In Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc. (ASBCA Dec. 20, 2016), a case involving a $100 million breach of contract claim stemming from purportedly unallowable direct subcontractor costs, the Board granted Lockheed Martin’s motion to dismiss the Army’s untenable claim “for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted,” concluding that the government
We’ve wrapped up our preview posts, which gave a sneak peek at a few of tomorrow and Thursday’s OOPS panels including cybersecurity (OOPS Preview: Regulating Information: Cybersecurity, Internet of Things, and Exploding Rules), costs & accounting OOPS Preview: Cost & Accounting: Items at the Top of the Ledger) , and labor and employment
The past twelve months have seen major developments on cost and pricing issues relevant to the “top of the ledger” – as well as the bottom line. On May 26, 2016, at 11:00 am -12:00 pm, Crowell & Moring attorneys Terry Albertson, Steve McBrady, Rob Burton, and Skye Mathieson will highlight some of the most
In AeroVironment, Inc. (Mar. 30, 2016), following an apparent settlement of the government’s cost disallowance claim, the ASBCA denied the government’s request to amend its answer (in order to “clarify” entitlement to additional quantum) because the proposed amendments constituted new “claims” that required new final decisions. Acknowledging that parties may ordinarily revise quantum without
On April 15, 2016, the Acting Secretary of the Army issued Army Directive 2016-16 (Changing Management Behavior: Every Dollar Counts) stating that the Army will “eliminate ‘use or lose’ funding practices,” i.e., “commanders and staffs will not automatically decrement commands or programs in future allotments when they do not spend all funds without further investigation
On February 17, the Federal Register published a proposed rule that would amend the FAR to implement section 857 of the National Defense Authorization Act, making unallowable any “costs incurred by a contractor in connection with a Congressional investigation or inquiry into an issue that is the subject of a proceeding resulting in a disposition
In a notice published in the Federal Register on February 8 that will almost certainly be unpopular with contractors and their customers, DoD asked for comments on its consideration of adding a requirement to the DFARS that would “require offerors to describe in detail the nature and value of prospective IR&D projects on which the
The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act prohibits the Defense Contract Audit Agency from providing “audit support” to any non-DOD agency until the Secretary of Defense certifies that DCAA has reduced its backlog of incurred cost audits to 18 months or less, a restriction that could cause some disruption for contractors when DOD contracts are not
On October 1, the DoD IG released a report titled “Evaluation of Defense Contract Management Agency Actions on Reported DoD Contractor Business System Deficiencies,” asserting that DCMA contracting officers “repeatedly” failed to comply with DFARS requirements involving reported business system deficiencies. The report, which is similar to a report issued on June 29, 2015 regarding
While DOD’s August 26 white paper “Enhancing the Effectiveness of Independent Research and Development” explains that the intent of new requirements announced in the white paper is “not to reduce the independence of IR&D investment selection, nor to establish a bureaucratic requirement for government approval prior to initiating an IR&D project,” contactors have good reason