Defective Pricing

Our practice covers the full range of defective pricing issues and related disputes. We field questions on cost or pricing data issues in real time, such as the following:

  • What is effective disclosure?
  • How do you deal with subcontractor data?
  • What about commercial items and interdivisional work orders?
We provide comprehensive advice to clients — civilian and military, GSA supply schedule and FMS, prime and subcontractors — in grappling with disclosures, audits, and fraud risks. We respond to defective pricing audit reports, develop compliance strategies, and handle defective pricing/fraud investigations. We also have performed dozens of compliance reviews of contractors' policies, procedures, and practices to ensure TINA compliance. In addition, we have won the two largest cases in the history of the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA).

We Wrote the Book

Beyond counseling and litigating, we literally wrote the book on the TINA. Beginning with Roger Boyd and continuing with Kent Morrison and David Bodenheimer, we have written the leading text on defective pricing. For more than 40 years, we have also taught the premier course "Defective Pricing" attended by contractors, agency contracting officers, and DCAA auditors. In addition, we have taught TINA compliance at the George Washington University Law School Government Contracts Program, at the UVA Law School, the Army JAG School, for the National Contract Management Association, and for many government contractors and government agencies.


  • Defeated $299 million defective pricing claim after a 33-day trial and Federal Circuit appeal, covering nearly every facet of TINA, from disclosure and judgments to offsets, reliance, and causation. Wynne v. United Technologies Corp., 463 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2006), affirming 05-1 BCA ¶ 32,860 and 04-1 BCA 32,556.
  • Sustained a contractor's appeal of a final decision that it had defectively priced a multiple-award-schedule contract for systems furniture. In this 55-page decision, the GSBCA concluded, inter alia, that GSA had failed to establish defective pricing because the undisclosed commercial discounts upon which it based its case were not for relevant products and that, even if GSA had demonstrated defective pricing, its method of calculating damages was unreasonable. On September 21, 2005, Viacom, Inc. v. GSA, the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA).
  • Defended a defective-pricing-based False Claims Act case (in federal district court, one of the few tried to conclusion) principally involving alleged nondisclosure of changes to a bill of materials. United States v. United Technologies Corp., 51 F. Supp. 2d 167 (D. Conn. 1999).
  • Prevailed on $90 million claim testing when a management decision having possible cost reduction impacts becomes cost or pricing data. Lockheed Corp., ASBCA Nos. 36420, 37495, and 39195, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,722.