DoD's Guerilla War on IR&D
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.10.16
In a notice published in the Federal Register on February 8 that will almost certainly be unpopular with contractors and their customers, DoD asked for comments on its consideration of adding a requirement to the DFARS that would "require offerors to describe in detail the nature and value of prospective IR&D projects on which the offeror would rely to perform the resultant contract." As described in the notice, that information would be used by DoD to "evaluate proposals in a manner that would take into account that reliance by adjusting the total evaluated price to the Government, for evaluation purposes only, to include the value of related future IR&D projects," presumably by increasing the evaluated price of that offeror's proposal to include the full value of the IR&D project.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
