Cases addressing what evidence should be accepted over other when pricing the deductive change include: (1) actual costs of identical work was considered more relevant than government use of estimating manuals (ASC Constr. Co.) (2) invoice between a contractor and vendor for an identical item was better than a contractor’s proposal (Atlantic Elec. Co.) and (3) postaward quotes from vendors were superior than a contractor’s prebid estimate (Glover Const. Co.). In another case addressing a common error made by the government, the Board rejected the government’s attempt to price partially completed work by applying a straight proration of the line item amount to the percent completed noting such an approach ignors that certain fixed costs and other costs are expended early in performance making the performance the rate of expenditure non-linear with the pace of performance (Tom Shaw, Inc.).

When the government is unable to validate estimates based on the contractor’s cost records, the Courts have shown a willingness to consider other means for pricing deductions such as (1) when deleted work is a commodity market prices have been used (2) estimating manuals can be used to develop a price in absence of cost data though such evidence must give way to actual contractor costs (3) absence of consideration of learning curve estimates when they should apply has resulted in downward adjustments and (4) contractors’ certified cost and pricing data has been used (this makes artificially high cost estimates not only subject to defective pricing allegations but costly if they are used for estimating deductive changes). Lastly, specific provisions in a contract for pricing deductive changes have been ruled to prevail over general rules.

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}