Board Confirms Unallowability of Executive Compensation Based on Changes in Securities and Dividends Prices
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.31.17
In Exelis Inc. (ASBCA No. 58966, Mar. 29, 2017), the Board upheld the Government's disallowance of compensation paid under Exelis’ Long-Term Incentive Plan as expressly unallowable under FAR 31.205-6(i) and subject to level 1 penalties because it was “based on changes in the prices of corporate securities and dividends.” The amount of compensation was determined based on “total shareholder return” (TSR) using a formula that compared growth in the value of Exelis’ stock and dividends to other companies. The Board held that, “[a]s in Raytheon, the metric Exelis used to calculate and value the TSR compensation was TSR performance ratings, which were based on securities price changes and dividend payments.” The Board rejected Exelis’ argument that Raytheon could be distinguished because the TSR costs were “paid based upon a predetermined compensation award pool,” noting that “the plain language of the cost principle more broadly renders unallowable any compensation that is ‘calculated’ or ‘valued’ based upon‘changes in the price of corporate securities.”
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
