1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |IR&D Reporting Requirements Reinstated

IR&D Reporting Requirements Reinstated

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.30.12

In a final rule published today, the DFARS were amended to reinstate a requirement that was eliminated from the regulations in the early 1990s, providing that as a condition of allowability for Independent Research and Development (IR&D) costs, major contractors must submit to DoD at least annually technical descriptions of the IR&D projects that the contractor claims as allowable. In response to criticism of a draft regulation proposing a $50,000 coverage threshold, the final rule limits mandatory reporting to “major contractors” that allocate more than $11 million annually to “covered contracts” (a term that excludes fixed-price contracts without cost incentives), leaves largely to the contractor’s discretion how much detail needs to be reported in the on-line template through which the reports must be submitted, encourages voluntary reporting by contractors not subject to the mandatory requirement, and promises that the reports will be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights