1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Interest Due On Indirect Cost Claims

Interest Due On Indirect Cost Claims

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.21.11

In SRI Int'l  (Oct. 5, 2011), the ASBCA addressed for the first time in a comprehensive way the payment of contractor certified claims and Contract Disputes Act interest related to disputes about allowable indirect costs.  In clarifying its original decision holding that the indirect costs at issue were allowable, the Board held that recovery of the principal amount of the contractor’s claim must be accomplished through the normal indirect cost rates, not in a lump sum, and that the contractor is entitled to recover interest on the amount due on the principal amounts actually paid beginning on the date the certified claim was submitted until payment of the indirect costs was made on each contract that was covered by the claim, apparently with that interest to be paid separately to the contractor, leaving it to the parties on remand to determine how that separate payment will be accomplished.


Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights