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 | 4 min read | 02.20.26
SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 02.20.26
Section 5949 Proposed Rule Puts the FAR Council's Chips on the Table
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.20.26
Trump Administration Pursues MFN Pricing for Prescription Drugs
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.19.26
Proposed NY Legislation May Mean Potential Criminal Charges for Unlicensed Crypto Firms



