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 | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....