Costs of successfully defending against a qui tam suit where the US does not intervene is limited to 80% (Fluor Hanford v. US, 66 Fed. Cl. 230). Costs incurred in an unsuccessful defense of a citizen’s suit for violation of the Clean Water Act were "similar" to costs made unallowable by FAR 31.205-47(b)(2) where either a monetary penalty is imposed or contractor liability to fraud or similar misconduct results in civil or administrative proceedings (Southwest Marine ASBCA No. 54234). Contractor was entitled to repayment of progress payments that were mistakenly transmitted to the contractor’s formerly designated bank after the contractor notified the government that payments should be transmitted to another bank (SAS Bianchi UGO, ASBCA No. 53800). Where the CO erroneously disallowed certain costs when it negotiated a fixed price contract the court ruled the contractor was not entitled to reimbursement ruling not every allowable cost must be specifically represented or recaptured in a fixed price contract. The court said unlike a cost reimbursement contract the focus of a fixed price negotiation is on total price rather than individual costs. The FAR cost principles provide a "frame of reference for negotiating total overall price, the goal of the negotiation is not to remunerate the contractor for each individual allowable cost but rather to reach a fair and reasonable price based upon the universe of costs" (Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. US, 64 Fed. Cl. 599). The government was bound by a CO’s oral agreement to allow a cost that was made unallowable by FAR 31.205-36(b)(3) – Rental costs – because there was not "plain illegality" and the CO’s interpretation of the cost principle was not "clearly unreasonable" (MPR Assocs. ASBCA No. 54689).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}