Failure to Consider CAS Materiality Criteria Dooms Gov’t Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.10.16
In Raytheon Co. (ASBCA Aug. 9, 2016), a case involving disallowed cost increases following voluntary accounting changes, the board ruled that the CO violated FAR 30.602 and abused her discretion by considering only the amount of the dollar impact of the accounting changes and, thus, “fail[ed] to analyze the materiality of the cost impacts at issue” pursuant to the criteria set out in CAS 9903.305. Noting (without deciding) that a cost impact of less than 0.005 percent across affected contracts (roughly $142 per contract) might not be “material,” the board held that the government cannot recover on its claim when the CO “simply disregard[s],” rather than evaluates, the CAS materiality factors.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
