1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DoD Lightens Contractors' Burden on Voluntary Defective Pricing Disclosures

DoD Lightens Contractors' Burden on Voluntary Defective Pricing Disclosures

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.07.18

On May 4, 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a final rule (83 FR 19645), effective immediately, amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to give DoD contracting officers (COs) more leeway in evaluating contractors’ post-award defective pricing disclosures. To promote voluntary disclosures and reduce paperwork burdens on defense contractors, DoD rejected a proposed requirement to always conduct an audit of a contractor’s voluntary disclosure of defective pricing. Although the proposed rule (80 FR 72699) required DoD COs to request, at a minimum, a limited-scope audit of the affected cost elements, the final rule requires only a discussion between the CO and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to determine whether a limited-scope audit, full-scope audit, or technical assistance is appropriate for the circumstances (i.e., nature or dollar amount of the disclosure). The CO’s discussion with DCAA must cover: (i) the completeness of the contractor’s voluntary disclosure, (ii) the accuracy of the contractor’s cost impact calculation, and (iii) the potential impact on the contractor’s other existing contracts or proposals.


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)....

View All Insights