Insights

On January 17, 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a final rule replacing the term “significant deficiency” in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) with the term “material weakness” for use in reviews of contractor business systems.  Effective immediately, a material weakness is defined as “a deficiency or combination of deficiencies in the internal control over information in contractor business systems, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of such information will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.  A reasonable possibility exists when the likelihood of an event occurring is probable or more than remote but less than likely.” 

On September 26, 2024, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a proposed rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), implementing requirements for contractors to submit cost and pricing data under Section 811(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, Section 814 of the NDAA for FY 2021, and Section 804 of the NDAA for FY 2022, which updated the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data statute (formerly Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) and still referred to as TINA). 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has confirmed that the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) has jurisdiction to decide whether contractors may offset cost impacts from multiple, simultaneous cost accounting changes when some changes increase costs to the Government, and other changes decrease costs to the Government.

The Department of Defense (DoD) recently announced that it seeks public comments on a proposed change to the contractor business systems regime.  The proposed rule would amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) by replacing the phrase “significant deficiency” with the new defined term “material weakness,” to mean “a deficiency or combination of deficiencies in the internal control over information in contractor business systems, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of such information will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.”  In addition, the term would provide that a “reasonable possibility exists when the likelihood of an event occurring is— (1) Probable; or (2) More than remote but less than likely.” 

The Cost Accounting Standards Board (CASB) recently announced that it seeks public comments on “whether and how” to amend the rules to clarify whether the CAS apply to indefinite value contract vehicles (or IDVs, otherwise known as indefinite-delivery / indefinite-quantity, or IDIQ, contracts).  Comments are due no later than August 19, 2024.  The full text of the notice is available here.  The CASB also published a paper discussing six possible approaches and the criteria it will use to evaluate those approaches, but welcomed the public to identify alternatives for the CASB to consider. 

On April 22, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Rule significantly revising the Uniform Guidance for grants, cooperative agreements, and other federal financial assistance.  The Final Rule (titled “OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance”), and OMB’s accompanying memorandum to agencies and reference guide, state that the revisions aim to streamline and clarify the grant rules and improve management, transparency, and oversight of federal financial assistance.  Agencies must implement the Final Rule by October 1, 2024; however, agencies may apply it to federal awards as early as June 21, 2024.

In Strategic Technology Institute, Inc. v. Sec’y of Def., 91 F.4th 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), which held that the government’s 2018 claim was not time-barred by the Contract Dispute Act’s (CDA) six-year statute of limitations.  The ASBCA found that the government’s claim did not begin to accrue until 2014, the date the government received the contractor’s indirect cost rate proposals for fiscal year (FY) 2008 and FY 2009. 

In Aviation Training Consulting, LLC, ASBCA No. 63634 (Jan. 11, 2024), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) confirmed that a contractor’s properly asserted claim for relief under Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) and denied the Air Force’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

In Voxtel, Inc., ASBCA No. 60129 (March 9, 2023), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) issued a decision that presents a primer on the resolution of indirect cost rate disputes.  The ASBCA granted the contractor’s appeal in part, finding that its claimed executive compensation and independent research and development (IR&D) costs were allowable, but that certain rental costs related to the “fit-up” of a leased facility were unallowable.

In Triple Canopy, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 61415, et al. (March 23, 2023), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) resolved a long-running dispute in favor of the contractor over reimbursement of fees imposed by the Afghan government on large security firms operating in the country. The ASBCA found the fees were akin to after-imposed taxes, reimbursable by the U.S. government, and not penalties for illegal conduct. 

On March 22, 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to allow a procuring contracting officer (PCO) to delegate the authority to the contract administration office (CAO) to negotiate and settle direct costs questioned in an indirect cost rate proposal audit.  After the delegation, the PCO must provide the CAO access to all supporting documentation related to questioned direct costs within 30 days.  After settling the questioned direct costs, the CAO shares the settlement results with the procuring contracting office, which then makes any necessary adjustments to affected contracts.  The delegation authority does not apply to classified contracts.

In General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 61633, 61731 (Feb. 8, 2023), released March 14, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) considered, but declined to answer, the existential question of whether intracompany lease payments are “costs.”  The ASBCA denied the Government’s motion for summary judgment, finding that material facts about the contractor’s intracompany lease payments remained in dispute.  Further, the ASBCA held that because the Government failed to respond to the contractor’s affirmative defense that the Government’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations, the Government was not entitled to summary judgment.

On October 28, 2022, the Department of Defense (DoD) amended the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) by issuing two final rules related to contract cost and pricing.  Specifically:

In Doubleshot, Inc., ASBCA No. 61691 (July 19, 2022), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) granted the contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment, denying the Government’s claim for unallowable costs to the extent that it was based on missing or unsigned employee time cards.  The ASBCA held that the contractor was not required to maintain time card records to support the allowability of labor charges beyond the retention period specified in the contractor’s cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts (including applicable time extensions). 

In Tolliver Group, Inc. v. United States (Aug. 17, 2022), the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) granted the contractor’s request for summary judgment, awarding $195,890 in legal fees the contractor incurred to successfully defend against a False Claims Act suit brought by a whistleblower.  The court held that the cost principles in Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Subpart 31.2 applied to the contractor’s fixed-price task order, and the contractor’s legal fees were allowable and payable under the contract.  This is the second time that the COFC addressed the contractor’s entitlement to legal fees, having previously held that the contractor could recover a portion of them under the Spearin doctrine (which we reported on here).  The Federal Circuit later vacated that award on jurisdictional grounds (reported on here) and remanded the case to the COFC.

In International Development Solutions, LLC, v. Department of State, CBCA 6400, et al. (March 16, 2022), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals considered whether International Development Solutions, LLC (“IDS”) could recover taxes/fees paid to the government of Afghanistan by affiliated companies that IDS alleged were related solely to the performance of certain task orders. Specifically, IDS had task orders under an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract issued by the Department of State for protective and support services containing cost-reimbursement line items for “License, Tax, Permits, Visa and Registration Fees.” The CBCA denied the entirety of the contractor’s claims, emphasizing a previously rejected novation request, the lack of evidence connecting the tax assessments to contract performance, the lack of evidence concerning the relevant Afghanistan tax law, and the complex corporate structure of the contractor’s parent companies that remained unclear even after the hearing on the merits.

In its recent decision, Cellular Materials International, Inc., ASBCA No. 61408 (Dec. 27, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) observed that whether a cost has been “incurred” for purposes of claiming allowable costs under FAR 52.216-7 is a fact-intensive inquiry.

In Ology Bioservices, Inc., ASBCA No. 62633 (May 20, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (the Board) held that the Government could not assess a penalty on the contractor’s fiscal year (FY) 2013 compensation costs for being expressly unallowable when the Government delayed publishing the compensation cap for FY 2013 by more than three years. 

In L3 Technologies, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 61811, et al. (Mar. 1, 2021), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal, over the contractor’s objection, following the Contracting Officer’s (CO) unequivocal withdrawal of its cost disallowance claims. The contractor argued that its case was not moot despite the withdrawal of the CO’s final decision (COFD) asserting the claims because an exception to the mootness doctrine applied: the claims were “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” The claims followed a “repetitive cycle of DCAA Audits challenging costs, DCMA COFDs demanding repayment of the challenged costs, L3’s ASBCA appeals and DCMA’s dismissal without reaching merits.” The majority of the Board rejected the contractor’s argument. But in a 23-page dissent, Judge Clarke (who wrote the original decision) explained why the exception should have been applied here, noting that the majority decision “subjects L3 (and other contractors) to the unfortunate chain of events discussed [in the decision] until DCAA and DCMA resolve whatever their differences are.”

On September 30, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued a memorandum titled “Delegation of Defective Pricing Authority to the Defense Contract Management Agency,” describing DCMA’s new, enhanced role in TINA audits and subsequent disputes. The memo states that DCMA has created a “Defective Pricing Pilot Team,” which will “provide support” to PCOs and DCAA auditors in connection with defective pricing matters. According to the memo: “Effective immediately” PCOs may delegate to DCMA traditional PCO functions under FAR 15.407-1(b), (d), and (e), to DCMA, and DCMA will take “all actions” to resolve defective pricing issues on such matters, including, inter alia, “issu[ing] contracting officer final decisions” and “litigat[ing] any appeal or case that results from delegated DCMA defective pricing actions.” While it remains to be seen how DoD customers will implement this delegation of authority, contractors facing defective pricing allegations should be aware that DCMA may play an increasingly visible role in negotiating and litigating TINA disputes going forward.