1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DFARS Final Rule Authorizes ACO to Negotiate and Settle Direct Costs Questioned in Incurred Cost Audits

DFARS Final Rule Authorizes ACO to Negotiate and Settle Direct Costs Questioned in Incurred Cost Audits

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.05.23

On March 22, 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to allow a procuring contracting officer (PCO) to delegate the authority to the contract administration office (CAO) to negotiate and settle direct costs questioned in an indirect cost rate proposal audit.  After the delegation, the PCO must provide the CAO access to all supporting documentation related to questioned direct costs within 30 days.  After settling the questioned direct costs, the CAO shares the settlement results with the procuring contracting office, which then makes any necessary adjustments to affected contracts.  The delegation authority does not apply to classified contracts.

This final rule seemingly continues a trend to expand the scope of indirect cost rate proposal audits to include direct costs.  By granting the CAO the authority to negotiate and settle direct costs, this rule increases the number of Government personnel authorized to examine a contractor’s direct costs, and de facto alters the purpose of the indirect cost rate proposal audit. 

Some commentators have suggested that this may lead to confusion about when a Government claim for direct costs begins to accrue under the Contract Disputes Act’s six-year statute of limitations.  As in Sparton DeLeon Springs, LLC, ASBCA No. 60416, the Government may be time-barred from questioning a contractor’s previously billed direct costs if the contractor can demonstrate that the Government was on notice that it had a claim for those costs, but waited more than six years after accrual to assert its claim, such as through the indirect cost rate proposal audit process.  Determining when a Government’s claim has accrued depends on the nature of the claim—whether for indirect or direct costs—and the relevant facts.  The final rule does not enlarge or otherwise change the statute of limitations period with respect to any direct cost claims that may be asserted as a result of an indirect cost rate audit.  

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26

FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know

On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement....