1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DFARS Excessive Pass-Through Cost Rule Modified

DFARS Excessive Pass-Through Cost Rule Modified

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.13.08

Effective May 13, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 27464), the widely-criticized interim DFARS rules about "excessive pass-through costs" published last April were modified in yet another interim rule to address the confusion created by the interim rules. The most important features of the new interim rules are in the prefatory comments, which emphasize repeatedly that the requirement for reporting when subcontract effort will exceed 70 percent applies both before and after award, but is only a reporting requirement, not a threshold for coverage, and that the rules do not apply to any contract, no matter what the subcontract content, where the contractor demonstrates "added value," a term that is defined in the interim regulations to include performance of "subcontract management functions that the Contracting Officer determines are a benefit to the Government (e.g., processing orders of parts or services, maintaining inventory, reducing delivery lead times, managing multiple sources for contract requirements, coordinating deliveries, performing quality assurance functions)."

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)....