Nextgov/FCW - Acquisition

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.

]]>

Private sector, former military leaders urge Congress intervene in Pentagon-Anthropic dispute

Alexandra Kelley — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 17:42:00 -0500

A coalition of professionals across multiple sectors signed a letter March 5, urging Congress to investigate multiple facets of the ongoing fallout between the Department of Defense and Anthropic, including the designation of the company as a supply chain risk and the ramifications of using artificial intelligence for domestic surveillance and autonomous lethal weapons.

The 35 signatories — consisting of former military officials, industry advocates and private sector leaders — are asking congressional leadership to take action following the Pentagon’s retaliation against Anthropic after the company refused to relax its safety guardrails for agency use.

The letter, addressed to Sens. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., as well as Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Adam Smith, D-Wash., expresses concern with the Pentagon’s actions in the wake of its disagreement with Anthropic, which include blacklisting the company, setting a problematic precedent for other companies hoping to contract with the federal government, and attempting to coerce the company into compliance.

The group also conveyed a unanimous position on the issue between the Pentagon and Anthropic: that AI should not operate lethal weapons without human oversight, and AI should not be used for mass domestic surveillance of Americans.

“They are not fringe positions,” the letter reads. “The prohibition on fully autonomous lethal weapons is consistent with the laws of armed conflict, including principles of distinction and proportionality codified in the Geneva Conventions. The prohibition on mass domestic surveillance is grounded in the Fourth Amendment and in binding U.S. treaty obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

The signatories ask Congress to establish clear statutory policy dictating how the government can use AI in domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons, including boundaries and oversight structures.

The group also requests that Congress use its oversight authority with regard to the supply chain risk designation the Pentagon imposed on Anthropic and consider legislative guardrails to designate supply chain risks in “protecting the United States from foreign threats, not disciplining American companies for disagreeing with the executive branch.”

While the signatories acknowledge the need to give the U.S. warfighter “every advantage,” they ask for congressional action to investigate and create policy to prevent both the misuse of AI in national security contexts and the abuse of excessive executive authority.

“These are among the most consequential questions the United States will face in the coming decade,” the letter reads. “They deserve a proper democratic debate.”

Following the termination of Anthropic’s Pentagon contract, President Donald Trump ordered all federal agencies to stop using Anthropic products in government operations. Experts said that it would “take months” to replace each use case in which Anthropic’s software had been, and the letter’s signatories point out that blacklisting Anthropic and requiring other contractors and partners to sever ties weakens the U.S. global position as a leader in AI adoption.

]]>

SBA boots 628 more companies from 8(a) program

Nick Wakeman — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 12:00:00 -0500

The Small Business Administration has removed 628 more companies from the 8(a) program because the agency says they did not comply with an order to turn in three years’ worth of financial data.

SBA requested the information from all 4,300 8(a) companies in December as part of its campaign to remove what the agency considers illegal diversity, equity and inclusion practices. SBA is also scrutinizing pass-through work at 8(a) companies.

This new set of 628 was part of a group of 1,091 companies that SBA suspended from the 8(a) program in January because they did not provide the data by the initial Jan. 5 deadline. SBA said at the time that the portal for submitting the data would remain open until Feb. 19.

Companies also have the option of appealing their removal to SBA and at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Suspension and removals of companies from the 8(a) program for not complying with the data request are not the only actions SBA has taken against the program.

In February, SBA announced plans to terminate 154 8(a) companies headquartered in the Washington, D.C. region because the firms failed to meet “economic disadvantage” eligibility requirements. Those companies were suspended through March 11, when their termination becomes final.

When added together, the total termination actions hit 782 out of nearly 4,300 8(a) companies in the program. If all of the terminations become final, SBA will have cut the program's participation roster by 18.2%.

Other moves against the 8(a) program include reducing the Biden Administration’s 15% 8(a) contracting goal back to the statutory goal of 5%. Contracting officers were also warned of penalties if they failed to report suspected fraud, waste and abuse involving 8(a) contracts.

SBA also launched an audit in June of the 8(a) to look at contacts over the past 15 years. The Defense Department launched its own 8(a) audit in January.

]]>

Agencies begin to shed Anthropic contracts following Trump’s directive

Frank Konkel and Alexandra Kelley — Mon, 02 Mar 2026 18:20:00 -0500

Several agencies have started making moves to phase out use of Anthropic tools, following President Donald Trump’s call for federal agencies to halt operations with Anthropic products as the friction between the company and federal government escalates.

The Department of Treasury confirmed it will stop using Anthropic technology products, including the company’s large language model, Claude, as did the State and Health and Human Services departments.

“The American people deserve confidence that every tool in government serves the public interest, and under President Trump no private company will ever dictate the terms of our national security,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tweeted on Monday morning.

The dispute between Anthropic and the Trump administration began with Anthropic refusing to allow Claude to be used for Department of Defense missions involving mass surveillance of Americans or to guide autonomous weapons. In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic as a supply-chain risk to national security.

Last July, the Department of Defense awarded a $200 million contract to Anthropic to provide AI capabilities.

Bessent’s pledge to remove Anthropic from Treasury operations follows the General Services Administration’s commitment to align with Trump’s stance, with Administrator Edward C. Forst stating that his agency will remove Anthropic services from the GSA marketplace and from its USAi program.

Anthropic’s products will now no longer be available on the Multiple Award Schedule, a centralized acquisition platform with software services available at favorable rates for government agencies. Per Trump’s order, the government will have a six-month runway to phase out Anthropic from its workflows.

“GSA stands with the President in rejecting attempts to politicize work dedicated to America’s national security. Building resilient, secure, and scalable AI solutions demands alignment, trust, and a willingness to make hard calls,” Frost said. “We’re committed to delivering results for Americans, and working with our AI industry partners who fit the bill.”

Elsewhere in the federal landscape, the State Department confirmed to Nextgov/FCW that it will remove Anthropic services from its workflow.

“In line with the President’s direction to cancel Anthropic contracts, we are taking immediate steps to implement the directive and bring our programs into full compliance,” said Tommy Pigott, the principal deputy spokesperson at State.

State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs made an award of $18,960 in fixed-price purchase order to Anthropic in February, according to GovTribe data.

The Department of Health and Human Services also confirmed that it is beginning to phase Anthropic solutions out of its agency workflows and will no longer offer it to staff.

Emily Hilliard, the press secretary at HHS, told Nextgov/FCW that other softwares — like Anthropic competitors ChatGPT Enterprise and Google Gemini — remain available for “authorized mission-related use in accordance with Department policy and federal information security requirements.”

Industry response

While agencies have generally fallen in line with Trump’s directive to cease use of Anthropic, Hegseth on Friday appeared to escalate the ask to companies, including defense contractors, that work with the U.S. military. In a post on X, Hegseth said that “effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic."

Amazon Web Services, which has a longstanding partnership with Anthropic, did not respond to requests for comment Monday, nor did Google Cloud, Microsoft or Salesforce, all of which have relationships with the company.

The Professional Services Council, which represents several hundred tech companies and defense contractors, advised member companies in a statement to Nextgov/FCW to “work closely with their government acquisition colleagues while we closely monitor this recent designation and what successful compliance looks like within our industrial base."

"Protecting national security supply chains is essential, and how the government designates risk has broad implications across the federal contracting industry,” a PSC spokesperson said. “Designating a U.S.-based company as a potential supply chain risk requires prime contractors and subcontractors to assess reliance, scrub supply chains, attest to compliance, and coordinate closely with contracting officers. The implications also extend beyond the Department of War, as actions such as GSA removing the company from portions of the Multiple Award Schedule add another layer of compliance complexity.”

Editor’s note: GovTribe is owned by Nextgov/FCW’s parent company, GovExec.

]]>

Air Force Research Lab seeks more national approach for innovation

Ross Wilkers — Thu, 26 Feb 2026 16:00:00 -0500

The Air Force Research Laboratory is asking industry, investors and academia to weigh in on how a national research network can be stood up and aid in efforts to accelerate dual-use technology development.

"Dual-use" is the common lingo used to describe products, services and research primarily designed for civilian and commercial applications that can also be adapted for national security purposes. Artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, computer chips and software are often spoken about in that context.

In a sources sought notice posted Wednesday, AFRL says it is looking to expand on a previous regional hub network pilot focused on turning dual-use tech into operational capability for the Air Force and Space Force.

AFRL essentially wants to take a more national approach to that network’s operating model and wants ideas on how to get there.

The lab breaks out the RFI into five lines of effort, including the network’s overall architecture and governance model. Respondents are being asked to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of a centralized model versus a regional setup, as well as propose structures that would provide agility.

Officials at AFRL are also asking for input on mechanisms to deepen external partnerships with the lab, the future network’s value proposition for future external partners, involvement of private capital and other dual-use technology investments, and mission alignment with the needs of the Air Force and Space Force.

Submissions should also include details on willingness to enter teaming arrangements that could include subcontractors, small business utilization, and resources for supporting workforce development and technology transfer.

Responses to the RFI are due by March 23.

]]>

Contract reviews continue at OMB, official says

Natalie Alms — Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:47:00 -0500

The Office of Management and Budget is engaged in and leading a review of IT contracts across the government, Eric Ueland, deputy director for management at OMB, told attendees at a Nextgov/FCW event Wednesday, saying that the government needs to look forward to what’s coming next.

OMB is working with Greg Barbaccia, the federal chief information officer, on this review, he said.

The Trump administration started reviewing and culling contracts early last year as part of its effort to cut what it deemed wasteful government spending.

By the 100th day of the administration, the General Services Administration was touting the cancellation of 9,400 contracts. GSA also told agencies to scrutinize contracts with top consultants. Another focus has been on cancelling contracts related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

The administration has also zeroed in on resellers and 8(a) companies.

Culling contracts was a major strategy for the Department of Government Efficiency, although it at times exaggerated the value and savings of contracts it cancelled.

Like Barbaccia has done himself, Ueland also emphasized that the administration wants to focus on commodity IT.

“Build bespoke is no more,” he said.

The administration’s work overhauling the government’s main procurement regulations also got a shoutout, and Ueland emphasized the administration’s intention to empower chief information officers.

“What we want to do is make sure that CIOs are fully empowered to be there at the beginning of conversations, that they are part of the formulation of budget and policy from liftoff,” he said.

]]>

FAA launches competition to modernize aging IT portfolio

Nick Wakeman — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:00:00 -0500

The Federal Aviation Administration has a sprawling and aging digital infrastructure with roughly 200 applications and 3,000 databases that support a wide span of responsibilities, ranging from safety inspections to regulatory compliance.

In an effort to transform this portfolio, the agency is launching a challenge to gather ideas from industry on how to move these old systems to cloud-native architectures and reduce its technical debt.

According to a Tuesday notice on Sam.gov, the agency is forgoing a traditional acquisition in favor of a challenge-based approach. The multi-phase competition will allow the FAA to watch vendors perform, not just pitch.

Phase 1 proposals are due March 10. Competitors are being asked for their track record using a self-scoring system that looks at factors such as contract size, portfolio, cloud migrations, artificial intelligence deployments and experience with critical safety systems.

Only the top 10 scorers will have their concept papers evaluated.

In Phase 2, the FAA will narrow the field to five finalists that will have to explain how they would rationalize and consolidate the FAA’s portfolio.

For Phase 3, the finalists have to demonstrate what the FAA calls a "modernization factory." This is where they have to show a real modernization challenge, not just describe one.

Phase 4 is the award, which the FAA is targeting for Sept. 30.

The focus on a factor model is a shift away from traditional time-and-material staffing toward more automated, productized process powered by AI.

The FAA wants AI to analyze legacy code, generate and test new code and automate security monitoring functions. A second goal is for AI to identify redundant systems that can be eliminated.

The FAA wants more modern systems to underpin the safety of the National Airspace System, making the stakes high.

The FAA says it needs 99.9% uptime on mission-critical systems, continuous cybersecurity and long-term cost reductions.

The expected contract will run for 10 years. The FAA does not give an estimated value, but the self-scoring matrix indicates the agency wants contractors with experience with large contracts.

The matrix awards points for contracts larger than $25 million, $50 million, and $100 million annually.

]]>

Oracle books $88M Air Force Cloud One contract

Nick Wakeman — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:14:00 -0500

The Air Force has added another major cloud service provider through a new $88 million direct contract with Oracle as part of its Cloud One program.

This award announced Thursday follows a $581.3 million contract with Amazon Web Services the service branch finalized in late January.

The Air Force is using the Cloud One program to modernize its IT infrastructure.

Cloud One also includes a $455 million million contract awarded to Leidos in December for systems architecture and common shared services, as well as a $743 million contract awarded in May to Booz Allen Hamilton for application modernization work.

The firm-fixed price contract with Oracle runs through Dec. 7, 2028.

Under the Oracle contract, the Air Force and the rest of the Defense Department will have access to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure services across multiple classification levels. The agreement also offers data center support for Top Secret/SCI, Special Access Program, and Defense Information Syst Impact Levels 5 and 6.

The agreement also offers data center support through Oracle National Security Regions operated by cleared U.S. citizens.

In the area of artificial intelligence, the contract gives the Air Force and DOD access to Oracle’s AI Database 26ai. This tool is designed to help users “combine organization-specific information and public information when running agentic AI workflows,” according to the Oracle announcement.

“Oracle remains committed to the [DOD’s] mission and our next-generation database services and analytics, including Oracle AI Database 26ai, are transformative additions to [DOD’s] Cloud One strategy,” said Kim Lynch, executive vice president for government, defense and intelligence at Oracle.

The contract also includes Oracle’ security services for DOD agencies to meet the boundary protection needs of the Defense Information Systems Network.

Work will be performed at Oracle facilities throughout the U.S.

]]>

CIA announces new acquisition framework to speed tech adoption

David DiMolfetta — Mon, 09 Feb 2026 13:00:00 -0500

The Central Intelligence Agency said it’s overhauling how it procures technology from the private sector, as part of an effort to more quickly adopt leading-edge capabilities for use in its missions.

The new acquisition framework, made public Monday, involves a centralized vendor vetting system and a streamlined IT authorization process to “significantly reduce the time between when CIA defines a mission requirement and when it receives operating authority,” the agency said in a prepared statement.

The framework “also provides clear pathways for CIA to leverage its unique authorities to acquire essential capabilities, rapidly onboard breakthrough technology prototypes, and modernize its core systems to meet urgent mission needs,” the agency added.

Efstathia Fragogiannis, an alum of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, joined the agency as its new procurement chief in November and will be spearheading the effort, according to a CIA official who spoke with Nextgov/FCW ahead of release.

The new framework responds to years of recognizing the government’s slower procurement timelines, which can create obstacles for innovative, new companies and impede the agency’s ability to quickly access needed new technology, the CIA official said. Against the backdrop of economic and national security concerns from foreign adversaries like China, the new framework is needed now more than ever, added the official.

In recent months, the CIA has taken notable steps that underscore its role in U.S. national security priorities, from rolling out Mandarin-language recruitment videos aimed at encouraging Chinese officials to secretly share information with U.S. intelligence, to carrying out covert operations in Venezuela.

During his confirmation hearing, CIA Director John Ratcliffe stressed the need for the spy agency to accelerate and modernize how it procures technology. For years, the CIA has leaned on the private sector to aid in its secret missions, relying on contractors, commercial data and private-sector technology to fill gaps in intelligence collection and operational reach as national security challenges have grown more complex.

“We’re optimizing our approach to working with the private sector,” Ratcliffe said in a statement. “CIA’s rapidly evolving mission demands a radical shift towards a culture of speed, agility and innovation. By leveraging the best technological solutions available today, the CIA will be better equipped to meet the intelligence challenges of tomorrow.”

The CIA has long been deemed a human intelligence agency at heart, but its ability to recruit sources and assess findings has become increasingly tied to technology. In 1999, it launched In-Q-Tel, a nonprofit investment arm designed to spot and fund startups building cutting-edge tools for U.S. intelligence and defense agencies.

It has notably spent the last 15 years or so aggressively shifting its technical backbone to a multi-billion-dollar commercial market of cloud and AI services. In 2019, CIA began the buildout of its vast Commercial Cloud Enterprise designed for data storage, computing and analytics. And about a decade ago, it launched its Directorate for Digital Innovation to augment its tech and cyber capabilities.

“CIA is open for business. We’re entering a range of commercial partnerships, from startups to industry leaders, in areas like AI, biotech, FinTech and microelectronics,” agency deputy director Michael Ellis said in remarks provided to Nextgov/FCW. “If you’re a company pushing the boundaries of emerging technologies, we want to partner with you to help CIA stay ahead of foreign adversaries by getting game-changing capabilities into the hands of our officers faster.”

]]>

Agencies are prioritizing flexibility and cost savings in AI purchases, GSA official says

Alexandra Kelley — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 16:00:00 -0500

As artificial intelligence becomes more ubiquitous across federal government workflows, agencies are favoring a competitive market approach to buying new tools that help with “practical, operational use cases,” according to one General Services Administration official.

“Agencies are telling us they value choice, flexibility, and significant discounts when adopting AI,” Lawrence Hale, the acting assistant commissioner at GSA’s Office of Information Technology Category within the Federal Acquisition Service, told Nextgov/FCW.

GSA serves as one of the primary acquisition hubs within government, managing several multiple award schedules and contracting vehicles where other agencies can purchase goods and services.

Hale said that, while he can’t speak for every individual agency, common areas of interest rotate around internal knowledge management, document drafting and analysis, customer and employee support, IT and service management and other high-volume, text- and workflow-heavy operations.

“Early demand signals within GSA-managed catalogs show strong interest in generative AI tools that support everyday work, particularly conversational AI and embedded productivity capabilities,” he said.

The specific outcomes or metrics federal customers are tracking when adopting new AI systems are relatively diverse. Ways to support productivity gains, security and data protection, workforce impact, and responsible use are all conversations happening as agencies shop for their AI products.

“Agencies are asking not just whether AI can make work faster, but whether it can do so safely, transparently, and in a way that aligns with federal values and requirements,” Hale said. He also stated that many agencies are interested in AI capabilities that are embedded in or compatible with digital tools that are already in use, preferring to adopt a new application rather than introducing a new standalone system into their networks.

A slew of advanced AI models and tools are available to federal agencies via the GSA’s USAi.gov initiative, where leading AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta sell their products in a federal marketplace. GSA also helms the OneGov procurement strategy that brokered reduced costs for advanced private sector products, such as use of Anthropic’s model Claude for a $1 fee per agency.

These vehicles have been effective in giving agencies the types of AI tools that align with their modernization needs. Hale said that government customers are leaning more towards secure, enterprise-ready AI products that can adapt quickly to a digital environment, rather than a more custom or experimental solution. Maintaining a sense of freedom is also important, as agencies are, for now, not interested in long-term financial commitments when leveraging AI.

“They appreciate having multiple, enterprise-ready options, with clear pricing and standardized terms, so they can test and scale tools without being locked into a single solution too early,” Hale said.

Outfitting federal operations with new technologies has been a policy action item for both the Biden and Trump administrations, with GSA consistently being tasked with executing such initiatives via procurement strategies.

“The goal is to let agencies focus on outcomes — better service, faster workflows, and smarter use of staff time— while GSA handles the complexity of acquisition and market engagement,” Hale said.

]]>

GSA quietly rolls out CMMC-like cybersecurity framework for contractors

Nick Wakeman — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 13:33:00 -0500

UPDATE: This story has been updated with comments from GSA.

The General Services Administration is quietly placing new cybersecurity requirements on contracts that parallel the Defense Department’s CMMC program.

GSA’s Office of the Chief Information Security Officer issued an IT security procedural guide on Jan. 5 for contractors to implement the National Institute of Standards and Technology's 800-171 standard, as well as certain 800-172 controls on their systems that handle CUI.

"This resource is important because it provides a consistent, risk-based framework for how GSA and its vendors protect CUI in nonfederal systems, outlining required controls such as use of the Risk Management Framework, multi-factor authentication, encryption, independent security assessments, and continuous risk monitoring," GSA said in a statement to Washington Technology.

The requirement only applies to new contracts where the work will involve CUI and requires approval by the chief information security officer.

The guide, formally called CIO-IT Security-21-112 Revision 1, identifies eight specific security requirements that will block approval if not fully implemented. These include multi-factor authentication for all users, encryption of CUI in transit and at rest, vulnerability scanning and remediation, and elimination of all end-of-life system components.

Contractors will be required to go through independent assessments by FedRAMP third-party organizations or GSA-approved assessors.

The guide describes a five-phase process: prepare, document, assess, authorize and monitor.

The phases also have subphases. For example, in phase 1, the contractor must identify and verify information types using the FIPS-199 security categorization template. GSA marked these items deliverables. Phase 1 also includes a meeting with GSA.

Unlike the Defense Department’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program that relies on accredited C3PAOs, GSA's framework allows for "assessment organizations approved by the GSA OCISO prior to selection." However, GSA has not published approval criteria or a list of qualified assessors, potentially creating uncertainty for contractors.

Like CMMC, GSA wants contractors to show they comply with NIST publication 800-171. GSA's standard includes a set of controls for access to data in contractor systems, such as remote access.

Documentation requirements include a system security and privacy plan, system architecture diagrams, inventories of hardware, software and services, supply chain risk management, and plan of action and milestones for any deficiencies.

There also are quarterly and annual assessments, and a full independent assessment is required everything three years.

GSA can begin applying the framework to new contracts immediately, with no grace period or phase-in timeline specified.

]]>