ASBCA Offers Mixed Bag on "Expressly Unallowable" and "Directly Associated" Costs
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.20.18
On August 28, 2018, the ASBCA denied the parties’ motions for reconsideration of Raytheon Co., ASBCA No. 57743, et al. (discussed here). The Board reiterated that salaries of employees engaged in unallowable lobbying activities were “expressly unallowable” as “directly associated costs” because the relevant FAR provision states that costs “directly associated with” lobbying activity are unallowable, and although salaries are not spelled out as “directly associated” costs, it is “obvious” that salary costs are associated with unallowable lobbying costs. The Board also reiterated that Raytheon’s airplane lease costs are not expressly unallowable, making a distinction that while Raytheon previously agreed not to charge such costs to the government (in which case they would be expressly unallowable and subject to level 2 penalties), Raytheon did not concede that the costs were unallowable under the FAR. In any case, the Board held that the government failed to pursue level 2 penalties earlier in the case, and cannot raise them now.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
