Insights

On April 7, 2025, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) announced agency reorganization plans aimed at reducing the number of field offices and centralizing audit operations. DCAA plans to close 40 smaller audit suboffices around the country, many staffed with fewer than 10 personnel, to reduce the costs of associated leases. The agency will also consolidate the existing Region Audit Directorates for the Eastern, Central and Western Regions and four Corporate Audit Directorates (CADs), located proximate to large contractors, into three new Directorates—Land, Sea, and Air. The audit offices of the CADs will be merged into the new Directorate that most closely aligns with a contractor’s product. DCAA’s announcement states that the organizational restructuring will be completed by September 30, 2025. The full text of the announcement is available here.

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 December 23, 2024, the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 (FY 2025 NDAA) (P.L. 118-159) was signed into law.  The final FY 2025 NDAA takes a narrower approach to acquisition policy and supply chain changes than watchers expected, but it still makes some consequential changes for contractors.  Read on as Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts group discusses the FY 2025 NDAA’s new supply chain restrictions and requirements, changes to bid protest jurisdiction, cybersecurity requirements, and more.

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.” 

A recently-announced False Claims Act (FCA) settlement illustrates how government contractors and other FCA defendants can take advantage of a Department of Justice (DOJ) policy that rewards voluntary self-disclosure to, and subsequent cooperation with, the government.

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 Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-629C (Fed. Cl. 2024), 2024 WL 201890, the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) addressed whether government disclosure of a company’s trade secrets and commercial information could create a viable claim for a taking under the Fifth Amendment or for breach of an implied-in-fact contract.  The company, Vanda Pharmaceuticals (Vanda), claimed that the government’s disclosure of its confidential trade secrets—including its trademarked drugs’ dissolution rates—to competitors seeking U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of generic drug alternatives was an unlawful regulatory taking that diminished the value of Vanda’s brand name drugs and infringed upon Vanda’s right to exclude generics from the market.  The government moved to dismiss Vanda’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.  The COFC denied the government’s motion in part, holding as a matter of first impression that Vanda adequately stated a takings claim based on the government’s disclosures but failed to state a claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract.  The COFC also held that Vanda’s claims involving one generic drug manufacturer were outside the Tucker Act’s six-year statute of limitations and were time barred. 

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.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, signed into law on December 22, 2023, makes numerous changes to acquisition policy. Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group discusses the most consequential changes for government contractors here. These include changes that impose a new conflict of interest regime for government contractors with a connection to China, impose new restrictions and requirements, require government reporting to Congress on acquisition authorities and programs, and alter other processes and procedures to which government contractors are subject. The FY 2024 NDAA also includes the Federal Data Center Enhancement Act, the American Security Drone Act, and the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2024.

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 ECC Int’l, LLC, ASBCA No. 60167 (Jan. 25, 2022), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) held that it had jurisdiction to hear a contractor’s alternate theories of recovery that arose from the same operative facts and sought the same relief requested in its claim.  The contractor initially filed a certified claim for damages resulting from the Government’s alleged breach of a design-build contract for construction of military facilities in Afghanistan.  The claim alleged that the Government breached the warranty of specifications and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by knowingly awarding a construction contract with an impossible deadline.  After the Government denied the claim, the contractor appealed to the Board and raised two additional theories of recovery in its complaint: breach of contract by failing to disclose superior knowledge; and commercial impracticability. 

The National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) recently published its 2022 Vital Signs: The Health and Readiness of the Defense Industrial Base report, which includes an analysis of the defense industrial base supply chain. The annual report highlights the degree to which the performance of the supply chain is impacted by external events, namely the COVID-19 pandemic, which in turn impacts internal performance metrics. The report posits that the defense industrial base is not inoculated against the same concerns that have negatively impacted commercial supply chains – i.e., the semiconductor shortage. NDIA researchers analyze four supply chain metrics to conclude that the overall performance of defense supply chains has substantively declined from the previous year and is failing: (1) contract failure; (2) financial performance; (3) inventory performance; and (4) cost management. The report also notes that only 30 out of 245 NDIA members surveyed (12%) indicated that their company’s supplier network would be more reliable at delivering goods, materials and services in the future. The remaining 215 members surveyed (88%) concluded that their company’s supplier networks would be about the same or less reliable. In total, the 2022 Vital Signs report paints a bleak picture of the overall health of the defense industrial base supply chain, and NDIA researchers conclude that next year’s supply chain challenges will be even greater.