1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DFARS Excessive Pass-Through Cost Rule Modified

DFARS Excessive Pass-Through Cost Rule Modified

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.13.08

Effective May 13, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 27464), the widely-criticized interim DFARS rules about "excessive pass-through costs" published last April were modified in yet another interim rule to address the confusion created by the interim rules. The most important features of the new interim rules are in the prefatory comments, which emphasize repeatedly that the requirement for reporting when subcontract effort will exceed 70 percent applies both before and after award, but is only a reporting requirement, not a threshold for coverage, and that the rules do not apply to any contract, no matter what the subcontract content, where the contractor demonstrates "added value," a term that is defined in the interim regulations to include performance of "subcontract management functions that the Contracting Officer determines are a benefit to the Government (e.g., processing orders of parts or services, maintaining inventory, reducing delivery lead times, managing multiple sources for contract requirements, coordinating deliveries, performing quality assurance functions)."

Insights

Client Alert | 8 min read | 03.05.26

Fifth Circuit Decision in Health Care Fraud Case Highlights Importance of Careful Drafting in Civil RICO Complaints

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. 1st Choice Accident & Injury, LLC, No. 24-20275 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2026), offers important lessons for health care payors and other potential plaintiffs considering civil claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Although the Fifth Circuit’s decision focused on a procedural issue, the underlying case turned on a fundamental pleading failure: the plaintiff insurers did not adequately describe the fraudulent network they were suing as a RICO “enterprise.” The result was dismissal of a $14 million fraud case....