Failure to Consider CAS Materiality Criteria Dooms Gov’t Claim
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 11.10.16
In Raytheon Co. (ASBCA Aug. 9, 2016), a case involving disallowed cost increases following voluntary accounting changes, the board ruled that the CO violated FAR 30.602 and abused her discretion by considering only the amount of the dollar impact of the accounting changes and, thus, “fail[ed] to analyze the materiality of the cost impacts at issue” pursuant to the criteria set out in CAS 9903.305. Noting (without deciding) that a cost impact of less than 0.005 percent across affected contracts (roughly $142 per contract) might not be “material,” the board held that the government cannot recover on its claim when the CO “simply disregard[s],” rather than evaluates, the CAS materiality factors.
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
