1 / 35

Thierry Kirat (CNRS, IRISSO-Paris Dauphine) Laurent Vidal (Institut André Tunc , Paris 1)

Does Public Contract Law meets Accounting ? A Comparative Analysis of the Judge’ Assessment of Cost Pricing in Litigation on Contract Performance (France-United States). Thierry Kirat (CNRS, IRISSO-Paris Dauphine) Laurent Vidal (Institut André Tunc , Paris 1).

renata
Download Presentation

Thierry Kirat (CNRS, IRISSO-Paris Dauphine) Laurent Vidal (Institut André Tunc , Paris 1)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Does Public Contract Law meets Accounting ? A Comparative Analysis of the Judge’ Assessment of Cost Pricing in Litigation on Contract Performance (France-United States). Thierry Kirat (CNRS, IRISSO-Paris Dauphine) Laurent Vidal (Institut André Tunc, Paris 1) T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  2. Introduction : stating the problem • Judicial reasoning :crucial issue for sociolegal studies and comparative law. • Literature in both fields overlooks accounting matters in judicial reasoning. • Aim of the presentation: address this issue through a comparative empirical analysis of public contract cases before courts in France and the United States. -> How, if any, French and American judges consider the assessment of additional costs and additional fees claimed by firms contracting with a public authority. -> empirical material :administrative courts records • USA : General Services Board of Contracts Appeals; • France : Coursadministrativesd’Appel & Conseild’État T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  3. Introduction: the matter Litigation on Procurement contracts with the Government • Strongly regulated contracts (Public Law Provisions) • Performance issues • Delays (due to contractor failures or Gvt decisions) • Additional works • Legal/economic issues • Allocation of cost overruns in fixed-price contracts • Contract equilibrium • Assessment of additional costs T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  4. Summary Part 1- Judicial styles: relative weight of legal/formal considerations vs factual/economic (including accounting) in decisions Part 2- Computation and proof of compensatable additional costs in contracts • Conditions of costs imputability : cost pricing accounting policy • Delay-related costs : accounting methods T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  5. Part I – Judicial style - Decisions Analysis Lexical statistical analysis - > insights into the language used in courts rulings: • Lexical worlds classification • Factorial analysis T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  6. Part 1- Judicial Styles: Lexical classes, GSBCA T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  7. Part 1- Judicial Styles: Lexical classes, Cours administratives d’appel & Conseil d’Etat T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  8. Part 1- Specific Judicial Styles Correspondance factorial analysis exhibits : • Correlation of words within a lexical class • Level of remoteness between lexical classes T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  9. Correlations analysis : GSBCA T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  10. Correlations analysis : CAA & CE T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  11. Part 1 Conclusions • Differentialweight of formalist/pragmaticconsiderations • Common finality : contractequilibrium (equitableadjustment/équilibre financier du contrat) • Specificmodalities and judicialreasoning • Lack of accounting issues in French rulings (including in pre-trial internal reports : GvtCommissioner reports) : • Pervasiveaccountingconsiderations in FederalRegulation and Public Contracts Law Case-Law in the USA T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  12. Part 2 - Right to "equitable adjustment" and assessment of costs USA : claims for equitable adjustment are investigated in simultaneous consideration of the contract’s legal and accounting dimensions France : claims of cost compensation are investigated in a two-step process : 1) is the claim legally valid ? 2), if it is the case: which amount should be allocated ? -> the American judge proceeds in a synchronous manner, judgment on the right to compensation being considered at the same time as judgment on the estimation of costs presented by the claimant. -> The French administrative judge proceeds in a two steps reasoning : a) decide on the right to compensation b) then assess the recoverable amount. T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  13. Part 2 - 1- Cost Pricing Methods 1- Cost Pricing Methods : Accounting policies in Federal Regulation Provisions and Case-law Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 31.201.3) : Reasonability, allowability, allocability of costs Burden of proof : on the Contractors’ shoulders T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  14. Part 2 - 1- Cost Pricing Methods Reasonablecosts A costisreasonable “(a) (...) if, in its nature and amount, itdoes not exceedthatwhichwouldbeincurred by a prudent personin the conduct of competitive business. Reasonableness of specificcosts must beexaminedwithparticular care in connectionwithfirms or theirseparate divisions thatmay not besubject to effective competitiverestraints. No presumption of reasonablenessshallbeattached to the incurrence of costs by a contractor. If an initial review of the factsresults in a challenge of a specificcost by the contractingofficer or the contractingofficer’srepresentative, the burden of proof shallbeupon the contractor to establishthatsuchcostisreasonable. (b) Whatisreasonabledependsupon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including— (1) Whetheritis the type of costgenerallyrecognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the contractor’s business or the contract performance; (2) Generallyacceptedsound business practices, arm’slengthbargaining, and Federal and State laws and regulations; (3) The contractor’sresponsibilities to the Government, othercustomers, the owners of the business, employees, and the public at large; and (4) Anysignificantdeviationsfrom the contractor’sestablished practices.” -> Use of standards -> reference to usual practices => Necessity of interpretation of Regulation in specific cases + precedents T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  15. Part 2 - 1- Cost Pricing Methods Methods calculation of costs incurred (and their eventual recovery) will be done according to • total-cost method • modified total-cost method • Jury-verdict method T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  16. Part 2 - 1- Cost Pricing Methods 1. total-cost method ….used when the appellant has not established or was unable to establish an accounting analysis from the outset of the contract and was unable to determine the degree to which the costs incurred resulted from the prescribed change. Thus, the price originally stipulated is subtracted from the total cost of execution. The difference constitutes the cost of the required change. This method supposes that the costs incurred by the entrepreneur were reasonable, that the original offer was realistic and that the increase in performance costs was in no way the responsibility of the entrepreneur…. the federal government does not at all favor this quantification technique and employs it only when it is the only option, for example, in the case of a change in the contract resulting from defective specifications or various disruptions that entail losses in efficiency, reorganization of tasks, material losses, etc. T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  17. Part 2 - 1- Cost Pricing Methods 2. Modified total-cost method (“should-have-cost method”) • retrospective analysis of the contract • includes facts for which the entrepreneur is responsible but excludes costs for which the government is responsible -> reassessment of the costs in a backward-cost analysis, -> more precise view on costs allowable/allocable to the contract -> Exclusion of additional costs due to contractor’s inefficiencies T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  18. Part 2 - 1- Cost Pricing Methods 3. Jury-verdict method • employed when judges cannot decide between two parties’ claims with respect to the elements of proof they provide. • Claimant must a) demonstrate the impossibility to determine a well-grounded amount for compensation. b) Provide proof: (1) that the modification of the contract was prejudicial in terms of costs, (2) that no other method of calculation of costs was feasible (3) that it is possible to reasonably and equitably approach the amount of costs incurred. T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  19. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs 2. Delay-related costs The problem : Overhead costs. Imputation to a contract delayed due to Gvt decision or failure The solution : « Eichleay formula» [Eichleay Corp.; ASBCA, No. 5183, 60-2 BCA 2688] (1960) T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  20. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs The problem : Overhead (G&A) indirect costs. --> Changes in Case-Law since 1954. 1°Carteret Work Uniforms, ASBCA No 1647, August 20, 1954 • Incurred overhead rate – Normal overhead rate = Excess rate during delay period • Excess rate X Total base costs during delay = Unabsorbed overhead period T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  21. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Carteret Work Uniforms : -> contract performance required the use by the administration’s partner of the whole factory. -> no doubt that the G&A costs were directly due to the contract performance -> Generous compensation scheme T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  22. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs 2° Allegheny Sportswear Co., ASBCA, No 4163, March 25, 1958 • Incurred overhead rate during actual period – Normal overhead rate for projected period = Excess rate • Excess rate X Contract base costs = Unabsorbed overhead T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  23. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Allegheny Sportswear Co. -> if the rate of overhead cots is higher than predicted, the difference is reconciled with the basic costs in the contract to determine the unabsorbed overhead -> take into account actual vs predicted period T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  24. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Limits of theseaccounting doctrines: -> excessivelly tolerant -> do not take sufficiently precise account of the overhead due to a delayed or interrupted contract performance New Rule : Eichleay Corp., ASBCA No 5183, July 29, 1960 Still in use, with minor changes (FAR, DCAA, US Court of Appeals, Court of Fed. Claims) T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  25. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs 3° Eichleay basic formula : • Contract billing / Total billings for actual contract periodXTotal overhead incurred during contract period = Overhead allocable to contract • Allocable overhead/ Actual days of performance = Overhead allocable to contract per day • Daily overhead X Number of days of delays = Unabsorbed overhead T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  26. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Eichleay Formula : • Assessment of overhead allocable to the contract in a normal course of performance • Assessment of a per diem overhead allocable to the contract -> more precise assessment of overhead in case of delay in performance T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  27. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Eichleay : controversybetween courts & Gvt/Governmentalagencies: 1° Gvt (DoD) statement in Propserv, Inc. ASBCA N°20768, 1978: G&A costs are relatively stable and thus due to the entirety of the firm’s operations, and impossible to distinguish and assign to particular tasks. ASBCA Decision : deny the DoD statement : “We find the “Eichleay” method employed by the appellant to allocate these expenses as a function of time to be particularly appropriate in cases of suspension of work where the direct costs incurred are minimal or nonexistent” T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  28. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Eichleay : controversybetween courts & Gvt/Governmentalagencies : 2° DCAA : recommended that certain nondeductible costs, such as bad debts, advertising, contributions and entertainment, be excluded from the general fixed expenditures used in the calculation of the daily rate of fixed expenditures incurred by the firm. -> recommandation enforced by DOTCAB (Department of Transportation Contract Appeals Board) T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  29. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Eichleay : controversybetween courts & Gvt/Governmentalagencies: 3° GSBCA restriction in Capital Electric, Feb 17, 1983 -> « a contractorclaimingrecovery of underabsorbedoverhead must alsoaccount for the possible benefits of direct costsdeferred to latercostaccountingperiodsthatmightresult in a balancingoverabsorption » -> intertemporal compensation betweenoverhead & direct costs T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  30. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Eichleay : controversy between courts & Gvt/Governmental agencies : Capital Electric Rule : -> overruled by the US Court of Appeals (Fed. Cir.) -> enforced by the Court of Federal Claims for a (short) time – then alignment with USCA Rulings T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  31. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Eichleay : controversy between courts & Gvt/Governmental agencies : BCA Strategies following the Capital Electric Rule overruling: • Delayed work must on a critical path • Burden of proof on claimant’ shoulders : proof that damage suffered are the result of disruption or delay T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  32. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Eichleay : controversybetween courts & Gvt/Governmentalagencies : Federalappeal Courts (Ct Fed. Cl. / USCA Fed Cir.) Strategiesfollowing the Capital Electric Rule collapse : convergence on claimantdemonstration • Unreasonablelenght of Gvt’sdelay • Gvtproximate cause of delayed performance • Injury • Non concurrent delay on the part of contractor T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  33. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Lessons (1) • Explicit BCA’s doctrines of cost accounting • Oftenlly overruled by federal courts • Compromize between BCA and Federal courts • Law firms, lawyers, Gvt Agencies : provide guidelines on the indirect costs issue in delayed contracts with the Gvt T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  34. Part 2 - 2. Delay-related costs Lessons (2) • French Administrative Courts : cost accounting issue = dark side of the moon • Formalism rather than pragmatism in courts rulings and, before all, judicial decision-taking process • No accounting considerations in Commissioner of the Gvt T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

  35. Conclusion • Comparative litigationanalysis: provide insights intojudicial styles and « rationality » • American BCA judges : former « contractingofficers » trained in law, economics, and accounting • French Judges : trained in lawfaculties (first-second levels administrative courts) and School of Public Administration (Conseil d’Etat) T. Kirat, L. Vidal –Workshop “Innovation in Network Industries: Accounting, Economic and Regulatory Implications”, Paris, March 16, 2011

More Related