Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani presents the latest insights from our Government Contracts group, offering a comprehensive overview of recent significant decisions, regulatory developments, and practical updates for businesses contracting with federal and state governments. Our team compiled the most pertinent legal developments to keep you informed in the dynamic landscape of government contracts.
Tune in to The Essential GovCon Brief podcast on Spotify or YouTube for an in-depth discussion of the issues highlighted here.
Fourth Circuit Vacates Injunction Blocking Executive Orders Targeting DEI-Related Grants and Contracts
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a district court’s preliminary injunction blocking portions of two executive orders aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within federal grant and contract programs.
The challenged executive orders directed federal agencies to terminate “equity-related” grants and contracts and to include a certification in federal awards requiring recipients to confirm that they do not operate DEI programs that violate federal anti-discrimination laws. Several organizations and government entities sued, arguing that the provisions were unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment.
The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the provisions affecting grants and certifications but concluded that they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial constitutional claims. With respect to the termination provision, the court explained that the executive order did not directly regulate private conduct but instead instructed federal agencies to terminate DEI-related funding “to the maximum extent allowed by law.”
The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to the certification requirement. The provision required grant recipients to certify compliance with existing federal anti-discrimination laws and to confirm that they do not operate DEI programs that violate those laws. According to the court, the certification requirement did not suppress protected speech but merely required recipients to affirm compliance with existing legal obligations.
Because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their facial constitutional challenges, the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Key Takeaway: The decision allows the Administration’s directives targeting DEI-related federal funding to remain in effect for now and confirms that agencies retain broad discretion in allocating federal grant and contract funding based on executive policy priorities.
Citation: Nat’l Ass’n of Diversity Officers in Higher Educ. v. Trump, 167 F.4th 86 (4th Cir. 2026).
Court of Federal Claims Finds Army Actions Violate Injunction in Bid Protest
In Gemini Tech Services LLC v. United States, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that the Army violated a prior court injunction in a bid protest involving a logistics support services task order issued under the Army’s Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) procurement vehicle.
The dispute arose after the court previously sustained Gemini’s protest and issued a permanent injunction requiring the Army to reevaluate offerors’ initial proposals consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Rather than making an award based on that reevaluation, however, the Army amended the solicitation and requested revised proposals from offerors.
Gemini moved to enforce the injunction, arguing that the Army’s corrective action conflicted with the court’s order. The court agreed, concluding that although the Army conducted a reevaluation of the original proposals, its subsequent amendment of the solicitation and request for revised proposals rendered that reevaluation meaningless. The injunction required the agency to evaluate the initial proposal submissions under the original solicitation, and the Army’s revised procurement approach effectively bypassed that directive.
The court explained that a party may not evade a permanent injunction by taking actions that technically comply with its language but frustrate its intended relief. Because the Army’s actions produced the same result the injunction was meant to prevent, the court granted Gemini’s motion to enforce the order and required the agency to comply with the terms of the original injunction.
Key Takeaway: The decision illustrates that agencies must follow both the text and purpose of court-ordered corrective action in bid protests. Procurement changes that effectively circumvent an injunction may lead to additional judicial intervention.
Citation: Gemini Tech Servs. LLC v. United States, No. 24-1494, 2026 WL 332553 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 5, 2026).
GAO Dismisses Protest as Untimely After Agency-Level Protest Denial
In The JAAW Group, LLC, the Government Accountability Office dismissed a protest as untimely after the protester failed to file within the required deadline following the denial of its agency-level protest.
The procurement involved a Department of the Army request for quotations issued under the General Services Administration’s Federal Supply Schedule for live, virtual, and constructive gaming support services. After receiving a brief explanation of the award, JAAW filed an agency-level protest challenging the evaluation of its quotation and asserting that the agency had not provided a proper debriefing. The contracting officer denied the protest on September 25.
Instead of immediately filing a protest at GAO, the protester requested reconsideration from the contracting officer and later received additional information from the agency. JAAW then filed its GAO protest on December 4. GAO dismissed the protest, explaining that a protest filed after an agency-level protest must be submitted within 10 days of the protester’s knowledge of the agency’s initial adverse action. The Army’s denial of the agency-level protest constituted that adverse action, triggering the filing deadline.
GAO also rejected the protester’s argument that its request for reconsideration or the agency’s later debriefing extended the deadline. Under GAO’s bid protest regulations and the FAR, a request for reconsideration of an agency-level protest does not toll the deadline for filing at GAO, and procurements conducted under the Federal Supply Schedule do not require the type of debriefing that would trigger the debriefing exception to GAO’s timeliness rules.
Key Takeaway: Protesters pursuing an agency-level protest must carefully track GAO’s filing deadlines. Requests for reconsideration or additional explanations from the agency generally will not extend the 10-day period to file a protest at GAO after initial adverse agency action.
Citation: The Jaaw Grp., LLC, B-424133 (Comp. Gen. Feb. 2, 2026).
GRSM Government Contracts Practice Group
GRSM’s Government Contracts team has considerable experience defending and enforcing the rights of our contractor clients in disputes against government entities and private businesses. In addition to litigating claims in state and federal courts, we routinely handle matters before administrative tribunals, such as the Government Accountability Office, the Small Business Administration, and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.
Our team of attorneys is located throughout the United States, which allows the firm to represent contractors, regardless of size, in a wide variety of industries, including defense, information technology, construction, and aerospace, among others.
Please contact Patrick Burns or Jeremy Camacho with any questions or for additional information.