DoD Lightens Contractors' Burden on Voluntary Defective Pricing Disclosures
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.07.18
On May 4, 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a final rule (83 FR 19645), effective immediately, amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to give DoD contracting officers (COs) more leeway in evaluating contractors’ post-award defective pricing disclosures. To promote voluntary disclosures and reduce paperwork burdens on defense contractors, DoD rejected a proposed requirement to always conduct an audit of a contractor’s voluntary disclosure of defective pricing. Although the proposed rule (80 FR 72699) required DoD COs to request, at a minimum, a limited-scope audit of the affected cost elements, the final rule requires only a discussion between the CO and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to determine whether a limited-scope audit, full-scope audit, or technical assistance is appropriate for the circumstances (i.e., nature or dollar amount of the disclosure). The CO’s discussion with DCAA must cover: (i) the completeness of the contractor’s voluntary disclosure, (ii) the accuracy of the contractor’s cost impact calculation, and (iii) the potential impact on the contractor’s other existing contracts or proposals.
Contacts
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
