Opinion ID: 561899
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Collateral Savings

Text: 23 ICSD also appeals the denial of a share of other collateral savings allegedly realized by the government but omitted from the savings calculation. ICSD first argues that section 48.102 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations creates an affirmative duty on the part of the Government to determine and pay ICSD's fair share of the savings. ICSD states that the government recognized that alkaline batteries were safer and would result in reduced disposal and logistic costs. ICSD argues that the government failed to consider those factors in attempting to calculate the cost savings. According to ICSD, the Board erred by placing the burden on ICSD to prove the cost savings. We disagree. Under the contract, when there is a measurable net reduction in the documentable collateral costs, ICSD is awarded a 20% share in the ascertainable collateral savings. The Board found that several of the alleged collateral savings were not measurable, documentable, or ascertainable, and that ICSD's proffered estimates of the savings amounts were neither reasonable nor credible. ICSD has shown no error in those findings, and we do not see how the burden is on the government to ascertain a share of unascertainable savings. Therefore, under its contract, ICSD is not entitled to an award for those savings. 24 ICSD also argues that the Board erred in finding that certain collateral savings were attributable to the government's proposed lithium battery and not to ICSD's VECP. ICSD argues that there is no evidence that the lithium batteries were ever used in the scopes and so there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the collateral savings were attributable to the lithium batteries. The evidence ICSD cites is not especially persuasive and relates to what occurred after the Contracting Officer's decision in this case. As the Board found, when the Contracting Officer made his decision concerning the collateral savings award, the government intended to replace the mercury batteries with lithium batteries, thereby overcoming many of the safety and disposal problems and the need for cold weather adapters. Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that at the time of the award decision in this case the collateral savings were attributable to the introduction of the lithium battery.