1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Déjà Vu: Congress Orders DCAA to Revise Guidance on Access to Internal Audit Reports

Déjà Vu: Congress Orders DCAA to Revise Guidance on Access to Internal Audit Reports

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.15.13

Section 832 of the FY 2013 NDAA requires DCAA to issue new guidance on access to contractors' internal audit reports to "ensure" that requests for access to them "are appropriately documented," following guidance issued by the agency in August 2012. The revised guidance will require DCAA to keep tabs on such requests and responses to them, but sets limits on what internal audit reports can be used for and stops short of language in the Senate version of the bill, under which the contractor's refusal to provide access would have been "a basis for disapproving the contractor business system or systems."


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