Double Take: The DoD OIG Recommends Attempting to Recoup $43 Million in Purportedly Expressly Unallowable Costs Not Previously Disallowed
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.13.20
On January 14, 2020, the Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining whether Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) contracting officer (CO) rejections of recommendations by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to assess penalties on $43 million in unallowable costs identified in 18 DCAA audit reports complied with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), DoD Instructions, and agency policy. The OIG did not take issue with the fact of the COs’ disagreements, nor did it take a position on the merits of the COs’ determinations. But the OIG did conclude that the COs did not adequately document their reasons for rejecting DCAA’s penalty recommendations. Accordingly, the OIG recommended that DCMA reevaluate the COs’ decisions not to assess penalties on the $43 million, take actions to reclaim any expressly unallowable costs not previously disallowed, and collect from the contractors any penalties due to the Government. DCMA stated that it would review the audit reports and attempt to recoup costs and/or penalties and interest that DCMA COs previously decided not to pursue, as appropriate.
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
