CAS Offsets Permitted Among Different Contract Types
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.14.06
In an important case of first impression, the Court of Federal Claims in Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States (Mar. 29, 2006) has held that the cost impact of a Cost Accounting Standard (CAS) noncompliance is the net of all increased costs and all decreased costs that result from the noncompliance on all CAS-covered contracts. The Court rejected the government's argument that decreased costs paid on fixed-price contracts could not be offset against increased costs paid on cost-reimbursement contracts, finding that it "is -- in a word -- wrong."
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
