1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Show Them the Money: ASBCA Finds Govt Claims Untimely When Contractor Provided Cost Impact Analyses

Show Them the Money: ASBCA Finds Govt Claims Untimely When Contractor Provided Cost Impact Analyses

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.05.13

In Raytheon Corp. (April 22, 2013), the most recent in a string of CDA statute of limitations cases barring untimely government claims (discussed here, here, here, and here), the ASBCA dismissed the government's CAS-based claims relating to 3 out of the 4 accounting practice changes at issue, reminding contractors of the importance of complying with the regulatory requirement to provide timely estimates of the impacts of accounting changes. The Board allowed one claim to proceed "where Raytheon only reported the fact of a change, not the implications of it or other data" from which the Government could have concluded it had a claim, but dismissed as untimely 3 claims because Raytheon had provided cost impact information more than 6 years prior to the final decision asserting a Government claim, noting that "[c]laim accrual does not depend on the degree of detail provided, whether the contractor revises the calculations later, or whether the contractor characterizes the impact as 'immaterial,'" but is pegged instead to when the contractor "notified the Government of a specific, adverse cost impact flowing from [the change]."


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