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 | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
