Last December, we previewed the significant cost accounting and pricing data disclosure changes contained in the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), including Section 1804(c)’s increase to the threshold governing the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Statute (formerly the Truth in Negotiations Act, and still commonly called “TINA”). That change is no longer on the horizon: it is here. The FY 2026 NDAA was signed into law on December 18, 2025, and the higher TINA threshold has taken effect for contracts entered into after June 30, 2026. This post focuses on what that means, in practical terms, for prime contractors and subcontractors.
Continue Reading The $10 Million TINA Threshold Is Now in Effect: What Contractors and Subcontractors Need to KnowTINA
When Compliance Is Not Enough: OIG Seeks Voluntary Refund Despite Contractor’s Adherence to “TINA” Requirements
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