1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Bad News for Contractors: ASBCA Decision Bars Offsets of Simultaneous Accounting Changes Under FAR 30.606

Bad News for Contractors: ASBCA Decision Bars Offsets of Simultaneous Accounting Changes Under FAR 30.606

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.22.15

In Raytheon Co. (May 7, 2015), the ASBCA held that under FAR 30.606 contractors may not offset cost impacts from simultaneous accounting changes within the same business segment, which if not reversed on appeal will cause major disruptions when contractors make multiple changes in cost accounting practices made after 2005 (the date of the FAR change), effectively giving the government the benefit of decreased costs without offsetting them against increased costs of simultaneous accounting changes. The Board decision ignores the language of CAS 9903.306(b)-(c), which states that when there is a change in accounting practice the government should not pay more than the "contract costs, price, or profit" that "would have been agreed to" had the accounting changes been known, which would logically include all simultaneous changes, not just changes that decrease the costs.


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....