Source: http://www.seidmanlaw.com/maximizing-termination-convenience-settlements/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:40:17+00:00

Document:
Maximizing Termination For Convenience Settlements - Seidman & Associates, P.C.
The “Termination for Convenience of the Government” clause in a Government contract conveys broad rights on the Government to terminate the contract when termination is in the Government’s interest. The Government may cancel the contract simply because its needs change and regardless of contractor fault. 1 In return for this privilege, the Government agrees to reimburse the contractor for all reasonable and allocable costs incurred in con nection with performance, plus a reasonable profit on work done, as well as certain post-termination costs and settlement expenses.
In recent years, as the result of Government downsizing, terminations of contracts for convenience of the Government have become more common as cost-saving initiatives. 2 All too often, however, contractors do not know what costs they are entitled to recover following a convenience termination. Contractors may even resort to asking Government personnel for advice. Government personnel, however, are not always knowledgeable, and, more importantly, a contractor request for advice places them in an obvious conflict-of-interest position. Their job is to dispose of termination for convenience claims for as little money as possible rather than to maximize contractor recovery. As a result, contractors often do not claim all their allowable costs in termination settlement proposals and may accept improper disallowances of their claimed costs by Contracting Officers and Government auditors. In addition, contractors may accept less than what they are entitled to receive because of a desire not to offend the customer or a need for immediate cash.
(1) The cost of “common items” are not allowable unless the contractor submits evidence that the items could not be retained at cost without sustaining a loss. “Common items” are those reasonably usable on the contractor’s other work.
(2) “Costs continuing after termination” despite all reasonable efforts by the contractor to eliminate the costs are generally allowable. “Idle facilities and idle capacity” are an example of a cost continuing after termination.
(3) “Initial costs” not fully absorbed because of a termination are allowable. One example is “starting load costs” such as learning curve costs and training. Another is “preparatory costs” such as initial plant rearrangement and production planning.
(4) “Loss of useful value” of special tooling and special machinery and equipment is generally allowable to the extent it resulted from the termination.
(5) “Rental costs under unexpired leases” are allowable for a reasonable period, to the extent they cannot be avoided, if necessary for the performance of the terminated contract.
(6) The costs of “alterations of leased property” are allowable when the alterations were necessary for performing the contract.
(7) “Subcontractor claims” are generally allowable. An appropriate share of the contractor’s indirect expense may be allocated to the amount of settlements with subcontractors.
(8) “Settlement expenses” for preparation and presentation of a termination claim and termination and settlement of subcontracts are generally allowable. These expenses include the cost of inhouse personnel and outside experts such as attorneys and accountants.
The remainder of this PAPER is dedicated to showing how a contractor can best use the cost principles and this general “fair compensation” principle to maximize its recovery following a termination for convenience.
If disallowance of a cost would be unfair, you should claim the cost in your termination settlement proposal even if the cost is not allowable under the cost principles. As one board of contract appeals explained in holding that bid and proposal costs were allowable in a termination settlement to provide a contractor fair compensation despite a conflicting cost principle: “A contractor is not supposed to suffer as the result of a termination for convenience of the Government, nor to underwrite the Government’s decision to terminate.” 17 You should always include anarrative with your Standard Form 1435 “Settlement Proposal (Inventory Basis)” or SF 1436 “Settlement Proposal (Total Cost Basis)” that explains each cost element and why allowance of any cost that may be unallowable under the cost principles is necessary to provide fair compensation.
Government auditors and Contracting Officers sometimes disallow costs because they would have allegedly performed the work in a different manner. For example, they may question a contractor’s subcontracting decisions, lease arrangements, or personnel decisions.
The Government, however, may not substitute its judgment for that of the contractor to disallow costs. As stated by one commentator, “contractors are permitted great discretion in choosing the manner of performance, and unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion, the contractor’s choice, along with the costs resulting from it, will be regarded as reasonable.” 18 Thus, the question is whether a cost is reasonable–not whether the Contracting Officer would have incurred it. The FAR provides that a cost is “reasonable” if “it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.” 19 You should not allow the Government to second-guess your performance and disallow your “reasonable” costs.
You should therefore claim all your incurred costs in a termination settlement proposal irrespective of whether the Government or you are responsible for the costs.26 As discussed later in this PAPER, in some circumstances, you can even recover the costs of contractor-caused delays and defective or nonconforming work.
After a termination, the contractor is often left in a position where its normal treatment of indirect costs will not result in fair compensation. Under such circumstances, indirect costs may be charged as direct costs under the fair compensation principle.
The agency boards of contract appeals have routinely permitted costs normally charged as indirect costs to be charged directly for purposes of computing termination costs. 27 If terminated contractors were required to treat their indirect costs as under a normal contract, only a portion of incurred costs would be recovered. After a termination, the boards have permitted contractors to charge as direct costs the following normally indirect costs: supervisory personnel, freight charges, factory supplies, equipment repairs, small tools, travel, telephone, and other office expenses;28 engineering labor; 29 quality assurance, manufacturing management, production control, material control, and purchasing; 30 and office labor of the company president. 31 In charging what would otherwise be indirect costs as direct costs, contractors are required to avoid “double counting” by removing the costs from indirect cost pools.
If the contract was being performed at a loss, the contractor is not entitled to profit and the termination recovery is subject to a loss adjustment. Under a loss adjustment, the contractor’s termination costs, not including settlement expenses, are reduced by the percentage of the loss the contractor would have incurred had the contract been completed. 34 Contractors can often recover profit and avoid loss adjustments by (a) submitting equitable adjustment claims that increase the contract price and (b) holding the Government to its burden of proof.
A contract is a loss contract if it would have been completed at an amount in excess of the contract price. The contract price includes the nominal price plus any equitable adjustments to which a contractor is entitled. 35 Thus, a contractor can use equitable adjustment claims to increase the total contract price and avoid application of the loss formula. The “contract price” set forth by a contractor on standard forms for termination settlement proposals should include any equitable adjustments to which the contractor is entitled.
The burden of proving entitlement to a loss adjustment is on the Government. 36 To prevail, the Government must prove (1) the contractor operated at a loss and (2) the amount of the loss. 37 A contractor can often avoid application of the loss formula by holding the Government to this burden. If left to its own devices, the Government often fails to meet its burden of proof.
The easiest way for the Government to meet its burden is to obtain an admission from the contractor. The Defense Contract Audit Agency Contract Audit Manualadvises DCAA auditors (who perform audits of termination settlements for many agencies in addition to the Department of Defense) to request the contractor to provide an estimate to complete the terminated portion of the contract. 38 However, as recognized by the Manual, there is “no contractual requirement for the contractor to furnish an estimate to complete.” 39 Nevertheless, many contractors, without knowledge of their rights or the consequences of their actions, voluntarily provide an estimate. Instead, contractors should carefully consider whether it is to their advantage to comply with a Government request for an estimate to complete.
(a) 100% of the contract price adjusted for items completed before the termination date or to be completed after the termination date with the Contracting Officer’s approval.
(b) 100% of subcontractor settlements the contractor has paid that were approved by the Contracting Officer.
(c) 90% of the direct costs of termination inventory including materials, purchased parts, supplies, and direct labor.
(d) 90% of other allowable costs not included above that are allocable to the terminated requirements including settlement expenses.
(e) 100% of partial payments made to subcontractors.
The Government must “promptly” process the partial payment application. 48 A prompt partial payment may allow the contractor to avoid being forced to accept an unreasonably low Government settlement offer because of a need for immediate cash. You should therefore always submit an SF 1440 “Application for Partial Payment” with your termination settlement proposal.
A contractor whose contract has been terminated for convenience should obtain professional help from qualified Government contract attorneys and accountants. Terminations for convenience present arcane legal and accounting problems, and the use of qualified professionals can make a difference.
Cost should not be a barrier. Reasonable professional fees related to a termination for convenience are generally recoverable as settlement expenses under the FAR “Termination costs” cost principle. 49 The costs of professional help have been held to be recoverable even if it is ultimately determined that the contractor has no termination costs it can claim other than the fees for the professional advice. 50 You should therefore not hesitate to seek help from qualified professionals upon receipt of a notice of termination.
The Government will often try to escape liability after a convenience termination for periods of concurrent or contractor-caused delays. Such disallowance is insupportable to the extent a contractor does not seek compensation in excess of the contract price. As previously discussed, a termination for convenience in effect converts a fixed-price contract into a cost-type contract. A contractor is therefore entitled to recover all of its allowable (reasonable and allocable) costs, including delay costs. Which party is actually responsible for a particular day of delay is irrelevant. 51 You should therefore claim all delay days associated with the terminated effort regardless of responsibility.
The Government may attempt to disallow the cost of defective work based on the FAR requirement that the Contracting Officer must deduct the “fair value” of termination inventory that is “destroyed, lost, stolen, or so damaged as to become undeliverable” before title or the risk of loss transfers to the Government. 54 However, this requirement applies only to termination inventory–“property purchased, supplied, manufactured, furnished, or otherwise acquired for the performance of the contract.”55 It does not deny a contractor the right to claim its incurred costs for defective or nonconforming work. 56 You should therefore claim the cost of defective or nonconforming work in your settlement proposal.
Precontract costs are those incurred before the effective date of the contract directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the contract award when such incurrence is necessary to comply with the proposed contract delivery schedule. Such costs are allowable to the extent that they would have been allowable if incurred after the date of the contract. . ..
(1) The costs must be incurred to meet the contract delivery schedule.
(2) The costs must be incurred directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the award.
(3) The costs would have been allowable if incurred during contract performance.
Several legally insupportable grounds are often advanced by the Government to avoid paying a contractor its allowable idle facilities and idle capacity costs following a convenience termination.
(c) “Sales have increased.” The DCAA often disallows all costs claimed for idle facilities or idle capacity if the contractor has experienced an increase in sales. This approach begs the question. The issue is whether the contractor experiences idle facilities or idle capacity as a result of the termination– not whether the contractor’s sales volume has changed.
(d) “The facilities are not ‘special tooling.”‘ The Government sometimes disallows idle facility or capacity costs because the facility at issue is not “special tooling.” The FAR defines “special tooling” as tooling, machinery, or equipment of such a specialized nature that its use is “limited to the development or production of particular supplies or parts” or “performance of particular services.” 70 Although facilities must qualify as “special tooling” to recover for “loss of useful value” under the FAR “Termination costs” cost principle, 71 there is no similar requirement to recover for idle capacity or idle facilities.
Rental costs are not limited to the contract period. They are allowable for the contract period existing prior to the termination and “such further period as may be reasonable.” 74 A lease period exceeding the contract period is reasonable where the contractor obtained the shortest available lease term for necessary facilities. 75 As with other cost issues, you should not let the Government second-guess the lease term. The reasonableness of the lease term must be based on the circumstances existing when the contractor entered the lease–not the post-termination hindsight of a Government official.
Merely because the items are of a type the contractor uses on other work does not justify disallowance as common items. For disallowance to be justified, the contractor must have existing projects for the materials or be in a position to hold the materials for future projects without incurring a loss. 88 You can rebut a “common items” disallowance by demonstrating that the items cannot be retained at cost without sustaining a loss.
Before first article approval, the acquisition of materials or components for, or the commencement of production of, the balance of the contract quantity is at the sole risk of the Contractor. Before first article approval, the costs thereof shall not be allocable to this contract for (1) progress payments, or (2) termination settlements if the contract is terminated for the convenience of the Government.
Costs relating to production units may also be allowable if their incurrence prior to first article approval was necessary to meet the delivery schedule. For example, in one case, 92 the cost of special steel for production units purchased prior to first article approval was held to be allowable where 30 days were required for its delivery and production units were due 25 days after first article approval. In another case, 93the ASBCA allowed recovery of the cost of one long-lead-time component requiring advance purchase to meet the delivery schedule but denied recovery for the costs of other components and production effort not necessary to meet the schedule. Although the board in these two cases only allowed costs for long-lead-time materials, the language and rationale used appear to extend to other production costs that must be incurred prior to first article approval to meet the contract delivery schedule.
As the result of a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it is unclear when a “claim” must be certified to recover interest. 112 The decision, by one panel of the Federal Circuit, held that in order for there to be a CDA “claim,” theamount of the claim as well as the contractor’s entitlement had to be disputed at the time of certification. Because this decision has been withdrawn and the case is being reheard by the entire court, contractors should cover all bases by certifying their claims and requesting a Contracting Officer final decision at least twice. The first certification and request for final decision should accompany the initial submission of the termination settlement proposal. The second certification and request for final decision should be made after the Government disputes the claim or a reasonable period of time has passed and the Government has not acted. Depending upon how the Federal Circuit ultimately resolves the issue of when a “claim” arises, a contractor will likely be entitled to CDA interest from either the date of the first or second certification.
1. If disallowance by the Government of an incurred cost would be “unfair,” claim the cost in your termination settlement proposal even if it is unallowable under FAR cost principles. Explain in the accompanying narrative why the cost is allowable under the overriding principle that a contractor is entitled to “fair compensation” in a convenience termination.
2. Do not let the Government second-guess your costs. If you exercised reasonable judgment in incurring the costs, allegations by Government officials that they would have acted differently are not grounds for disallowance.
3. Do not let the Government escape liability by imposing impractical proof requirements for costs incurred under a fixed-price contract. Provide the best available information and explain in the accompanying narrative or audit rebuttal why better documentation is unavailable.
4. Keep in mind that a termination for convenience in essence converts a fixed-price contract to a cost-reimbursement contract. Claim all your incurred costs up to the total contract price regardless of which party is responsible for the costs, including costs for contractor-caused and concurrent delays and costs for defective or nonconforming work.
5. Make sure to charge indirect costs as direct costs to obtain “fair compensation.” Avoid double counting by removing costs charged directly from overhead cost pools.
6. Avoid loss adjustments by submitting equitable adjustment claims to increase the total contract price and holding the Government to its burden of proving it is entitled to a loss adjustment.
7. Remember to request a partial payment on your termination settlement to facilitate cash flow.
10. Claim unexpired lease costs if the lease cannot be terminated or the property sublet and the leased property and the lease term were necessary when acquired.
11. Be aware that you may claim facilities capital cost of money if you claimed cost of money in prior cost proposals or the termination settlement proposal is the firstcost proposal.
12. Do not accept “common items” disallowances for items you cannot use or hold without incurring a loss.
13. Bear in mind that production costs incurred prior to first article approval are allowable if (a) the costs were incurred due to a supplier’s requirements for minimum order quantities or were necessary to meet the production schedule, (b) the “First Article Approval” clause is waived, or (c) the costs were also necessary for manufacture of the first article. The recovery of costs incurred prior to first article approval is not limited to the line item price of the first article.
14. Remember to claim G&A expenses on subcontractor settlements. Do not be confused by the layout of the standard forms for termination settlement proposals.
15. To facilitate recovery of settlement expenses, make sure that inhouse personnelkeep time sheets. Charge the time of inhouse personnel directly in your termination settlement proposal. Remember that outside professional fees are also recoverable as settlement expenses.
16. To recover interest on your termination settlement proposal, provide a CDA certification and request a final decision on the proposal from the Contracting Officer. Until the Federal Circuit or Congress clears up the confusion in existing case law, cover all bases by certifying your claim and requesting a final decision at least twice–upon initial submission and again after the Government disputes the claim or has not acted within a reasonable time.
2 See generally Pushkar, Janik & Rhodes, “Dealing With the Effects of Downsizing,” Briefing Papers No. 93-5 (Apr. 1993).
3 See generally Martell & Featherstun, “Convenience Terminations: More Selected Problems,” Briefing Papers No. 91-13 (Dec. 1991), 9 BPC 529; Pettit & Vacketta, “Convenience Terminations: Selected Problems,” Briefing Papers No. 90-12 (Nov. 1990), 9 BPC 245.
4 See FAR 52.249-2, paras. (e), (f), (h). See also FAR 49.113, 49.201.
6 FAR 49.207. See FAR 52.249-2, para. (e).
7 See FAR 52.243-1 (“Changes–Fixed-Price” clause), 52.243-2 (“Changes– Cost-Reimbursement” clause). See also Agrinautics, ASBCA 21512 et al., 79-2 BCA ¶ 14149, 22 GC ¶ 200.
8 FAR 49.203(a). See FAR 52.249-2, para. (f).
11 See, e.g., Durette, Gmbh, ASBCA 34072, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23756.
15 See DAR 8-301; FPR 1-8.301; ASPR 8.301.
16 See generally Amavas, Gildea & Duquette, “DCAA Audits,” Briefing Papers No. 94-9 at 8 (Aug. 1994).
17 Kasler Elec. Co., DOTCAB 1425, 84-2 BCA ¶ 17374, 26 GC ¶ 326. See also Codex Corp. v. U.S., 226 Ct. Cl. 693 (1981), 23 GC ¶ 239 (precontract costs).
18 Rishe, Government Contract Costs 10-20 (Federal Publications Inc. 1984). See Aeronca Mfg. Corp., ASBCA 3844, 58-1 BCA ¶ 1724.
20 See FAR 49.201(a), (c). See also Algonac Mfg. Co., ASBCA 10534, 66-2 BCA ¶ 5731, affd., 192 Ct. Cl. 649, 428 F.2d 1241 (1970), 12 GC ¶ 297.
21 Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. U.S., 828 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir. 1987), 6 FPD ¶ 113 (quoting Willems Indus., Inc. v. U.S., 155 Ct. Cl. 360, 295 F.2d 822 (1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 903 (1962), 3 GC ¶ 565), 29 GC ¶ 296.
22 Tagarelli Bros. Const. Co., ASBCA 34793, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20363, 30 GC ¶ 342 (Note), affd. on reconsideration, 88-2 BCA ¶ 20546.
23 Industrial Refrigeration Serv. Corp., VABCA 2532, 91-3 BCA ¶ 24093, 33 GC ¶ 251 (Note).
24 Seven Science Indus., ASBCA 23337, 80-2 BCA ¶ 14518.
26 Worsham Const. Co., ASBCA 25907, 85-2 BCA ¶ 18016, 28 GC ¶ 243 (Note).
27 Agrinautics, note 7, supra; Amplitronics, Inc., ASBCA 20545, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11760, 18 GC ¶ 373; American Elec., Inc., ASBCA 16635, 76-2 BCA ¶ 12151, 31 GC ¶ 289 (Note), affd. in part and modified in part on other grounds on reconsideration, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12792.
28 Okaw Indus., Inc., ASBCA 17863, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12793.
29 Agrinautics, note 7, supra.
30 Condec Corp., ASBCA 14234, 73-1 BCA ¶ 9808, 15 GC ¶ 295.
31 Amplitronics, Inc., note 27, supra.
32 48 CFR § 9904.402-40.
33 See generally AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. U.S., 18 Cl. Ct. 315 (1989), 8 FPD ¶ 131, 31 GC ¶ 372.
35 See note 7, supra.
36 Systems & Computer Information, Inc., ASBCA 18458, 78-1 BCA ¶ 12946; R&B Bewachungs GmbH, ASBCA 42214, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25105.
37 Maitland Bros., ASBCA 43088, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26007, affd. on reconsideration, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26285.
38 DCAA Contract Audit Manual ¶ 12-307a(2) (Jan. 1995).
39 DCAA Contract Audit Manual ¶ 12-307a(3) (Jan. 1995).
40 Note 28, supra. See also Systems & Computer Information, Inc., note 36, supra.
41 See Scope Electronics, Inc., ASBCA 20359, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12404, 19 GC ¶ 146, affd. on reconsideration, 77-2 BCA ¶ 12586. See also R&B Bewachungs GmbH, note 36, supra.
42 FAR 49.203(a); note 28, supra.
44 Astro Dynamics, ASBCA 41825, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23807; R.H.J. Corp., ASBCA 12404, 69-1 BCA ¶ 7587, 11 GC ¶ 195. See also Scope Electronics, Inc., note 41, supra; Douglas Corp., ASBCA 8566, 69-1 BCA ¶ 7578, 11 GC ¶ 239, affd. on reconsideration, 69-1 BCA ¶ 7699.
45 FAR 49.112-1(a). See FAR 52.249-2, para. (l).
49 FAR 31.205-42(g). See generally Vacketta, Yesner & Snyder, “Recovery of Legal Costs,” Briefing Papers No. 93-12 (Nov. 1993).
50 Engineered Sys., Inc., ASBCA 18241, 74-1 BCA ¶ 10492, 16 GC ¶ 160; Freedom Elevator Corp., GSBCA 7259, 85-2 BCA ¶ 17964; Contract Maintenance, Inc., ASBCA 20689, 77-1 BCA ¶ 12446.
52 Caskel Forge, Inc., ASBCA 7638, 1962 BCA ¶ 3318, 4 GC ¶ 258.
53 Morton-Thiokol, Inc., ASBCA 32629, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23207, 32 GC ¶ 254.
54 FAR 49.204, 52.249-2, para. (g).
56 See generally Youngstrand Surveying, AGBCA 90-150-1, 92-2 BCA ¶ 25017.
58 Penberthy Electromelt Intl., Inc. v. U.S., 11 Cl. Ct. 307 (1986), 5 FPD ¶ 120, 29 GC ¶ 40. See also Radant Technologies, Inc., ASBCA 38324, 91-3 BCA ¶ 24106, 33 GC ¶ 253. See generally Wiener, “The Allowability of Precontract Costs,” 91-11 Govt. Contract Costs, Pricing & Accounting Rep. 3 (Federal Publications Inc., Nov. 1991).
59 Note 13, supra. See Kasler Elec. Co., note 17, supra; Codex Corp. v. U.S., note 17, supra.
60 RHC Const., IBCA 2083, 88-3 BCA ¶ 20991. See also Bennie J. Meeks t/a Lawn Grooming Serv., GSBCA 6605-REM, 85-2 BCA ¶ 17947.
61 See Metered Laundry Servs., Inc., ASBCA 21573, 78-2 BCA ¶ 13451.
63 FAR 31.205-42(b). See Fiesta Leasing & Sales, Inc., ASBCA 29311, 87-1 BCA ¶ 19622, affd. on reconsideration, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20499.
67 FAR 31.205-17(b)(2) (emphasis added).
68 General Dynamics Corp., ASBCA 19607, 78-1 BCA ¶ 13203 (quoting Aerojet Gen. Corp., ASBCA 15703 et al., 73-1 BCA ¶ 9932, 15 GC ¶ 355).
69 Fiesta Leasing & Sales, Inc., note 63, supra.
75 See generally TDC Mgmt. Corp., DOTBCA 1802, 91-3 BCA ¶ 24091.
83 Note 80, supra. See FAR 31.205-20.
85 See Spectrum Leasing Corp. v. General Servs. Admin., GSBCA 12189, 95-1 BCA ¶ 27317.
86 See Fiesta Leasing & Sales, Inc., note 63, supra.
88 Essex Electro Engrs., Inc., DOTBCA 1025 et al., 81-1 BCA 14838, reconsideration denied, 81-1 BCA ¶ 15109, affd., 702 F.2d 998 (Fed. Cir. 1983), 1 FPD ¶ 79, 27 GC ¶ 101 (Note); Fiesta Leasing & Sales, Inc., note 63, supra.
89 See generally Ewing, Lawrence & Zenner, “First-Article Contracts,” Briefing Papers No. 93-6 (May 1993).
90 FAR 52.209-3, para. (g) (“First Article Approval-Contractor Testing” clause); FAR 52.209-4, para. (h) (“First Article Approval– Government Testing” clause).
91 See Switlik Parachute Co., ASBCA 18024, 75-2 BCA ¶ 11434.
92 Young Metal Prods., Inc., ASBCA 15701, 71-1 BCA ¶ 8827.
93 Century Electronics, ASBCA 29123, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18232.
94 AVCO Corp., ASBCA 15252, 73-1 BCA ¶ 9958.
96 Marvin Engrg. Co., ASBCA 18356, 74-1 BCA ¶ 10587.
97 See note 94, supra.
98 Varo, Inc., ASBCA 16606, 72-2 BCA ¶ 9720.
99 Cape Tool & Die, Inc., ASBCA 46433, 95-1 BCA ¶ 27465, 36 GC ¶ 482.
100 Concord Elec. Co., ASBCA 31012, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18484, 28 GC ¶ 243 (Note).
102 Note 26, supra; Bolinders Co., ASBCA 5740, 60-2 BCA ¶ 2746, 2 GC ¶ 562.
105 See Baifield Indus., Div. of A-T-O, Inc., ASBCA 20006, 76-2 BCA ¶ 12096, affd. on reconsideration, 76-2 BCA ¶ 12203.
106 Garden Mach. Corp. v. U.S., 14 Cl. Ct. 286 (1988), 7 FPD ¶ 15, 30 GC ¶ 265.
107 41 USC § 611.
108 P.L. 103-355, § 2351, 108 Stat. 3243 (1994) (amending 41 USC § 605).
109 Fidelity Const. Co. v. U.S., 700 F.2d 1379 (Fed. Cir.), 1 FPD ¶ 68, 25 GC ¶ 86, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826 (1983). See also ReCon Paving, Inc. v. U.S., 745 F.2d 34 (Fed. Cir. 1984), 3 FPD ¶ 52, 26 GC ¶ 325.
110 Note 106, supra; Cubic Defense Sys., Inc., ASBCA 39859, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23748.
111 Spiffy Enters., Inc., ASBCA 44802, 95-1 BCA ¶ 27454. See 41 USC § 605(c)(6). See generally 34 GC ¶ 641.
112 Reflectone, Inc. v. Kelso, 34 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (advance sheets: removed from bound volume), 13 FPD ¶ 76, 36 GC ¶ 493, vacated and suggestion for rehearing in banc granted,34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 9904
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 611
 § 2351
 § 605
 v. 
 v. 
 § 605
 v.