The Federal government may soon adopt new rules for when indefinite delivery contracts and orders are subject to the Cost Accounting Standards. According to a June 18, 2024 notice, the CAS Board is considering multiple different approaches to this issue, and it has invited comments from the public.Continue Reading Wondering Whether Your IDIQ Award Will Be Subject to CAS? New Rules May Be Coming Soon from the CAS Board.
Costs
ASBCA Issues Annual Report, Providing Data on How Often Contractors Prevail
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals has issued its annual report for FY 2023, shedding light on how often contractor appeals reach a successful result, and what agencies are most frequently involved in contract litigation.Continue Reading ASBCA Issues Annual Report, Providing Data on How Often Contractors Prevail
ASBCA: Government Can Pursue $151 Million Claim Under CAS 410
In Honeywell International, Inc., the ASBCA declined to dismiss a roughly $151 million claim by DCMA alleging a violation of CAS 410, holding that the government’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim for improper treatment of G&A expenses. The Board’s decision provides guidance on how to interpret CAS 410 — a topic that is often addressed by auditors, but has rarely been the subject of written opinions by the courts or boards of contract appeals.Continue Reading ASBCA: Government Can Pursue $151 Million Claim Under CAS 410
So the Auditor Says You Violated CAS? Remember, Your Business Judgment Matters When Determining Compliance
Contractors often assume that government auditors have special authority to interpret the Cost Accounting Standards. That assumption is easy to understand — auditors frequently take the position that there is just one “right” way for a company to do its contract cost accounting, based on how other companies do things. But contractors should know that CAS is flexible and generally gives them options about how to comply, based on the circumstances of their business. In short, a contractor’s business judgment matters, and contractors can use it to push back on auditors who take an overly rigid view of CAS.Continue Reading So the Auditor Says You Violated CAS? Remember, Your Business Judgment Matters When Determining Compliance
FCA Defendants May Be Able to Recover Attorney Fees Under Their Fixed-Price Contracts, At Least For Now
If a contractor is working on a fixed-price contract, can it charge the government for attorney’s fees to defend a False Claim Act (“FCA”) case related to the contract?
In The Tolliver Group, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. Jan. 22, 2020), the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) said the answer was “yes,” if the government was liable for an equitable adjustment under the circumstances. The decision was welcomed by contractors facing meritless FCA suits, which are often costly to defend even when the relator plainly does not have a case.
But the Federal Circuit has thrown cold water on Tolliver — at least for now. In a decision last week, the court of appeals vacated Tolliver on jurisdictional grounds, concluding that the legal theory of the COFC’s decision was never presented to the contracting officer for a final decision under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (“CDA”), and that the COFC therefore lacked jurisdiction over the contractor’s claim. The Tolliver Group, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2021).Continue Reading FCA Defendants May Be Able to Recover Attorney Fees Under Their Fixed-Price Contracts, At Least For Now
With Potential New TINA Audits on the Horizon, the ASBCA Provides a Helpful Primer on Defending Against Defective Pricing Claims
Late last year, a spokesman for the Department of Defense announced without fanfare that the agency would increase audits of certified cost or pricing data under the Truth in Negotiations Act (“TINA”). While the full effect of that enhanced focus on TINA compliance remains to be seen, a recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) provides helpful guidance for navigating upcoming TINA audits and defending against defective pricing claims, particularly in situations involving an on-going program where documents contain both facts and judgmental estimates.
Continue Reading With Potential New TINA Audits on the Horizon, the ASBCA Provides a Helpful Primer on Defending Against Defective Pricing Claims
Surviving the Shutdown: Seven Things Contractors Should Consider If a Cost Overrun Is on the Horizon
The U.S. Government shutdown is now the longest in U.S. history and is starting to have serious implications for Government contractors. One of many key concerns arises when contractors approach their contract funding ceiling — can they continue to work, and what happens if there is a cost overrun?[1]
The answers are often complicated for both contractors and agency officials, and depend on the terms of the contract and the statutory basis for the program. Contractors facing this situation should keep seven points in mind.Continue Reading Surviving the Shutdown: Seven Things Contractors Should Consider If a Cost Overrun Is on the Horizon
Waiting For the Final Government Audit May Be Too Late
In a case of first impression, a Court of Appeals has held that a government subcontractor’s claim for reimbursement of its actual indirect costs was time-barred. Fluor Fed’l Solns. LLC v. PAE Applied Techs, LLC, No. 17-1468, 2018 WL 1768233 (4th Cir. Apr. 12, 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished). It is the first case to directly address the interplay between the Allowable Cost and Payment Clause of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), 48 C.F.R. § 52.216-7, and a statute of limitations. It highlights the risks government subcontractors face when they choose to wait for a Government audit rather than litigate promptly after a payment dispute arises.
Continue Reading Waiting For the Final Government Audit May Be Too Late
DoD Final Rule to Promote Post-Award Disclosure of Defective Pricing Arms Contractors with Potentially Impactful Information
By Susan B. Cassidy on
On May 4, 2018, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) to state that, in the interest of promoting voluntary disclosures of defective pricing identified by contractors after contract award, DoD contracting officers have more discretion to determine the scope of the involvement of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) in assessing such a disclosure. 83 Fed. Reg. 19645. This is a change from DoD’s November 2015 proposed rule, which required contracting officers to request at least a limited-scope audit when a contractor voluntarily discloses defective pricing. While arguably a step in the right direction, the permissive language of the final rule continues to provide only limited information to defense contractors about what to expect following a voluntary defective pricing disclosure. Nonetheless, by listing the types of information that the contracting officer must consider when deciding whether to request an audit, the rule arms contractors with potentially impactful information.
Continue Reading DoD Final Rule to Promote Post-Award Disclosure of Defective Pricing Arms Contractors with Potentially Impactful Information