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.

In Chugach Federal Solutions, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 62712, et al., the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that a contractor could recover its costs for having to quarantine personnel in accordance with government-imposed COVID safety requirements, because the underlying contract contemplated that the contractor would be compensated for complying with any changes to health and safety requirements.

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. 

On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in ECC International Constructors, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 59586, 59643, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals concluded that, by waiting until after a hearing on the merits and six years after the appeal was filed, the government forfeited its right to challenge the contractor’s satisfaction of the FAR’s sum-certain requirement for Contract Disputes Act claims.

On December 20, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) denied the government’s motion to dismiss a prime contractor’s pandemic-related claims filed on behalf of its subcontractors.  The Board rejected the government’s arguments that the claims failed to state any claims for relief that could be granted, were barred by the affirmative defense of sovereign acts, and failed to provide separate sums certain for purported sub-claims.   

In ECC Int’l Constructors Inc. v. Army, No. 2021-2323 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned longstanding precedent by holding that the requirement to state a “sum certain” in a claim submitted under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) is not a jurisdictional requirement.  The Court based its decision on recent Supreme Court guidance to “treat a procedural requirement as jurisdictional only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is.”  The Court parsed the CDA and found that Congress never used the words “sum certain,” evidencing that Congress did not intend the requirement to be jurisdictional.  This is important because jurisdictional requirements can be raised at any time—even years after the claim was filed and a full hearing on the merits was held—and result in dismissal of the case.  The Court explained that the “sum certain” is “nonetheless a mandatory rule that claimants must follow.” 

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.