Costs of Air Travel Limited to the “Lowest Priced Airfare Available to the Contractor”
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.14.09
By a final rule effective January 11, 2010, the travel cost principle (FAR 31.205-46) has been amended to limit the cost of air travel to the “lowest priced airfare available to the contractor,” except in limited circumstances. Instead of simply limiting a contractor's recovery of air travel costs for employees who are authorized to fly in premium classes to the lowest airfare available to that particular contractor based on agreements that particular contractor has negotiated with an airline – which is the stated purpose of the amendment – the new rule uses confusing language that is likely to be misinterpreted as imposing a broader limit on allowability that will be virtually impossible to administer in light of the variability in the price of air travel, including even different fares on the same flight, both for employees who are actually charged non-premium fares that are greater than the lowest theoretically "available" fare to a particular contractor and on the many contractors that do not even have negotiated agreements with airlines.
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
