Opinion ID: 2263053
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Direct Costs and General and Administrative Costs

Text: Eagle's claims concerning direct costs and general and administrative costs are similarly without merit. Again, it is clear from the CAB's extensive explanations regarding each claimed cost that it based its decision on substantial evidence in the record. The CAB had the benefit of the OIG's report, as well as several days' worth of live testimony and a plethora of documentary evidence. Moreover, the CAB carefully allocated costs based on reasonableness. For example, with regard to general and administrative (G & A) costs, it noted: We could deny all Eagle G & A costs for lack of adequate support, but such a blanket denial may be unfair since clearly there are some allowable G & A costs. We adopt another approach. Eagle proposed in its BAFO [best and final offer] a G & A rate of 11 percent on total costs. We find this rate to be reasonable even considering the problems with Eagle's G & A cost support. This and similar statements show that the CAB was taking into account as much evidence as it could in determining Eagle's actual costs. It is also consistent with the requirement that actual costs be reasonable, allocable to the contract . . . and consistent with any limitations in the contract or regulations with respect to the type or amount of costs. Abadie, 806 A.2d at 1227.