DCAA's Use of a Statistically Invalid Analysis for Testing Compensation Reasonableness
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.03.12
The ASBCA in J.F. Taylor, Inc. (Jan. 18, 2012) rejected DCAA’s disallowance of executive compensation, based primarily on the credibility of differing expert opinions. The board concluded that the standard DCAA analysis relying on a “rule of reason” that permits compensation within 10% of the 50th percentile of an unweighted average of multiple surveys with different sample sizes is statistically invalid, at least in part because the contractor’s expert was credible and the government’s, who had included in his resume what was arguably a mail order PhD from a South African “university,” was not.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
