Executive Order Calls for Sweeping Review of Government Contracts
On February 26, 2025, an Executive Order (EO) calling for a sweeping review of government contracts over the next 30 days and directing that contracts be terminated or modified to reduce overall federal spending or reallocate spending to promote efficiency and “advance the policies” of the administration.
The EO also directs agencies to adopt systems to track, justify, and publicize “every payment” under government contracts and grants. The EO carves out narrow exceptions for certain types of contracts, including contracts related to the “military.”
The EO—titled “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative”—will set in motion a series of steps across the federal government with a direct and immediate impact on large swaths of the government contracting industry. Heads of procuring agencies are tasked with undertaking significant steps in coordination with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Numerous questions remain as to the implications of the 30-day review and its implementation, including the EO’s call for a new system for tracking payments to contractors. Contractors should be prepared for potential terminations and changes and be mindful of their contractual remedies.
Key Elements of the EO:
The EO requires agency heads to carry out several actions in consultation with the DOGE:
The EO has narrow exemptions. It does not apply to law enforcement officers; contracts or grants directly related to federal criminal or immigration law, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the uniformed services; and classified information or classified information systems.
The EO contains a clause specifying that nothing in the order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency or the head thereof. Also, the EO states that it shall be “implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”
Implications for Industry
The EO signals a broad effort to institute major changes to federal procurement with immediate consequences for much of the government contracting industry. Contractors can expect significant changes to contracts and contracting procedures among federal agencies and their acquisition workforces, with the DOGE “Team Leads” playing substantial coordinating roles. Further, it remains unclear how the language exempting “military” contracts will be interpreted with respect to the wide array of defense contracts.
Contractors should prepare for changes in federal award policies and procedures and, in the near term, engage with agency contracting officers to understand the EO’s implications for new and existing contracts. As mentioned earlier, the EO directs agency heads to issue guidance on approving new contracts “prior to entering into new contracts,” unless a new contract receives specific approval from the agency head. This requirement raises questions about whether pending or upcoming procurements or contract awards will be slowed down or postponed.
Over the next 30 days and beyond, contractors should anticipate an increase in agencies exercising their rights to terminate or modify contracts. Contractors should bear in mind that such termination and modification rights depend on the particular terms of the contract. Standard Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses entitle contractors to reimbursement of costs incurred up until the time of termination, depending on the contract type. Contract modifications may require a contractor’s agreement, depending on the contract type, and contractors may also be entitled to equitable adjustments pursuant to the FAR’s Changes clause. An increase in terminations or change orders in response to the EO increases the likelihood of contractors pursuing disputes under the Contract Disputes Act, including disputes related to costs.
The EO also highlights considerations for contractors in future procurements, including the extent to which agencies incorporate government “efficiency” objectives into specific solicitation and evaluation terms.
The information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.
Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions.
Editorial Disclaimer
Originally published before the Ashurst Perkins Coie combination. See disclaimer.