1 / 18

Recent Developments in IR&D/B&P Do you know the difference between direct and indirect costs? Stephen D. Knight

Recent Developments in IR&D/B&P Do you know the difference between direct and indirect costs? Stephen D. Knight Attorney Smith Pachter McWhorter & Allen P.L.C. December 7, 2004 . “Required in the performance of a contract”. Definition – there is none. CAS 420

trey
Download Presentation

Recent Developments in IR&D/B&P Do you know the difference between direct and indirect costs? Stephen D. Knight

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. Recent Developments in IR&D/B&P Do you know the difference between direct and indirect costs? Stephen D. Knight Attorney Smith Pachter McWhorter & Allen P.L.C. December 7, 2004

  2. “Required in the performance of a contract” • Definition – there is none. • CAS 420 • IR&D “means the cost of effort which is neither sponsored by a grant, nor required in the performance of a contract, and which falls within” basic and applied research, development, and systems and other concept formulation studies.

  3. “Required in the performance of a contract” • CAS 420 • B&P “means the cost incurred in preparing, submitting, or supporting any bid or proposal which effort is neither sponsored by a grant, nor required in the performance of a contract • Requires allocation of IR&D/B&P according to CAS 403 and 410. • If effort is “required in the performance of a contract,” it is not IR&D/B&P and will not be so allocated.

  4. “Required in the performance of a contract” • FAR 31.205-18 • IR&D “means a contractor’s IR&D cost that consists of projects falling within [basic research, applied research, development, and systems and other concept formulation studies].” • IR&D “means a contractor’s IR&D cost that consists of projects falling within [basic research, applied research, development, and systems and other concept formulation studies].”

  5. “Required in the performance of a contract” • Basic research “means that research directed toward increasing knowledge in science. The primary aim [is] fuller knowledge. . .rather than any practical application. . .” • Applied research – to determine potential of scientific discoveries, or improvements in technology, materials, processes, methods, devices, or techniques.

  6. “Required in the performance of a contract” • Applied research – attempts to advance state of the art. • “does not include efforts whose principal aim is design, development, or test of specific items or services to be considered for sale; these efforts are within the definition of the term ‘development’.”

  7. “Required in the performance of a contract” • Development • the systematic use. . . Of scientific and technical knowledge in the design, development, test, or evaluation of a potential new product or service (or of an improvement in an existing product or service) for the purpose of meeting specific performance requirements or objectives.” • Includes design engineering, prototyping, and engineering testing.

  8. The Problem: • US v. Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Va. 2003) • “The practical effect of this reading on the ‘required in the performance of a contract’ exclusion is to create a temporal dividing line between IR&D and direct work that must be billed to a contract at the point the contract requiring the effort is signed. Prior to such a contract, the research and design effort is independent, and is eligible to be charged as IR&D, provided it otherwise fits the IR&D

  9. The Problem: definition. Once a contract is signed, however, research and design efforts that are explicitly or implicitly required in the performance of that contract may no longer be charged as IR&D.”

  10. The Problem Continues: • Government briefs in Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. US, No. 99-440C (COFC) • Rely on NNS and interpret “required in the performance of a contract” without regard to whether the costs were otherwise required. • “. . . ‘required in the performance of a contract’ [means] as a practical matter, in order to perform a contract”

  11. Analysis: • IR&D is a continuum of effort. • Most complex issue is “development.” • Government position is that development “required in the performance of a contract,” i.e., required as a practical matter to perform the contract, is not IR&D. • But FAR 31.205-18 says development, as part of IR&D, includes design engineering, prototyping, and engineering testing, and requires indirect allocation of such costs.

  12. Analysis: • Government position would require costs that benefit more than one final cost objective to be treated as “direct costs.” • CAS 402, FAR 31.202, FAR 31.203 • Direct cost: any cost that can be identified specifically with a particular final cost objective. • Indirect cost: any cost identified with two or more final cost objectives. • See FAR 31.201-4

  13. Analysis: • Government position would: (1) effectively preclude customer from buying fruits of IR&D without all of related development; (2) predicate IR&D on strict sequential development before sale of product or improvement. • Would precontract development become unallowable precontract costs? • Effect on technical data rights?

  14. Analysis: • Government position ignores reality that development occurs in parallel with sales of product and product improvements. There is no “temporal dividing line.”

  15. What is a “contract” for B&P purposes? • TRW, Inc., ASBCA No. 51530, 02-2 BCA para. 31,944. • MOA – parties agreed to form limited partnership for marketing purposes. • MOA required TRW to prepare and submit proposal. • Costs to prepare proposal were not B&P, but costs of the “contract.”

  16. What is a “contract” for B&P purposes? • “The fact that the MOA did not provide therein for compensation for TRW’s proposal preparation costs does not exclude that MOA from the FAR definition of a ‘contract’. . . The MOA, whose material terms ‘constitute a legally binding contract,’ is a ‘contract’ within FAR 31.205-18(a)’s B&P cost exclusionary provision.” • Current effort to recognize teaming B&P as allowable.

  17. Conclusions: • Scrutinize SOW to analyze what government may argue is “required as a practical matter” to perform. • Disclose specific IR&D/B&P practices. • Scrutinize all teaming and marketing arrangements to distinguish from “contracts.”

More Related