Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'allowable cost'.
Scenario: Company A is a design agent and owns a vessel design (Company A's Intellectual Property) that has not been built and that Company B is interested in proposing as it's solution for an anticipated DoD opportunity as a prospective prime contractor. Company A has no patent, and has not filed for a patent for said vessel design, but is requiring Company B to enter into a license agreement including royalty payments to use Company A's vessel design based on a percentage of the price for each vessel constructed and sold to the Government. I am assuming the contract, or CLINs, under which the vessels will be constructed will be fixed price incentive, which may have some bearing on what clauses and provisions may be included in the solicitation concerning. It is my understanding that license agreements with royalty payment terms for the use of a design that has no design patent do exist, but it is not clear to me if the Government would deem such royalty payments to be proper and deem the associated costs to the prime contractor to be allowable if there is no patent. FAR 31.205-37 seems to only address royalties in the context of when there is a patent. FAR 27.202 mostly refers royalties in the context of when there is a patent. So the question is, would the royalties paid to Company A by Company B be deemed proper and the costs deemed allowable despite there being no patent for the vessel design?
Hi ALL, Government customer is pushing back on our Prime invoice submission which included (a reduced) G&A on top of a Subcontractor ODC where they (sub) applied G&A to ODCs (Travel). Basically our sub incurred travel expense that are allowable and billable to the program and sub applied G&A to ODCs when submitting their invoice to Prime for processing. Prime applied G&A when processing the subs ODCs (at a reduced rate) onto final invoice (in customers mind we are "doubling up" G&A - I should also note this is the first time this long standing contract (FFP) has had a sub on it so this is new to this group of GS that handle this program). We've been in contracting for 20+ years and been through a ton of audits both with DCAA and other firms and the only push back we've ever received on this was "why we were applying a discounted G&A instead of our actual G&A to these?" never that it was unallowable, speaking to colleagues in the industry this seems pretty standard practice. My question is, does anyone know of FAR clause relating to this or have a better way of explaining to customer? I tried to explain that both companies are applying G&A to it because we are both incurring expense to process these ODCs (was worded better than that) but he still has doubts. I appreciate any and all feedback!
Couple of teammates and I have been batting around the topic of contractor parking and whether or not it is an allowable cost. The original solicitation stated that the place of performance was a primary duty location. It was silent on parking. The Government has a lease at the location and as part of the lease, received parking passes. The parking passes were doled out to Government employees and contractor employees. It is a access restricted parking lot. The Government is intending on increasing its workforce at the location and will be revoking the contractor's allotment of parking passes. The contractor is now required to buy parking passes for its employees. Under a cost-reimbursable contract, is this an allowable cost? Parking is not called out as an allowable cost in the FAR. It was not addressed as part of "local travel" in the solicitation either.