1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |IR&D Reporting Requirements Reinstated

IR&D Reporting Requirements Reinstated

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.30.12

In a final rule published today, the DFARS were amended to reinstate a requirement that was eliminated from the regulations in the early 1990s, providing that as a condition of allowability for Independent Research and Development (IR&D) costs, major contractors must submit to DoD at least annually technical descriptions of the IR&D projects that the contractor claims as allowable. In response to criticism of a draft regulation proposing a $50,000 coverage threshold, the final rule limits mandatory reporting to “major contractors” that allocate more than $11 million annually to “covered contracts” (a term that excludes fixed-price contracts without cost incentives), leaves largely to the contractor’s discretion how much detail needs to be reported in the on-line template through which the reports must be submitted, encourages voluntary reporting by contractors not subject to the mandatory requirement, and promises that the reports will be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights