Expressly Does Not Require Being Expressed: Fed. Circuit Finds Salary Costs for Lobbying are Expressly Unallowable
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.19
In Raytheon Co. v. Sec’y of Def., No. 2018-2371 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ASBCA’s decision that salary costs for lobbying activities are expressly unallowable under FAR 31.205-22. Raytheon argued that salary costs of employees who participate in lobbying activities are not “expressly unallowable” under FAR 31.001, because FAR 31.205-22 only generically refers to “costs associated with [lobbying activities]” and does not mention or identify in-house salary costs “by name.” The court disagreed, focusing on the definition of an “expressly unallowable cost” and concluding that “a particular item or type of cost . . . specifically named and identified as unallowable,” includes costs unambiguously falling within a generic description of a “type” of unallowable cost. According to the court, salaries of corporate personnel involved in lobbying are a prototypical lobbying expense, and, therefore, unambiguously “costs associated with” lobbying and “expressly unallowable.” The court also rejected various Raytheon arguments based on prior amendments to the lobbying cost principle and textual comparisons to other cost principles.
Because the Court concluded that salary costs for associated with lobbying are themselves “expressly unallowable,” it did not address Raytheon’s challenge to the Board’s alternative holding that even “directly associated costs” of an unallowable activity are “expressly unallowable,” subject to the penalties provided under FAR 42.709-1(a)(1).
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.28.26
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 05.28.26
Texas Targets Big Tech With Wave of Suits and Investigations, Part of Nationwide Trend
Client Alert | 7 min read | 05.27.26
Colorado Hits Reset on AI Regulation: SB 26-189 Repeals and Reenacts the Colorado AI Act
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.27.26
Don’t Get Left in the Doghouse: The Federal Circuit’s Global K9 Case and the Duty to Intervene

