IR&D Definition Clarified
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.19.10
In a decision that should resolve finally nearly 40 years of disagreement between contractors and the government about the definition of Independent Research and Development (IR&D), the Federal Circuit has held in ATK Thiokol Inc. v. U.S. (Mar. 19, 2010), that R&D effort must be "specifically required" by the terms of a contract in order to be excluded from the definition of allowable IR&D costs, endorsing the contractors' argument that effort that is "implicitly" required in order to perform the contract or "necessary" to perform but not explicitly required by the contract is allowable IR&D. In addition, and perhaps even more important, the decision acknowledges more generally in its analysis of the distinction between direct and indirect costs that "CAS 402 gives the contractor considerable freedom in the classification of particular costs, so long as the contractor maintains consistency in making that determination."
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.29.25
FYI – GAO Finds Key Person “Available” Despite Accepting Employment with a Different Company
GAO’s key personnel rule is well-known—and often a source of frustration— amongst government contractors. Proposed key personnel who become “unavailable” prior to contract award—especially where they have accepted employment with a different company—may doom an offeror’s proposal by rendering it noncompliant with solicitation requirements. But GAO’s recent decision in FYI – For Your Information, Inc., B-423774, B-423774.2 (Dec. 19, 2025) provides some potential relief from that rule.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.29.25
More Than Math: How Desjardins Recognizes AI Innovations as Patent-Eligible Technology
Client Alert | 10 min read | 12.24.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 12.24.25
Keeping it Real: FTC Targets Fake Reviews in First Consumer Review Rule
