Submission of Indirect Cost Rate Proposal Starts Six-Year Limitations Period
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.01.17
In Sparton DeLeon Springs, LLC (ASBCA Dec. 28, 2016), the Board rejected a government claim for recoupment of alleged overpayments of direct costs as time-barred by the CDA’s six-year statute of limitations. The government alleged that it was not put on notice of the 2007 overpayment until 2014 when Sparton submitted its final voucher, which did not include the direct costs at issue. However, the Board held that the government "knew or should have known" the basis of its claim by 2008 when Sparton submitted its FY 2006 and 2007 indirect cost proposals. Those proposals disclosed direct costs that would be used to calculate indirect rates, but they did not include certain direct costs that the contractor had already invoiced and the government had already paid. Pre-discovery summary judgment was appropriate because "the government should [have] be[en] able to substantiate on its own” whether “interim vouchers contained [sufficient] supporting documentation."
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
