CAS Price Adjustments Limited To "Affected" Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.16.10
In Donley v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (June 10, 2010) (litigated by Crowell & Moring), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ASBCA's decision that a CAS-covered contract that was completely repriced with full disclosure after a change in accounting was not "affected" by the change and was not subject to price adjustment to reflect the impact of the change -- an argument that could also preclude price adjustments on task orders that are negotiated without reliance on cost accounting information under CAS-covered IDIQ contracts. The Court rejected the Justice Department's arguments that the repriced contract was "affected" by the change either because it had been modified rather than completely terminated and re-awarded or because the PCO's agreement to a new price constituted an impermissible "waiver" of the ACO's exclusive right to determine the impact of an accounting change.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
