1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Too Late: Government’s Failure to Timely Audit Did Not Extend the Contractor’s Document Retention Obligations

Too Late: Government’s Failure to Timely Audit Did Not Extend the Contractor’s Document Retention Obligations

Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.03.22

In Doubleshot, Inc., ASBCA No. 61691 (July 19, 2022), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) granted the contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment, denying the Government’s claim for unallowable costs to the extent that it was based on missing or unsigned employee time cards.  The ASBCA held that the contractor was not required to maintain time card records to support the allowability of labor charges beyond the retention period specified in the contractor’s cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts (including applicable time extensions). 

The contracts incorporated both the Audit and Records – Negotiation clause (FAR 52.215-2) and the Allowable Cost and Payment clause (FAR 52.216-7), which grant the Government the right to examine the contractor’s records reflecting all claimed costs and reduce payments for amounts that are unallowable.  Following the contractor’s delayed submission of two final indirect cost rate proposals, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) did not begin auditing the proposals until eight months after the contractual obligation to maintain records had expired.  DCAA then questioned the contractor’s labor costs for which there was no time card support, even though the contractor was able to demonstrate that it paid its employees.  The Government’s claim and the contractor’s appeal followed. 

The ASBCA held that the contractor was not obligated to keep time card records beyond the FAR-mandated retention periods set in the contracts.  Therefore, the Government could not disallow the costs on the basis that the time cards were unavailable.  In so holding, the ASBCA rejected the Government’s argument that applying the FAR criteria was unfair, noting that the records retention period is a product of Government regulations and part of a FAR clause incorporated by the contracting officer.  The ASBCA also denied the portion of the Government’s claim that relied on unsigned time cards, noting that the FAR’s documentation requirement does not require signed time cards in order to support cost allowability.   

In sum, the ASBCA will not de facto extend document retention requirements by permitting a Government claim for unallowable costs on the basis of insufficient supporting documentation.  By contrast, the CBCA recently indicated, in dicta in Mission Support Alliance, CBCA 6477, that if presented with similar facts and arguments, it may hold differently.    

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights