1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DoD Issues Class Deviation Regarding Implementation of Section 3610 of the CARES Act

DoD Issues Class Deviation Regarding Implementation of Section 3610 of the CARES Act

Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.10.20

On April 8, 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acting Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) issued Class Deviation 2020-O0013, effective immediately, establishing a new DFARS cost principle entitled DFARS 231.205-79, “CARES Act Section 3610 – Implementation,” which sets forth rules regarding applicability, allowability, and avoiding duplicate payments under Section 3610 of the CARES Act.

The class deviation recognizes that it is imperative that DoD support contractors who are struggling to maintain a mission-ready workforce, while balancing flexibilities and limitations. The new DFARS cost principle makes “allowable” as direct costs the cost of paid leave, not otherwise reimbursable, for contractor employees who are unable to telework following facility closures or other restrictions.  Specifically, the cost principle applies to: (1) “any contract type,” (2) where employees cannot perform at an approved facility or site due to “closures or other restrictions,” and (3) where the employee was unable to telework. The cost principle states that the covered paid leave is limited to leave taken by employees who otherwise would be performing work on a site that has been approved for work by the Federal Government, “including on a government-owned, government-leased, contractor-owned, or contractor-leased facility or site approved by the federal government for contract performance.” The cost principle also states that “closures or other restrictions” includes where travel to the facility is “prohibited or made impracticable by applicable Federal, State, or local law, including temporary orders having the effect of law.” 

Applicability aside, the cost principle and Class Deviation state that direct reimbursement is authorized “at the appropriate rates under the contract” and for “contractor or subcontractor payments made for costs incurred, not otherwise reimbursable” for paid leave taken during the January 31, 2020 – September 30, 2020 period. Further, those paid leave costs must have been incurred to keep employees in “ready state” or to “protect the life and safety of Government and contractor personnel” in light of COVID-19. The new cost principle also explains that the Government will not make duplicate payments under other provisions of the CARES Act, such as tax credits, or other COVID-19 relief scenarios. And the clause reiterates that allowable costs “must be segregated and identifiable in the contractor’s records so that compliance with all terms of this section can be reasonably ascertained.” 

On the same day, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released similar guiding principles to its industry partners relating to the implementation of Section 3610. In contrast with the DPC Class Deviation, the guidelines direct contractors to submit a request for equitable adjustment (REA) for COVID-19 related costs that were incurred before the effective date of the legislation on March 27, 2019. The ODNI guidelines anticipate formal Section 3610 guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  

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....