Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'lof'.
Found 1 result
I would like some help with the probable outcome for this question. A CPFF term contract for $60MIL incrementally funded. The Government funds only $30MIL and extends the contract twice to continue performance, but still does not reach the full obligation. Now the contract is ending and no more funding will be obligated. The Schedule Obligated Amount clause says that the funds are allotted for "allowable costs (and fee if any)" (emphasis added). The contract includes the LOF clause 52.232.22. The Contractor realizes it has made an accrual mistake in the accruals of incurred costs and has a deficit of $1MIL over the obligated amount if you include the earned fee. Without counting the earned fee (CPFF term = LOE delivered x fee per day), the Contractor has incurred costs within the obligated amount. The performance was accepted and lauded by the client as Exceptional. The Contractor mistakenly relying on available funds numbers offered to the Government and with acceptance performed more work than originally planned for the same obligated amount. The Government argues that since no timely notification under the LOF clause was provided, the costs would not be reimbursed since the obligation covers costs and fee and the Government is not obligated to reimburse above the obligated amount. Cost Reimbursement Contracting (Cubinic and Nash) states under Control of Funding Limitation of Funds clauses, that if the "funds are allotted in a single figure, it has been held that the contractor can apply the full allotment to performance costs". Would this argument work in the scenario above? If the Government refuses, is this a legitimate claim argument? Many thanks.