GAO Reports Deficiencies In DCAA Audit Reports
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.24.09
After a review that was focused on DCAA offices that issued primarily "clean" opinions and reports, GAO concluded in testimony delivered to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs on September 23 that there were serious quality problems in 65 of 69 DCAA audit report it reviewed (with minor problems in the other 4) and recommended measures to "strengthen" the role of DCAA in the process. Because of the admittedly biased sample used by GAO, the GAO report does not address or acknowledge quality problems in DCAA findings that are adverse to contractors, although GAO did note that DCAA's decision last year to report contractor systems as either "adequate" or "inadequate," eliminating "inadequate-in-part" findings, could unfairly penalize contractors that do not have material or serious deficiencies and recommended that DCAA seek "outside expertise" to develop audit policy and training on audit standards.
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
