Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

CAS Board Rolls Out Two Changes with Significant Impact on Federal Contractors

By Nooree Lee, Peter Terenzio & Victoria Skiera on September 1, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On September 1, 2026, the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) Board published two final rules implementing seismic changes to cost accounting requirements for federal government contractors.  The most significant change implements a requirement in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”), doubling the dollar value threshold for full coverage under CAS.  These changes take effect on October 1.

CAS Coverage Threshold Increase

The first in the pair of final rules doubles the threshold triggering full CAS coverage from $50 million to $100 million.  It will also increase the basic CAS coverage threshold for negotiated contracts from $2.5 million to $35 million, thereby essentially eliminating the CAS “trigger” framework, which currently requires at least one CAS-covered contract valued at $7.5 million or higher before a contractor’s other awards are CAS-covered.  These changes both simplify CAS applicability and will reduce the number of contractors subject to CAS.  Indeed, in the prior March 20, 2026 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the CAS Board suggested that the first change would relieve more than 200 entities of the obligation to comply with full CAS. 

As we covered in a prior blog post, these revisions were directed by Sections 1806(a) and (d) of the FY 2026 NDAA, the same authority that directed the increase of the threshold governing disclosure under the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data Statute (formerly known as the Truth in Negotiations Act, or “TINA”) from $2.5 million to $10 million.

In addition to these threshold increases, the final rule makes an important change concerning CAS applicability to indefinite delivery contracts (“IDCs”).  The final rule amends 48 C.F.R. § 9903.202-1 to clarify that CAS applicability for multiple-award IDCs is determined at the task order level.  By contrast, CAS applicability for single-award IDCs will be determined based upon the ceiling value at the time of award. So while the overall impact of the rule may be to reduce CAS applicability, single-award IDCs may see the opposite effect. 

Rescission of CAS 407

The second final rule largely rescinds CAS 407, which provided criteria under which standard costs may be used for estimating, accumulating, and reporting costs of direct material and direct labor.  As the rule explains, the CAS Board “concluded that nearly all of the content in CAS 407 has become unnecessary because the Government interests addressed by that content are adequately protected through reliance on GAAP, and existing requirements in other CAS standards.” 

The CAS Board retained certain requirements related to standard cost and related variances at the production unit level, moving those requirements to CAS 418, “Allocation of direct and indirect costs.” 

The recission of CAS 407 represents the latest step in the long-running process of conforming CAS to GAAP.  These changes were directed by Congress in the 2017 NDAA, and in 2019 the Board selected seven standards (including CAS 407) as most suitable for a potential conformance.  The Board has significantly accelerated its work in this area in recent years; on July 8, the Board published a final rule that rescinded CAS 404, 408, 409, and 411 while moving any remaining requirements deemed necessary to protect the Government’s interest into CAS 405.  Thus, of the seven standards initially targeted for conformance, only CAS 415 and 416 remain unchanged (and both are on the Board’s agenda for this year). 

These two final rules reinforce the CAS Board’s focus on simplifying the CAS rules in an effort to reduce regulatory burden and thereby attract more companies to grow the defense industrial base.   

Photo of Nooree Lee Nooree Lee

Nooree Lee represents government contractors in all aspects of the procurement process and focuses his practice on the regulatory aspects of M&A activity, procurements involving emerging technologies, and international contracting matters.

Nooree advises government contractors and financial investors regarding the regulatory aspects of…

Nooree Lee represents government contractors in all aspects of the procurement process and focuses his practice on the regulatory aspects of M&A activity, procurements involving emerging technologies, and international contracting matters.

Nooree advises government contractors and financial investors regarding the regulatory aspects of corporate transactions and restructurings and – more recently – on equity investments by the U.S. government. His experience includes preparing businesses for sale, negotiating deal documents, coordinating large-scale diligence processes, and navigating pre- and post-closing regulatory approvals and integration. He has advised on 50+ M&A deals involving government contractors totaling over $40 billion in combined value. This includes Advent International’s sale of Ultra Maritime to Lockheed Martin for $3.45 billion; Bridgepoint Group’s sale of Evac Group to Altor Equity Partners; the acquisition of Perspecta Inc. by Veritas Capital portfolio company Peraton for $7.1 billion; and Cameco Corporation’s strategic partnership with Brookfield Renewable Partners to acquire Westinghouse Electric Company for $7.8+ billion. Nooree also advised the financial advisor and lead left arranger of MP Materials’ $1 billion in committed financing for its partnership with the Pentagon to build out the U.S. rare earth materials supply chain.

Nooree also counsels clients focused on delivering emerging technologies to public sector customers. Over the past several years, his practice has expanded to include advising on the intersection of government procurement and artificial intelligence. Nooree counsels clients on the negotiation of AI-focused agreements with the U.S. government and the rollout of federal and state-level regulations impacting the procurement and deployment of AI solutions on behalf of government agencies.

Nooree also counsels clients navigating the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) arrangements. Nooree has advised both U.S. and ex-U.S. companies in connection with defense sales to numerous foreign defense ministries, including those of Australia, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.

In addition to his government contracts advising, Nooree assists clients with navigating federal Freedom of Information Act and state public records requirements, including objecting to a government agency’s proposed release of a company’s proprietary information.

In addition to his work within the firm, Nooree is the Secretary for the American Bar Association’s Section of Public Contract Law. He also previously served as the firm’s Fellow for the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity program.

Read more about Nooree LeeEmailNooree's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Photo of Peter Terenzio Peter Terenzio

Peter Terenzio advises clients regarding the regulatory requirements that govern federal contractors and grantees. He focuses on helping clients navigate the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) and the cost principles in FAR Part 31 and 2 CFR Part 200. He also routinely advises on…

Peter Terenzio advises clients regarding the regulatory requirements that govern federal contractors and grantees. He focuses on helping clients navigate the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) and the cost principles in FAR Part 31 and 2 CFR Part 200. He also routinely advises on Other Transaction Authority (OTA) research, prototype, and production agreements.

Peter works on accounting, cost, and pricing matters, including providing day-to-day compliance advice; assisting with responses to audits and investigations and findings of potential noncompliance; and performing internal investigations of alleged violations. He also advises on other regulatory regimes, including the complicated prevailing wage rules imposed by the Davis Bacon Act (DBA) and Service Contact Act (SCA). He has particular experience with prototype OTAs issued in cutting edge fields, including quantum computing and biotechnology.

Peter also represents contractors in disputes arising under contracts and grants. He knows how to work closely with the client’s subject matter experts to prepare and submit detailed requests for equitable adjustment (REAs) to secure price or schedule relief. When contract disputes cannot be resolved amicably, he has helped clients in litigation before federal courts and the Boards of Contract Appeals.

Read more about Peter TerenzioEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Victoria Skiera Victoria Skiera

Victoria Skiera is an associate in the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, advising contractors on a range of regulatory and compliance issues. She has experience assisting clients with unique issues arising in government contracts transactions and related due diligence processes, as well as…

Victoria Skiera is an associate in the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group, advising contractors on a range of regulatory and compliance issues. She has experience assisting clients with unique issues arising in government contracts transactions and related due diligence processes, as well as in compliance counseling, investigations, and disputes. Victoria also has experience assessing the impact of executive order and litigation activity in the context of federal procurement and financial assistance. Victoria maintains an active pro bono practice.

Read more about Victoria SkieraEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory, Government Contracts
  • Blog:
    Inside Government Contracts
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo