Double Take: The DoD OIG Recommends Attempting to Recoup $43 Million in Purportedly Expressly Unallowable Costs Not Previously Disallowed
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.13.20
On January 14, 2020, the Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining whether Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) contracting officer (CO) rejections of recommendations by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to assess penalties on $43 million in unallowable costs identified in 18 DCAA audit reports complied with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), DoD Instructions, and agency policy. The OIG did not take issue with the fact of the COs’ disagreements, nor did it take a position on the merits of the COs’ determinations. But the OIG did conclude that the COs did not adequately document their reasons for rejecting DCAA’s penalty recommendations. Accordingly, the OIG recommended that DCMA reevaluate the COs’ decisions not to assess penalties on the $43 million, take actions to reclaim any expressly unallowable costs not previously disallowed, and collect from the contractors any penalties due to the Government. DCMA stated that it would review the audit reports and attempt to recoup costs and/or penalties and interest that DCMA COs previously decided not to pursue, as appropriate.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
