing controller workload, and directly cutting down delays across the system.”

The contract is a part of the FAA and the Transportation Department’s broader push to upgrade the nation’s air traffic control system.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced the launch of the ambitious effort in May 2025, saying at the time that it would entail some brick-and-mortar upgrades but that “everything else that controls the airspace is going to be brand new.” A key part of this effort, he said, will be replacing legacy systems and antiquated technologies with new capabilities, such as a modernized flight management system and updated ground radar systems at U.S. airports.

The initiative’s launch came on the heels of several high-profile air traffic control outages in the last few years, as well as the crash of an Army Black Hawk helicopter and a commercial airliner near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in January 2025 that killed all 67 people on both aircraft.

During an April event held just shy of the modernization effort’s one-year anniversary, Duffy said a few project workstreams were a “little behind,” but added that “for the most part, we’re on track to have this project completed before President [Donald] Trump leaves office.”

The FAA announced in December that it had selected Peraton as the project’s prime integrator to oversee the new Air Traffic Control System contract.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed into law in July 2025, allocated $12.5 billion for the air traffic control modernization effort, although the agency in December called that amount a “down payment” and said at the time that it would need an additional $20 billion for the initiative.

Editor's note: This article has been updated to mention how many companies bid for the contract.

]]>

Revolutionary FAR Overhaul moves to formal rulemaking with first batch of proposed rules

Nick Wakeman — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:30:00 -0400

The government is finally dropping a large batch of proposed rules on Tuesday to formalize changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Over a year in the making, the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul aims to strip out regulations not mandated by statute and give acquisition teams greater control and flexibility in how they develop, award and manage contracts.

This first set of proposed rules cover four groups of FAR parts. Several more proposed rules remain under review and one of them is FAR Part 19, which governs small business acquisition.

The first proposed rule includes FAR Parts 1, 2, 4, 33, 39, 40, 52, and 53. A second covers parts 5, 24, 29, and 52.

The third covers Parts 3, 49, and 52. A fourth covers Parts 6, 7, 10, 18, 26, 37, 41, and 52. Part 52 is in all four proposed rules because it essentially is the FAR’s clause library.

The government has set a comment window of 30 days, the bare minimum time period. The clock will start ticking when the proposed rules are published.

The FAR parts covered in these four proposed rules span topics including protests, contract terminations, and audits. Many of the changes give contracting officers more discretion by converting mandatory requirements to actions where COs have the option to act or not.

A second example is that agencies will not be required to publicly announce contract awards worth more than $5.5 million. Agencies were previously required to report awards exceeding $4.5 million.

They “may” announce these awards, but are not required to. This will raise concerns about transparency in government operations.

Formerly a blank and reserved section, Part 40 will now house security requirements. The government is consolidating security requirements from other FAR parts into Part 40.

The rule proposes to reorganize security requirements into three subparts in Part 40: processing supply chain risk information, security prohibitions and exclusions, and safeguarding information.

These include controlled, unclassified information and the government’s "Do Not Buy" list that details companies and products that agencies cannot purchase from.

Part 40 also is an attempt to harmonize security requirements.

Another change is the consolidation of market research, formerly Part 10, into Part 7, which governs acquisition planning. A-76 public-private clauses are being deleted completely from Part 7 because Congress placed a moratorium on them in 2008.

Several more proposed rules are expected in the coming months covering the parts of the FAR that most directly shape how contracts are competed and won.

This includes:

Part 8, which governs required sources including the GSA Schedules
Part 12, commercial item acquisitions
Part 13, simplified acquisition procedures
Part 15, the rules governing competitive proposals and source selection
Part 19, small business acquisition

With tight deadlines for the first set of proposed rules, it promises to be a busy summer and fall.

]]>

SBA partners with Perplexity to launch $25M Main Street AI Accelerator

Edward Graham — Mon, 15 Jun 2026 17:20:00 -0400

With the U.S. seeking to maintain its status as the globe’s artificial intelligence superpower, the Trump administration has been looking to support initiatives that can drive innovation and economic growth across the nation’s small businesses.

The national AI legislative framework released by the White House last month included a pillar stating that the development of emerging technologies “should strengthen American communities and small businesses through economic growth and energy dominance.”

The Small Business Administration has also been working to harness AI’s capabilities when it comes to driving innovation and growth across the country, with agency officials seeing the technology as increasingly critical for smaller companies.

During a June 9 Axios event, SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler said AI “is going to be a powerful engine for fueling growth on Main Street, for fueling job creation.”

“Winning the AI arms race is absolutely vital,” she added. “If China wins, this is going to be really problematic for the entire country, but particularly for Main Street.”

Earlier this month, AI firm Perplexity announced the launch of the Main Street AI Accelerator in collaboration with the SBA to help support small businesses looking to harness the technologies.

The $25 million initiative is offering $250 Perplexity Computer credits to up to 100,000 small businesses that are recipients of SBA’s 7(a)- or 504-backed loans. Computer is the name of the company’s unified system that it said “connects to 400+ tools that growing businesses already run on, including Intuit QuickBooks, Intuit Mailchimp, Shopify, and Stripe.” Perplexity said the $250 credit is a nod to America’s 250th anniversary.

SBA did not respond to multiple requests for comment, although Perplexity said it is the first time an AI firm has launched such a program with the agency.

In an interview with Nextgov/FCW, Perplexity Chief Business Officer Dmitry Shevelenko said the partnership with SBA was “very organic” because the agency was already using Perplexity Enterprise internally.

“When you talk to small business owners, one of the biggest bottlenecks for them is actually they can't hire enough people to grow their business,” Shevelenko said, adding that Perplexity’s Computer AI system and enhanced access to the capabilities is like if a small business “just got 100 digital co-workers.”

Shevelenko said the company is also in the process of investing “in kind of what we call concierge onboarding for these small businesses, where they get hands-on training on how to actually use Computer.”

He added that “if you just give people a little bit of a boost as they're getting started [with their businesses], then we see huge dividends to that.”

]]>

DHS finalizes first Cumulus cloud contract with AWS

Ross Wilkers — Mon, 15 Jun 2026 16:50:00 -0400

The Homeland Security Department has finalized the first out of four awards under Cumulus, a centralized contract for acquiring commercial cloud computing services across the entire organization.

Amazon Web Services’ portion of the contract will have a $2.5 billion ceiling over up to five years, DHS said in a Friday Sam.gov notice.

The department is now working on awards to Oracle, Google Cloud and Microsoft with the goal of finalizing those by the end of the calendar year’s second quarter, or the end of this month.

Each award under Cumulus will cover a one-year base period and up to four individual option years.

DHS created Cumulus to have a mix of competitive and non-competitive awards across all aspects of commercial cloud to include infrastructure-as-a-service, platform-as-a-service and software-as-a-service.

After signing the hyperscalers’ contracts, DHS will create a multiple-award competition to support the Cumulus effort with more details to be released at a later date.

The department sees Cumulus as its means to gain greater visibility into cloud spending and usage across all agencies and components with the goal of achieving more economies of scale and consistency in acquisitions.

]]>

GSA is preparing an AI-specific acquisition reform rule

Alexandra Kelley — Fri, 29 May 2026 13:51:00 -0400

The General Services Administration is developing changes to artificial intelligence acquisition provisions within its general rules that will prioritize a firm fixed-price procurement model and reduce hurdles to agency adoption.

In the coming weeks, the agency is planning to debut a draft AI acquisition rule for addition into the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation, according to two people familiar with the proceedings.

The new rule is part of GSA’s effort to balance implementing AI procurement rules that encourage market growth and foster competition while benefitting government buyers and taxpayers, the same person said, and part of the government’s mission to bring a “common sense” approach to AI acquisition. To do so, the rule will focus on removing bureaucratic rules and hurdles to commercial item acquisition, including AI and IT software.

The same person said that part of the process will be to analyze which contracts are not on a firm fixed-price basis and what is able to be shifted over. Per the rules, resellers and partners will remain part of GSA’s business strategy, the same person said, but the agency is also trying to make itself a “more predictable business partner” to original equipment manufacturers, including AI developers.

“It's … not going to be a one size fits all solution,” the same person told Nextgov/FCW.

In addition to the AI-focused draft rule, new Federal Acquisition Regulation rule updates are also underway and are set to continue overhauling the government procurement process. These updates are intended to be finalized at the end of the fiscal year, pending approval by the FAR Council, and will consist of roughly a dozen rules, the source said. Both revisions will have a 30-day public comment window.

The FAR is a series of procurement regulations that govern how executive agencies enter into, develop and manage contracts. In his second administration, President Donald Trump has worked to overhaul the FAR, issuing an executive order that primarily aims to streamline the acquisition process and bring more companies to the federal market.

The future of OneGov

Changes to GSA’s contracting structure will further cement the government’s preference for firm fixed-pricing, echoing mandates outlined in a late April executive order that seeks to move the government away from cost-reimbursement models.

GSA’s landmark OneGov program could also see changes in its contracting structure. Through the initiative, GSA has partnered with roughly two dozen tech providers to offer deeply discounted rates on software to government customers by treating the government as a single large customer.

The person familiar predicts that OneGov contracts will change, anticipating the focus of the initiative to adopt longer-term contracts, echoing sentiments expressed in an agency leader’s remarks last week.

“I think the major change in OneGov from this year to last is going to be working to put in more longer-term OneGov agreements, things that are still going to be very competitively priced,” the same person said.

Washington Technology Editor-in-Chief Nick Wakeman contributed to this report.

]]>

GSA inks latest OneGov agreement with Snowflake

Edward Graham — Thu, 21 May 2026 10:00:00 -0400

The General Services Administration announced on Thursday that it reached a deal with data cloud company Snowflake to provide federal agencies with discounted rates on some of its technology services.

The agreement is the latest made as part of GSA’s OneGov initiative, which has negotiated deals with twenty other firms to offer major pricing cuts on software and products by treating the federal government as one, centralized customer. Companies like Microsoft, SAP and Palo Alto Networks have already negotiated deals with GSA as part of the initiative.

“GSA’s OneGov agreement with Snowflake supports President [Donald] Trump’s priority to accelerate technological innovation by giving agencies streamlined access to a shared data platform that breaks down long-standing silos,” GSA Administrator Edward Forst said in a statement. “With stronger cross-agency data capabilities, we can accelerate AI tools tailored to each agency’s mission.”

As part of the deal, Snowflake will offer new federal users a 20% discount on computer services, a 26.67% discount on storage and “potential eligibility for higher-tier discounts of up to 50% reduced consumption cost on compute, as overall usage increases.”

The cost savings will be available until Sept. 30, 2027.

“Our participation in the GSA OneGov program is part of our commitment to our nation’s public servants,” Snowflake CEO Sridhar Ramaswamy said in a statement. “We are removing procurement barriers so agencies can focus on what truly matters: leveraging their data to make faster, more informed decisions that better serve the American people.”

GSA said it has already identified more than $1.15 billion in savings since it launched the initiative in April 2025. The agency has also touted the strategy’s ability to onboard new artificial intelligence tools across the government, with officials reporting that almost 3.4 million federal employees can now access emerging technologies acquired through the initiative.

Although most of the discounted deals that GSA has reached with tech and software companies are set to expire after certain timeframes, agency officials have said that the ultimate goal of the initiative is to parlay these agreements into longer-term direct contracts.

]]>

OneGov’s discounted deals are ‘a first step’ to longer-term contracts, officials say

Edward Graham — Wed, 20 May 2026 18:15:00 -0400

The General Services Administration is looking at extending discounted deals that several companies had offered the federal government on their software products and services via the OneGov initiative as part of longer-term contract discussions, according to officials with the agency.

GSA launched OneGov in April 2025 to offer agencies major discounts on technology by treating the government as one customer. Since then, GSA has inked agreements with 20 companies through the initiative, including Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Some of these agreements include temporary price cuts of as much as 70% to 90%, with many of the reductions set to expire after set timeframes.

While many federal officials have touted OneGov’s benefits, some have also expressed concerns about what will happen when the discounted rate periods end and their agencies have to potentially pay much higher prices for the same products and services. GSA officials, however, said they are cognizant of these worries and that the current discounted rates are only one phase of their overall strategy.

Warren Blankenship — the director of the Category Management Service Center in the Office of Acquisition Solutions Development at the Federal Acquisition Service within GSA — said the agency knew going into the agreements that the discounts would expire, but he added that they are part of a larger effort to partner and work with private sector firms.

“We've gone back to those particular [original equipment manufacturers] to get to re-up those deals while we're still in talks with them to become direct contractors on the Multiple Award Schedule,” Blankenship said during a fireside chat at a GovCIO event on Wednesday.

He said GSA is operating in the second phase of its OneGov initiative, which entails “some limited-time deals or limited-time offers [with companies] as a first step into getting a direct contract with them.” This step, he added, is more of a springboard to longer-term agreements.

“In the meantime, we are still talking to them on the backend about establishing direct contracts with them under the Multiple [Award] Schedule program,” Blankenship said, noting that phase three is "trying to get them onto that scheduling model.”

GSA said it has identified savings of more than $1.15 billion since OneGov’s launch last year. During an ACT-IAC event last week, Birgit Smeltzer — director of GSA’s Office of IT Products, IT Category — said departments like Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and State have already taken advantage of AI offerings through the initiative. Smeltzer said at the time that over 120 orders “have been placed against OneGov’s AI offerings,” which has made the related software and products available to almost 3.4 million employees across government.

During the same event, Smeltzer said GSA is asking participating companies “to lean in” when it comes to working with the government on future costs, since “the vendors understand that if they jack up the price from forty cents for a year to a certain amount, they may have five users instead of 3.4 million users all of a sudden.”

]]>

Commerce goes direct to hyperscalers with $4.1B cloud pact

Nick Wakeman — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 13:52:00 -0400

The Commerce Department is planning a 10-year, $4.1 billion blanket purchase agreement for cloud computing capabilities and only the big hyperscalers need apply.

In a Sam.gov notice posted Thurday, the department said the BPA will only be open to native hyperscale cloud services providers.

The department said it is going with a direct to CSP strategy because of the “highly specialized technical requirements, including massive compute elasticity (25,000+ concurrent vCPUs), proprietary 100+ tbps (terabits per second) global backbones, and specific hardware density for AI/ML, and weather modeling.”

Given those requirements, Commerce decided that only “original equipment manufacturers acting as cloud service providers” will be eligible for award. The inclusion of the OEM language effectively locks out resellers and systems integrators from competing as primes.

Commerce is using the General Services Administration’s eBuy portal to create the BPA, so any bidders will need to hold a GSA Schedule for cloud services.

The Sam.gov notice does not ask for any comments or responses. Commerce said the posting was to give notice of its cloud strategy.

In many ways, Commerce is following a strategy similar to the Defense Department and its Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability vehicle with Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, Oracle and Google Cloud.

JWCC was awarded in December 2022 and has a $9 billion ceiling. It runs through June 2028.

According to GovTribe data, 185 task orders have been awarded under JWCC. AWS has captured 77 of those, followed by Microsoft with 75. Oracle has won 19 task orders and Google follows with 14.

]]>

OMB seeks details from agencies on their commercial buying, or lack thereof

Ross Wilkers — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 16:00:00 -0400

The Office of Management and Budget wants details from agencies on how they are complying with President Trump’s 2025 executive order calling for them to prioritize commercially available products and services in acquisitions.

Efforts to shift agencies in that direction date back almost three decades, including the signing of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 that requires agencies to give a preference to commercial offerings. Trump’s executive order sought to reinforce the policies outlined in FASA and further promote commercial acquisitions.

In a memo to agencies sent Friday, OMB Director Russ Vought writes that they have until May 4 to report every non-commercial contract award from April 2025 through September 2025. For any award exceeding $10 million, agencies must explain why they acquired a non-commercial offering and what they plan to do for the contract’s next option period.

Vought wrote that during the government’s 2024 fiscal year, more than two-thirds of total contract spend — as reported to the Federal Procurement Data System — was for non-commercial products and services. FPDS is the since-discontinued database that housed information on non-classified contract obligations across government.

That estimate includes $130 billion in what Vought called “non-commercial contracting for common services, such as professional support services, information technology and telecom services, and operation of facilities” that was acquired through cost-reimbursement contracts.

OMB is also putting in place a new consultation process for agencies if they plan a non-commercial buy, but sign-off from the agency’s political appointee responsible for acquisition is required before an agency can even go to OMB.

According to the memo, this means the agency’s chief acquisition officer must approve the request of the senior procurement executive to set up a non-commercial contract.

Those requests must include details on the contract’s duration and size, any market research efforts that informed the decision, whether the contract will be competed, cost analysis information, and other details on the requirements.

Requests must also include an “affirmative statement” from the agency’s political appointee overseeing acquisition that they support the career official’s determination to create a non-commercial contract.

Each agency has a policy official serving as a competition advocate, whose responsibilities include the promotion and advocacy of commercial acquisitions. As part of their reports to OMB due May 4, agencies must confirm whether that person is “at a level now lower than the head of the contracting activity or deputy (Senior Procurement Executive).”

OMB’s memo also details how the competition advocate is also responsible for making recommendations to SPE officials on maximizing commercial purchases, as well as working with the agency’s small business director on lowering barriers to entry for commercial providers and new entrants.

Competition advocates also work with the Procurement Committee on E-Government to review and improve data collection protocols, plus support the SPE in developing annual process reports for submission to OMB.

]]>

Trade and industry groups warn of risks in GSA’s draft AI procurement guidance

Alexandra Kelley — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 14:10:00 -0400

Industry advocate organizations are warning against the language the General Services Administration proposed to govern the acquisition and use of artificial intelligence in federal operations, saying it could bring opportunities misuse.

The proposed clause changes, released by the GSA in early March, update federal AI acquisition stipulations. Some of the most notable changes include the government’s right to total input data ownership and government ownership of any custom developments made to a given AI model.

The updated procurement rules also notably grant the government permission to use an AI system for “any lawful government purpose.” Such phrasing follows the explosive dispute between Anthropic and the Department of Defense earlier this year, after the AI company refused to allow its products to be used for surveillance of Americans or for lethal autonomous weaponry.

The ongoing dispute, which resulted in a supply chain risk designation and lawsuit filed by Anthropic, has caused turmoil in the larger vendor and AI contracting community in Washington.

Other proposed changes in the draft touch on contractor responsibilities and roles, incident reporting and the prohibition of using any foreign-made AI products in government workflows.

Despite the inclusion of provisions stipulating that a developer must provide a means for the government to implement human oversight or intervention, it also sets an “eyes off” rule for data handling. That directive would restrict human review of government data except as “strictly necessary” to give the government AI system access or to handle incident reporting.

The language in GSA’s proposed contract terms has raised warning flags for industry organizations.

The nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation said in comments shared exclusively with Nextgov/FCW that it has “grave concerns” regarding the proposed changes, providing instances where procuring AI tools for “lawful use” in seemingly innocuous functions could both clash with AI vendor terms of service and violate civil liberties.

An AI program could, for example, inadvertently psychologically profile benefits applicants, conduct surveillance pattern analysis and enable employee loyalty screening — all of which could be hypothetical utilizations of AI tools in good faith but without the proper guardrails or oversight GSA’s language proposes to remove.

“As evidenced by the recent dispute between Anthropic and the U.S. Department of War, there are myriad government uses that are clearly legal but conflict with AI industry terms of service and the public’s expectations as to how emerging technologies will be responsibly integrated into state functions,” ARI said, concluding that the implementation of AI naturally hastens the process to safeguard against potential harms within federal operations.

“A policy of enabling ‘all lawful use’ strips away one of the last public safeguards we have against tyranny,” the letter concludes. “We urge you to reconsider adoption of these proposed changes for our federal acquisitions system.”

The Business Software Alliance echoed these worries, saying that the proposed acquisition language runs the risk of accelerating harms in the government workflows it aims to improve.

“We are deeply concerned… that the proposed clauses significantly inhibit and, in some cases, potentially eliminate, the US government’s ability to leverage the benefits of AI services and commercial advances in AI, impeding mission-driven efforts to prevent fraud and abuse, secure federal data, assets, and systems, and deliver critical citizen services. This, in turn, will produce several cascading negative effects,” BSA wrote.

The alliance warned that the draft language could imperil broader AI innovation and modernization goals central to the Trump administration’s tech policy; diminish contractors’ rights to their intellectual property; create burdensome implementation challenges; and increase the risk of liability for contractors under the False Claims Act.

“Each of these consequences, in isolation, would decrease competition and increase the cost to the US government to procure AI products; in combination, they risk materially compromising the US government’s efforts to not only adopt AI but also accelerate AI innovation in the commercial marketplace,” BSA wrote.

The trade group — whose members include OpenAI, Microsoft, Palo Alto Networks and IBM — offered an array of mitigation measures. It asks that GSA clarify the prohibitions on foreign AI systems and components; expand contractors’ intellectual property rights; improve implementation requirements; streamline change management procedures; and align with existing software acquisition frameworks, among others.

“BSA urges GSA to make significant changes to the proposed contractual terms for AI procurement, which impede the federal government's IT modernization efforts and ability to adopt low-cost, AI commercial solutions from a competitive marketplace.”

]]>

Vendors struggle to navigate the Anthropic ban’s fallout

Alexandra Kelley — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 15:07:00 -0400

The artificial intelligence vendor landscape in Washington, D.C., has been rocked by the ongoing dispute between Anthropic and the administration, with the business community searching for clarity in contracting requirements amid increasing anxiety over how technology contracts with the government will be handled.

The Pentagon declared Anthropic a supply chain risk after the company refused to allow its products to be used for surveillance of Americans or in lethal autonomous warfare. President Donald Trump subsequently ordered that all federal agencies stop using Anthropic products. A judge on Friday temporarily barred the government from enforcing either the supply chain risk designation or the governmentwide ban, though the government has until April 2 to seek an emergency stay on the injunction.

Multiple sources within the federal tech industry spoke with Nextgov/FCW about how they are adjusting to a post-Anthropic ban procurement and contracting landscape on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the ongoing situation.

One industry source said their organization is closely monitoring the Trump administration’s “evolving approach” to AI procurement strategies, but remains uncertain about the future.

“Some of the requirements under consideration for government acquisition of AI tools and services are prompting more questions than answers, and industry is actively engaging to help policymakers understand how certain far-reaching proposals could unintentionally undermine the White House's goal of furthering American AI dominance,” they said.

The governmentwide ban raises concerns for companies that have Anthropic products — like its generative AI, Claude — embedded in different parts of their software stack.

Harold Schultz Neto, head of product and AI at Labrynth — a company that builds AI platforms to expedite permitting, documentation and compliance processes — told Nextgov/FCW that his firm continues using Claude internally, namely for coding, product design and prototyping. He said, however, that he has had to pivot from using it for customers in order to comply with Trump’s new mandate.

“Our solutions are built on top of Claude,” Schultz Neto said. “And when the federal mandate came, we had to not hire Claude for [customers] directly, and also stop our development on top of Claude for [customers].”

Schultz Neto said Google’s Gemini is now the core component of Labrynth’s customer-facing products and, although none of the company’s products that go to market use Claude, the loss of the Anthropic tool’s powerful programming abilities is a paramount concern, particularly regarding Labrynth’s internal operations.

“If we serve the government, we can use other models inside our tools, but not being able to code with Claude because there's some federal mandate, that's a big concern that we have right now, and I think that should also be a concern from the federal agencies,” he said.

“Our member companies … might use Anthropic, not in the final product that they're delivering to the government, but to test the security of it, to validate or review the code,” a second industry source said, noting that companies are struggling to interpret the scope of both the supply chain risk designation and the government ban.

“We've been sharing what we know from the government with our member companies,” they said. “Everybody doing business with the government is used to and expects fully that things will be documented, that there will be clear requirements, that things will be spelled out, that there will be terms and conditions in the contract, and that they can follow along with those. In this case, a lot of that is missing.”

Current and prospective contractors are missing this clarity following the Anthropic ban, and they have more anxiety surrounding how contracts with the government will be handled alongside new and developing policies.

“There's a fear that the standard administrative requirements are being transformed into legal traps by making specific policy mandates material,” a source within technology contracting told Nextgov/FCW. “Companies are increasingly worried about contractual retribution, and the concern that the administration may use its power of suspension and debarment, traditionally reserved for the most bad-faith actors, against firms that aren't in lockstep with the latest executive priorities.”

That source also said there are new questions surrounding how the government will decide if a company is a fit partner and if it is now more subjective.

“Contractors fear their past corporate decisions or public stances are scrutinized through new lenses from the administration, the fear that you can be disqualified for lack of integrity or lack of compliance with those views, not because you've done a poor job,” they said.

That concern highlights the lack of clear guidance and resulting fears reverberating through the tech industry.

“The most common question that we've gotten is just: ‘Have you seen any official guidance on this? Have you seen anything officially posted anywhere? Have you seen anything that would pass for actual policy that could be held up?’ And, unfortunately, so far, the answer to that has been no,” the second tech industry source said.

Beyond uncertainty surrounding guidance in contracting with the federal government, companies share similar concerns with Labrynth in terms of whether or not internal Anthropic use will impact their ability to work with the government.

New draft guidance from the General Services Administration offers some clarity, suggesting the government is looking for more freedom as to how to use procured technology systems.

Quinn Anex-Ries, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said the draft terms and conditions serve as the most recent resource to help guide companies and AI developers in working with the government, and that it centers on “unbiased AI principles” for large language models. Anex-Ries said these latest updates to previous GSA memos on AI acquisition may offer clarity but include terms that would undermine “key safety measures in AI systems.”

“Implementing GSA's draft terms and conditions across all AI solicitations and contracts in the federal government could result in systems with fewer safety protections and worse outcomes, and a vendor community that is reticent to push back when their products are used unsafely,” Anex-Ries said.

The second tech industry source told Nextgov/FCW that the draft GSA language will weed out vendors — potentially more than the administration anticipates — due to how broad the language is written.

They added that the GSA draft guidelines include verbiage that is not typical contracting language, which offers limited clarity.

“There are a lot of terms used in [the GSA draft guidelines] that are not defined,” they said. “The whole point of having contract language is to give clarity on the terms of the contract so that there's something that's enforceable.”

One senior government official told Nextgov/FCW that, following the Anthropic ban, the government is trying to send a message to the technology sector about being a “disciplined buyer” of advanced systems.

“For a long time, the balance in government technology procurement has favored vendors, particularly in emerging areas like AI where the market is moving quickly,” the official said. “What you’re seeing now is a willingness to set clearer expectations with industry that access to federal markets requires transparency, fair terms, and a genuine partnership with government. Most companies understand that and are adapting to it.”

Earlier executive policy memos offer insight into the Trump administration’s priorities in contracting and procurement, particularly within the AI landscape. Pursuant to President Donald Trump’s July 2025 executive orders, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo to instruct agencies to evaluate if the large language models they use comply with the White House’s “unbiased AI principles.”

Other documents, including the April 2025 OMB memo outlining AI procurement management guidance, left industry wondering how stipulations in this order would be executed.

]]>

VHA, Labor Department tap Salesforce for critical modernization efforts

Frank Konkel — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:50:00 -0400

Two high-impact federal agencies that engage millions of Americans annually are turning to Salesforce-powered agentic technology to modernize and improve customer experience and automate — through AI agents — contact center engagement.

The Veterans Health Administration, which provides care for approximately 18 million veterans each year, will use Salesforce’s agentic AI-based operating system built on Slack to “create a single front door” for its 300,000-plus staff operating across 150 medical centers. AI-infused Slack automates data calls for facility metrics of patient trends without requiring users to log in to multiple systems, and it features “automated swarming,” where Slack AI alerts medical center directors — humans in the loop — when facility metrics like wait times or patient satisfaction dip.

“The goal is to make things more efficient for a human, so they can do the thing that matters most, which is human care,” Josh Geiger, portfolio manager for Access and Operations at VHA, told reporters at Salesforce World Tour D.C.

Geiger said VHA was “watching and learning at the same time,” balancing innovation with oversight to ensure necessary safeguards for proper data governance and necessary privacy for sensitive information like patient data. Geiger added that the agency is shifting from “reactive to proactive,” and believes the AI tools will improve patient care and reduce administrative burden for VA staff.

“If I can take that person’s time — we get congressional asks, FOIA requests, data calls — that is a lot of time to investigate all that,” Geiger said. “But if I have the data sitting somewhere and the ability to reduce that person’s time [performing administrative tasks],” it could save hours of their time.”

In a similar use case, the Labor Department will soon roll out an autonomous AI agent named “DOLA” — short for Department of Labor Agent — designed to provide 24/7 support to citizens and staff by automating inquiries through its National Contact Center. The center is a repository for accurate, current information on all 28 DOL programs, and, when launched, the DOLA agent will appear on the bottom right-hand side of the contact center’s website.

DOLA will take user prompts and recommend next steps, open formal cases, respond empathetically and autonomously launch escalation paths.

According to a Salesforce release, DOLA has potential for massive impact. The Labor Department fields 2.8 million citizen support and inquiries each year.

“Our definition of success is to provide great customer experience,” Tanya Slater Lowe, director of Labor’s Office of Public Affairs, National Contact Center, said in a case study published by Salesforce. “To promise things like transparency, consistency, and diligence. To treat everyone like a VIP and equip them with the information they need throughout their employment journey.”

Speaking to reporters at Salesforce World Tour D.C., Mia Jordan, the company’s digital transformation executive, said “there’s been an acceleration” of agentic AI pilots and projects across public sector customers after a brief period of reticence.

Customers experienced some challenges with the new agentic AI technologies, like standardizing workflows. Salesforce, she said, responded aggressively to help customers navigate their agentic journeys, answer questions and address challenges, in part by launching a forward-deployed engineers program. The teams work with customers to ensure AI agent launches run smoothly.

“Our implementation strategy here is to get our customers comfortable,” Jordan said. “We’ve seen an uptick in customers wanting to move forward and move forward fast.”

]]>

New contract for background investigations raises concerns about scale and risk

Lindy Kyzer — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 12:45:00 -0400

The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) sits at the center of one of government’s most sensitive and consequential missions: determining who is trusted to access classified information and facilities. At the heart of that mission is the Case Processing Operations Center (CPOC), a function that powers the intake, processing and quality control of federal background investigations.

As DCSA moves forward with its next-generation CPOC 2.0 procurement, recently released as a draft solicitation on SAM.gov, the agency deserves credit for continuing to modernize a mission that has evolved dramatically over the past decade. Of particular note is DCSA’s incorporation of the critical Continuous Vetting (CV) analytical services mission, a key component of Trusted Workforce 2.0 (TW 2.0), into the CPOC 2.0 draft solicitation along with the original CPOC clerical work covered by the Service Contracting Act (SCA).

But the acquisition strategy now taking shape — a total small business set-aside — raises important questions: how does DCSA balance the government’s commitment to small business participation with the need to deliver at scale for a mission that underpins national security? And how do we respond to the push for more realistic and equitable contract awards and fewer set-asides when some of the nation’s most important contracts still seem to be following acquisition business as usual?

A mission growing in complexity

Although historically CPOC has been procured as a small business set-aside, it has never been a small undertaking. The requirement supports the processing of background investigations for federal and contractor personnel, a workload that has historically included over a million cases annually and millions of investigative actions, requiring 800+ full-time equivalents to support the workload.

And it’s only getting bigger.

Based on the draft, the follow-on contract will expand into CV, a shift from periodic reinvestigations to near real-time monitoring of cleared personnel, analyzing an evolving series of threat alerts against the entire cleared population. That transformation is central to Trusted Workforce 2.0 and demands not just steady-state processing, but adaptability, technology integration and surge capacity.

The small business question

DCSA’s decision to pursue a total small business set-aside is consistent with longstanding federal priorities to expand opportunities for small and disadvantaged firms. That objective is both important and necessary, particularly in a market where consolidation and incumbent advantage can limit new entrants.

But not all requirements are created equally and suitable for small businesses. Large contracts like CPOC need established management discipline and systems, available funding to front payroll and capital expenditures and the ability to compete with large companies to recruit and retain top talent. Due to the inherent risk, most would not consider a contract of this size, complexity and criticality a viable small business set-aside opportunity.

Policy alignment and oversight

There is also a broader policy context to consider.

Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Jan. 16 memorandum, “Contract Review of All Small Business Sole Source and Set-Aside Awards Above $20 Million in Contract Value,” mandates a comprehensive review of such procurements. There is a fundamental question as to whether this acquisition strategy has undergone the appropriate level of scrutiny. Has the CPOC 2.0 procurement been evaluated in accordance with established oversight protocols to ensure alignment with mission priorities, adherence to small business eligibility intent and avoidance of de facto pass-through or structurally constrained competition?

This scrutiny is well-placed. Large, complex procurements introduce risks that must be carefully managed. But scrutiny on the backend only delays critical acquisitions. The government should be carefully considering its contract requirements and how some small business set-asides both slow progress and virtually guarantee litigation.

For a requirement like CPOC, the stakes are unusually high. Delays or performance issues don’t just affect contract metrics, they ripple across the entire personnel vetting enterprise, impacting hiring, readiness and national security. The ability to grow and scale the national security workforce is an imperative to a nation in conflict as the U.S. is today. The current policy and security reality argues for an acquisition strategy that maximizes competition among all capable providers, regardless of size classification.

Another concern raised by industry is the unusually compressed response timeline associated with the CPOC 2.0 acquisition. Requests for information and subsequent requests for purchase have been released with response timelines of just a few days, leaving little time for thoughtful industry input. While short suspense timelines are not uncommon in federal procurement, they can undermine one of the core purposes of draft solicitations: to gather meaningful feedback that improves the final acquisition.

There’s a lot of talk about acquisition reform today. But when basic business as usual, such as short suspense requests like this, is the norm, the only companies who can compete are those who already know the requirement. If the goal is to maximize competition and refine requirements, allowing sufficient time for industry to respond is not just a courtesy, it’s a strategic necessity.

Why this matters for DCSA CPOC 2.0

None of this is to suggest that DCSA’s objectives are misplaced. Supporting small businesses, advancing socioeconomic goals and fostering a diverse industrial base remain essential priorities.

But acquisition strategy should be tailored to mission needs.

The size and scale of DCSA’s mission today demands a robust and wide pool of available resources, not a single, consolidated contract, newly bucketed with additional, more complex requirements and then set aside as a small business acquisition.

DCSA has made significant progress in modernizing the personnel vetting enterprise, and the transition to CV represents a generational shift in how the government manages risk.

The CPOC recompete is a pivotal moment in that journey.

Getting the acquisition strategy right isn’t just about compliance with policy or alignment with small business goals, it’s about ensuring the resilience, scalability and effectiveness of the system that determines who can be trusted with the nation’s most sensitive information.

That’s a mission worth competing for — fully, openly and with the best capabilities available.

]]>

Judge blocks DOD's ban on Anthropic, calls it First Amendment retaliation

Nick Wakeman — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:33:00 -0400

A federal judge has issued a temporary injunction barring the federal government from enforcing its declaration that Anthropic is a supply chain security risk.

Judge Rita Lin in the U.S. District Court of Northern California is also blocking the government's enforcement of a presidential directive that all government agencies stop using the company’s artificial intelligence products.

Lin cited several grounds in her Thursday ruling, which says the Defense Department’s declaration was retaliation for Anthropic exercising its First Amendment rights.

DOD also violated Anthropic’s due process rights by not giving the company advance notice or an opportunity to respond before the ban went into effect. DOD also did not follow the procedures laid out in the federal law they relied on to ban the company from federal work, Lin said.

The judge also called DOD’s action “arbitrary and capricious” and contrary to the law.

Anthropic has been working with the Defense Department since late 2024 through a partnership with Palantir Technologies. Since March 2025, Anthropic has also gone to market with a standalone product Claude Gov.

The dispute emerged in the fall of 2025 when DOD pushed for unrestricted access to Claude for “all lawful uses.” Anthropic refused to remove two long standing restrictions – no mass surveillance of U.S. citizens and no lethal autonomous warfare.

DOD wanted those restrictions lifted, but Anthropic refused. Negotiations were cordial and Anthropic offered to help DOD transition to another vendor, according to the judge’s ruling.

But things went south in January, when Anthropic and DOD went public with the dispute. CEO Dario Amodei posted an essay that month talking about AI safety, and the company issued a statement on Feb. 26 on its position about how DOD should use AI.

Within 24 hours, President Trump issued his government-wide ban on Truth Social and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic a supply chain risk.

“Neither the President nor Secretary Hegseth cited any statutory authority for the Directives,” Lin wrote in her ruling.

Anthropic worked for DOD for years and had gone through a lengthy national security vetting process. The company received nothing but praise, the judge wrote.

"The day after the designation was finalized—and before it was communicated to Anthropic—Under Secretary (Emil) Michael and Amodei cordially exchanged drafts of Anthropic's usage terms, with Under Secretary Michael writing to Amodei: 'After reviewing with our attorneys and seeing your last draft (thanks for being fast), I think we are very close here,'" the judge wrote.

On the First Amendment question, Lin found that Anthropic's public statements about AI safety — including Amodei's essay and the company's public statement on its dispute with DOD — were protected speech on matters of public concern.

Courts have long held that matters of public concern are at the core of First Amendment protections.

The judge said the government's own words undermined its national security argument. Trump called Anthropic a "radical left, woke company" and Hegseth attacked its "sanctimonious rhetoric" and "Silicon Valley ideology."

Most tellingly, an internal DOD memo stated that Anthropic's risk level escalated because it was engaging in an "increasingly hostile manner through the press."

"Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government's contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation," Lin wrote.

The injunction takes effect in seven days. That timeline gives the government until around April 2 to seek an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which it has indicated it will do.

Meanwhile, a separate but related case challenging the supply chain designation under a different federal statute is already pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That means the legal battle over Anthropic's status as a government contractor is likely to play out on multiple fronts simultaneously.

Anthropic’s battle with DOD and the Trump administration has drawn a variety of supporters, who have filed amicus briefs with the court.

Among them are employees of its competitors Google and OpenAI. Microsoft also filed a brief as did several industry associations.

]]>

Microsoft takes Anthropic's side in DOD fight, warns it sets a new precedent

Nick Wakeman — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 13:20:00 -0400

Microsoft has filed a brief in support of Anthropic in the artificial intelligence tech company's ongoing battle with the Defense Department.

The company filed on Tuesday at the U.S. District Court in Northern California, where Anthropic filed suit earlier this month challenging DOD’s determination that the company is a supply chain risk to national security.

Microsoft is arguing for a temporary restraining order on enforcement of the determination. Microsoft believes the ban would harm the company and other contractors that have deeply embedded Anthropic’s technology into their products.

Known as an amicus brief, the three-page document from Microsoft also lays out its argument over why DOD’s determination that Anthropic is a supply chain risk sets a dangerous precedent that puts all government contractors at risk.

A restraining order would also buy time for the two sides to resolve their dispute.

"We believe everyone involved shares common goals, and we need time and a process to find common ground," a Microsoft spokesperson said. "Everyone wants to ensure AI not used for mass domestic surveillance or to start a war without human control. The government, the entire tech sector, and the American public need a path to achieve all these goals together."

In its brief, Microsoft argues that DOD’s determination is an unprecedented use of the statute that describes “supply chain risk.”

This statute has never been used against a U.S. company before and has only been used against one foreign company, the Switzerland-headquartered Acronis AG.

In July 2025, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued an order prohibiting the use of Acronis products by intel agencies. The General Services Administration expanded the prohibition to all agencies.

Microsoft calls the action against Anthropic “drastic.” After DOD made its determination, President Trump ordered all federal agencies to stop using Anthropic.

“The determination has, without explaining the basis, labeled Anthropic a ‘supply chain risk’ against whom extraordinary measures are needed ‘to protect national security,’” Microsoft wrote. “The authority for the determination itself permits this action only against an adversary that poses an articulated threat to the United States.”

The word “adversary” is a key part of Microsoft’s argument that because Anthropic is a U.S. company, declaring them an adversary over a contract dispute is extreme.

Microsoft argues DOD does not explain why it considers Anthropic an adversary, which the statute requires before such a determination can be issued.

Microsoft also argues that a negotiated settlement is possible because DOD and Anthropic fundamentally agree on the guardrails that should govern the use of AI.

Their dispute arose over the specific terms and conditions. In a footnote, Microsoft refers to DOD’s recent agreement with OpenAI as proof that negotiations are possible.

A temporary restraining order would allow time for the negotiation without companies like Microsoft having to dismantle products containing Anthropic, which could be extremely disruptive and expensive.

“Government suppliers will also have to expend substantial effort removing Anthropic and Anthropic products from their offerings to [DOD] in cases where alternatives are unavailable or Anthropic products are embedded,” Microsoft writes. “The costs for these actions—including reengineering, reprocurement, and associated legal and administrative costs—will be incurred immediately as suppliers will have to invest time, energy, personnel, and money into modifying and rebuilding offerings that incorporate Anthropic’s products and confirming the new versions of those offerings meet the contractual requirements.”

DOD’s action against Anthropic has the potential to delay all ongoing IT contracting at the department because contractors will have to review all their offerings to identify where they are using Anthropic, Microsoft said.

Microsoft wants the restraining order so the court can determine whether DOD followed the statutory requirements to make the determination.

Ultimately, Microsoft's brief frames DOD's action as a dramatic overreach because of the determination process' intent as focusing on foreign adversaries.

]]>

INDOPACOM was all in on Anthropic. Now it’s working to adjust

Jennifer Hlad — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 10:00:00 -0400

HONOLULU—“What happens when you concentrate on one [AI] model and all of a sudden that model isn’t available to you?” That’s the reality that U.S. Indo-Pacific Command is living right now, its resources and requirements director said here Monday.

The audience, after a beat, laughed cautiously at the realization that Bob Stephenson was likely referring to Anthropic’s Claude model.

“It happens,” Stephenson said Monday at the Pacific Operational Science & Technology conference. “You know, I actually started thinking about this last September. We were working on a plan to be more model-neutral in our workforce. Now we’re just going faster.”

More than a year ago, INDOPACOM integrated AI throughout its headquarters. Less than two weeks ago, President Trump directed federal agencies to stop using tools by Anthropic. And on Monday, the company sued the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and others, claiming illegal retaliation.

Stephenson, moderating a panel focused on advanced partnerships for multi-domain command and control, described his own “AI journey.”

“My challenge right now is: I’m trying—if you understand the seven functions of joint warfare…those things all happen simultaneously.”

“If you’re going to send a ship into position to launch a missile…you have to worry about, does it have enough fuel to get there? Is it going to have to be refueled when it gets back? What about reloading? What’s the status of the launcher? What’s the status of the weapon? And so on and so forth. And so these things all interact. So we’re trying to use AI to create agentic workflows to allow us to do this at scale.”

On the other side of the world, in Central Command, he said, “They’re executing about 1,000 fires a day. That’s a lot. That’s what we think, that’s what modern warfare looks like. They’re working really hard to try to stay up with this, and they’re using some AI tools that actually worked well for us.”

Panelist Paul Gaertner, project leader for integrated command, control, communications and computing for the Australian Department of Defense, told the audience that he is worried about both under-trusting and over-trusting AI.

Stephenson said he shares that concern. But when asked about allowing autonomous forms to manage themselves and mitigate their own risk, he said the answer is “sort of.”

“My boss tells us that in offensive weapons, there must be human agency,” Stephenson said, referring to commander Adm. Sam Paparo. But for defensive weapons, “the criteria varies. If somebody is shooting at you, there’s much more latitude” in having systems to automatically defend against the threat.

Stephenson, who retired from the Navy in 2003 after 30 years of service, noted that the U.S. has had autonomous weapons systems since he was a captain.

“There is a need for autonomy. There is a desire for autonomy at the edge, but with some of them, every weapon we have has a failsafe. We obviously don’t want to unleash a swarm that’s just going to fly around and go after the wrong thing. So there will be limits,” he said. But “we have these things called torpedoes that we have shot for, you know, a year or two, they worked out this thing called anti-circular run that kept the torpedo from zigzagging around” and coming back to “attack the thing that shot it. So think of a similar constraint for autonomous systems.”

]]>

State offloads Claude as underpinning model in flagship StateChat

Alexandra Kelley and David DiMolfetta — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 15:22:00 -0400

The State Department has shifted the model underpinning its internal chatbot, StateChat, from Anthropic’s Claude Sonnet 4.5 to OpenAI’s GPT-4.1, following President Donald Trump’s Feb. 27 directive that all government agencies take steps to shed Anthropic tools from their systems.

An internal document obtained by Nextgov/FCW confirms that Anthropic’s software is no longer powering StateChat and that the change to a new LLM contractor has also impacted the data on the internal chatbot, as it has now been set back to data available as of May 2024.

The earlier version of StateChat, when powered by Claude, was trained on more recent data from June 2025, a source familiar with the situation told Nextgov/FCW. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details about the model’s training data.

State employees using a customGPT setup running on Claude were also asked to transition to another government-approved model that isn’t created by Anthropic by March 6, the document says.

“In line with the president’s direction to cancel Anthropic contracts, Anthropic’s Claude models are no longer available on the Department’s enterprise generative AI platform,” a State Department spokesperson told Nextgov/FCW. “The department is taking all necessary steps to implement the directive and bring our programs into full compliance.”

Reuters previously reported directives in multiple agencies, including State, requiring switches from Claude to ChatGPT.

Claude was initially made available for federal agency operations as part of the General Services Administration’s OneGov deal that brokered favorable software rates for the government, many for a temporary period of time.

Following the governmentwide ban of Anthropic technology, the company filed two lawsuits Monday. One, filed in the D.C. circuit court, invokes provisions in the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 as rationale against the government’s designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk.

The second, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, names dozens of federal agencies and officials as defendants in allegations of inappropriate retaliation against Anthropic and calls for an injunction.

]]>

GSA proposes sweeping changes to Multiple Award Schedule program, including new AI terms and conditions

Nick Wakeman — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 11:05:00 -0400

The General Services Administration has released a draft of several changes it plans for the Multiple Award Schedule program, a government-wide initiative for agencies to acquire commercial products and services.

Known as Refresh 31, the changes include making transactional data reporting mandatory as well as new terms and conditions for artificial intelligence and restrictions on open-market items.

GSA wants comments on the draft changes to be submitted by March 20.

The changes to transaction data reporting, or TDR, will apply to all MAS special item numbers by adding 112 SINs that were previously exempt. GSA will require contractors to report detailed sales transaction data to GSA on a quarterly basis.

Once finalized, current MAS contract holders will receive a mass modification for the TDR requirement and must accept the change within 90 days.

Other parts of Refresh 31 will also trigger mass modifications with a 60-day acceptance requirement.

Part of the TDR change includes an end to the Price Reductions Clause, which requires contractors to notify GSA if they offered a better price for a product or service to a customer.

This means that contractors will no longer have to track commercial price changes. GSA is also looking to reduce exposure to retroactive price reductions or payment demands, which have been the basis for False Claims Act lawsuits.

The new AI provisions will standardize terms and conditions government-wide for the first time. GSA is incorporating provisions from the Office of Management and Budget’s M-25-22 memo from April 2025, Driving Efficient Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government.

OMB's memo requires agencies to include contract terms that require vendors to get permission before using non-public government data to train their publicly-available AI algorithms. In other words, the government continues to own and control its data.

A second provision in the memo says agencies will monitor AI systems for performance with ongoing testing and monitoring rights built into contracts.

For the new open market items, GSA is restricting their use. In its place, GSA will institute a structured approach through the Order-Level Materials SIN.

Previously, contracting officers had broad discretion to add items outside a contractor's schedule to MAS orders. GSA is replacing that flexibility with a more structured process.

“Given these changes, it is strongly recommended that you add the OLM SIN,” GSA writes in the draft.

Comments are due March 20 and should be emailed directly to maspmo@gsa.gov.

]]>

Anthropic sues over a dozen federal agencies and government leaders

Alexandra Kelley — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 17:14:00 -0400

In the wake of Anthropic being blacklisted by the federal government, the company has filed a sweeping lawsuit against over a dozen federal agencies and government leaders — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Services Administration Administrator Edward Forst — claiming the federal government is inappropriately retaliating against it.

In a March 9 court filing with the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, Anthropic claims that defendants named in the lawsuit are illegally punishing Anthropic's choice not to change the terms of use for its AI product to work with the Department of Defense.

The court filing offers background into Anthropic’s product, the large language model Claude and its extensive work within the federal government, particularly within the Pentagon.

It explains the timeline of events that unfolded in the disagreement about Claude use cases within DOD, particularly surrounding uses to surveil U.S. citizens and control autonomous weapons. Anthropic asserts that in the aftermath of this disagreement — primarily the designation of the company as a supply chain risk and alleged violations of its right to due process through a lack of “core requirements” such as “adequate notice and a meaningful hearing” — are illegal and “are harming Anthropic irreparably.”

“These actions are unprecedented and unlawful,” the lawsuit reads. “The Constitution does not allow the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech. No federal statute authorizes the actions taken here. Anthropic turns to the judiciary as a last resort to vindicate its rights and halt the Executive’s unlawful campaign of retaliation.”

The lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration’s actions against Anthropic are based on pure ideological disagreement and are not due to “any legitimate procurement or security concern.” Anthropic further claims that it even attempted to support the Pentagon’s transition away from Anthropic software to other, more compatible systems, further underscoring the “viewpoint-based” actions taken against the company.

“Indeed, while operating under the terms of the Usage Policy, the Department [of Defense] never previously raised any issues with its use of Claude or concerns about Anthropic’s potential interference,” the document reads. “Anthropic had only ever received positive feedback about Claude’s capabilities from its government customers.”

A separate lawsuit, filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, further requests a judicial review of the supply chain risk label, citing provisions in the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018.

“Anthropic petitions this Court for review because the Department of War’s actions are, among other things, a pretextual form of retaliation in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion; unsupported by the administrative record; not in accord with procedures required by law; and in excess of statutory authority,” the second filing states.

Anthropic and DOD's failure to reach an agreement on the use of the former’s technology and the resulting governmentwide actions — namely President Donald Trump’s order for all federal agencies to cease using the technology and the Pentagon designating it as a supply chain risk — have fallen under scrutiny.

A current defense official told Defense One that it will not be easy to shift systems that had relied on Anthropic’s technologies to those of another vendor, and experts like Anthony Kuhn, a managing partner at the New York law firm Tully Rinckey, predicted that the supply chain risk designation in particular could open the Pentagon to lawsuits.

In response to the lawsuit, White House spokeswoman Liz Huston said the Trump administration’s goal is for the military to operate under the U.S. Constitution, “not any woke AI company’s terms of service.”

President Trump will never allow a radical left, woke company to jeopardize our national security by dictating how the greatest and most powerful military in the world operates,” Huston said in a statement to Nextgov/FCW. “The President and Secretary of War are ensuring America’s courageous warfighters have the appropriate tools they need to be successful and will guarantee that they are never held hostage by the ideological whims of any Big Tech leaders.”

Nextgov/FCW has reached out to Anthropic and the Commerce Department for comment. GSA and the Pentagon declined to comment on ongoing litigation.

]]>