The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Issues New Rules of Procedure for Its Adjudicatory Role in the Administrative False Claims Act
•February 11, 2026
0
Why It Matters
Understanding the CBCA’s new AFCA procedures is crucial for contractors who must navigate a tighter enforcement landscape for lower‑value fraud, potentially facing more audits and penalties. The changes also reflect broader government priorities on fraud detection and policy enforcement, making the episode timely for anyone involved in federal contracting or compliance.
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Issues New Rules of Procedure for Its Adjudicatory Role in the Administrative False Claims Act
On January 28, 2026, the United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) issued final rulemaking to address its role in hearing and resolving disputes under the Administrative False Claims Act (AFCA), formerly known as the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA). See 91 Fed. Reg. 3797. The AFCA provides an alternative enforcement mechanism to the False Claims Act (FCA) for low-dollar fraudulent claims submitted to the federal government. Under the AFCA, the boards of contract appeals may serve as an adjudicator for fraud allegations brought against contractors where agencies do not employ their own administrative law judges.
The Administrative False Claims Act
The FCA is not the only weapon in the federal government’s arsenal of legislation to hold contractors accountable for defrauding the government. The infrequently employed PFCRA allowed agencies to initiate administrative proceedings for claims of $150,000 or less when the Department of Justice decided not to pursue remedies under the FCA. Section 5203 of the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) revitalized the PFCRA with a swath of substantive enhancements and renamed it the Administrative False Claims Act.
Whereas the FCA allows the Department of Justice to bring civil suits in federal district court against contractors alleged to have defrauded the government, the AFCA provides a similar administrative process whereby agencies can address smaller dollar false claims. Notable differences include that the AFCA lacks a qui tam enforcement provision, liability is possible for false written statements even without a corresponding false claim, and resolution is administrative instead of judicial. The AFCA provides for civil penalties for each false statement or claim and double damages.
In addition to updating its name, the 2025 NDAA included a variety of enhancements to the AFCA. The original $150,000 ceiling of the PFCRA has been significantly increased to $1 million, with a provision to periodically adjust the ceiling for inflation. As an additional incentive, any amounts recovered under an AFCA claim now first go toward reimbursing agencies for the costs of investigating and prosecuting the claim. The AFCA also now imposes liability for “reverse false claims” of concealing or improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay or transmit property, service, or money to the federal government.
Finally, the NDAA expanded the list of officials who can preside over AFCA hearings, allowing the boards of contract appeals to adjudicate cases when an agency does not employ administrative law judges. The NDAA instructed the boards to update existing rules and regulations to comport with the updated AFCA.
The Boards of Contract Appeals Proposed Rule Changes
In accordance with the NDAA, the CBCA issued new rules of procedure to effectuate the new administrative scheme set forth in the AFCA and pursuant to amendments to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) made in conjunction with the passage of the AFCA. The CDA amendment expanded the jurisdiction of certain agency boards of contract appeals, including the CBCA, to hear cases referred under the AFCA. The CBCA’s new procedural rules, 48 CFR 6107, will govern its processing of cases under the AFCA.
Generally, the CBCA’s new rules for processing cases under the AFCA are the same as its rules for processing cases under the CDA. If the government elects to pursue a civil fraud claim against an entity under the AFCA, the government must provide the entity with proper notice, and the entity then has 30 days from notice to elect a hearing. If the reviewing official refers the matter to the CBCA, a single board judge, serving as the presiding officer, will commence an administrative hearing process unless the board chair refuses to accept the referral.
The administrative hearing process mirrors that of the CDA, including the filing of a complaint and answer, the submission of an electronic evidence file, and associated motions practice. The rules also clarify that a party representative need not be an attorney. Rulings by the presiding CBCA judge are binding on the parties but are not precedential.
The CBCA’s new rules of procedure will be effective February 27, 2026.
What This Means for Contractors
The revitalization of the ACFA likely signals an increase in government scrutiny for lower-dollar fraudulent claims. Because the agency itself is responsible for the investigation and, sometimes, adjudication of AFCA claims, and now will receive a financial incentive for successful claims, contractors should expect enhanced auditing at the agency level of documentation, certifications, and payment applications submitted to the government. The update to the ACFA also coincides with the current administration’s increased focus on fraud and the employment of the FCA to further its policy goals, particularly with respect to DEI and affirmative action. It stands to reason that agencies may be directed to employ the AFCA for similar purposes.
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...