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 | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....