1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |‘Tis the Season: Contracting Officer’s Final Decisions on 2010 Incurred Costs

‘Tis the Season: Contracting Officer’s Final Decisions on 2010 Incurred Costs

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.06.17

For contractors that use a fiscal year that ends on 12/31 and submitted their 2010 incurred cost submissions to the Government in June of 2011, the 6-year deadline for the Government to assert a claim disallowing a portion of those costs is upon us. As a practical matter, DCAA’s well-documented audit backlog means that some COs are likely to receive audit reports only weeks before the deadline (or not at all), and may be inclined to issue COFDs disallowing all of the costs identified in DCAA’s audit reports, in order to preserve the Government’s right to pursue a claim. Contractors should be mindful of the 90-day limit to appeal a Final Decision even where they expect to negotiate a resolution with the Government.

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