Contractor Business Systems Reviews: A Work in Progress According to GAO Report
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.22.19
On February 7, 2019, the GAO, pursuant to Section 890 of the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), released a report:
- Describing the changes to DoD’s process of monitoring contractor business systems (CBS), including systems used for accounting, cost estimating, purchasing, and material management.
- Analyzing the extent to which DoD is ensuring timely CBS reviews.
- “[D]escribing the steps DoD has taken to implement selected provisions of Section 893” of the FY 2017 NDAA.
The report also includes DCAA’s forecast for the number of business system audits it has planned for 2019 – 2022 and indicates that DCAA expects “it will be caught up in conducting the audits for which it is responsible by fiscal year 2022.” Specifically, DCAA “plans to conduct a total of 285 CBS audits” from FY 2019 through 2022, including 50 audits in FY 2019 and 104 in fiscal year 2020. DCAA “also plans to shift some of the hours previously devoted to incurred cost audits to CBS audits….” As the report notes, however, successful execution of this plan is dependent on a number of factors, including DCAA’s “ability to shift resources from other audits; to use public accounting firms to conduct other, non-business system audits; and DCAA staff’s ability to execute new audit plans in a timely manner.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
