On February 25, 2019, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) for the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued an audit report analyzing the prices of spare aviation parts purchased by the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) and the Army from TransDigm Group, Inc. (“TransDigm”).  The audit was conducted in response to letters from certain Members of Congress, who had inquired whether the spare parts were sold at fair and reasonable prices and in compliance with the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Act (“Act”).[1]  The OIG’s audit confirmed that both TransDigm and the responsible DoD contracting officers fully complied with the Act and related regulations governing the price negotiations, but the OIG nonetheless concluded that the contractor earned excess profit on the majority of parts sold.  In a highly unusual move, the OIG recommended that DoD request a “voluntary refund” from TransDigm of its allegedly “excessive” profits, and the OIG also recommended a number of changes to statutory, regulatory, and administrative policies governing the provision of cost or pricing data.
Continue Reading When Compliance Is Not Enough: OIG Seeks Voluntary Refund Despite Contractor’s Adherence to “TINA” Requirements

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

On January 31, 2018, the Department of Defense (“DoD” or the “Department”) published a final rule regarding commercial item purchasing requirements.  Among other key amendments, the final rule modifies the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) by:  (i) formalizing a presumption of commerciality for items that DoD previously treated as commercial; (ii) providing commercial item treatment to goods and services offered by nontraditional defense contractors; and (iii) prioritizing the types of information that the contracting officer (“CO”) can consider when determining price reasonableness in the absence of adequate competition.

The final rule adopts much of DoD’s August 2016 proposed rule, which itself was a revised version of a retracted August 2015 proposed version.  We discussed the August 2016 proposed rule on this subject (and linked to an article regarding the August 2015 version) in a prior post.  Despite receiving repeated input from industry and Congress, DoD’s final rule still provides little concrete guidance, and although these changes were made with the stated purpose of promoting consistency across purchasing components, it appears likely that inconsistencies will persist.  In particular, the final rule continues to leave the door open for individual contracting officers to make potentially burdensome requests for information to support the proposed pricing of commercial items.
Continue Reading Third Time Around: Inconsistencies Persist with Final DFARS Commercial Items Rule

Last week, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) quietly withdrew its ill-received proposed rule on the evaluation of price reasonableness in commercial items acquisitions.  Issued on August 3, 2015, the Proposed Rule purported to provide guidance for evaluating the reasonableness of prices using data other than certified cost or pricing data.  As we previously reported, it fell short of this goal and, instead, increased confusion in the determination of price reasonableness for commercial goods that have been “offered for sale” but not sold.  It also adopted open-ended data provisions that arguably permit the agency to request almost unlimited information to substantiate the reasonableness of prices.
Continue Reading DoD Retreats on Evaluation of Price Reasonableness

The Department of Defense published a long awaited proposed rule on August 3, 2015, amending the DFARS to provide guidance for evaluating the reasonableness of prices using data other than certified cost or pricing data.  The proposed rule falls short of its goal, instead increasing confusion in the determination of price reasonableness for commercial goods