Responding to Vern:
Scenario 1: I apologize for misleading you, but this has not actually happened yet, at least that we know of. The contractor has suggested that it has possibly done this, but has not outright admitted it. We are just trying to protect the Government's interests in case the contractor has done so. If they have in fact done so, then I believe that they would have charged the expenses indirect to G&A as IR&D. Here, I mostly just want to know if there is anything that would keep the contractor from doing so. In my opinion, the 7013 data rights clause doesn't seem to cover this sufficiently.
Scenario 2: The contractor charged the hardware expenses indirect to G&A. Unfortunately, I can't disclose too many specifics here (due to program sensitivity), but the contractor is arguing that the hardware in question is classified as "computing costs" in its disclosure statement, thereby justifying its classification as an indirect charge. They are also arguing that the hardware is not specifically listed as a contract deliverable, so it is not a direct contract requirement. Of course, they have purchased hardware for similar system components, but have charged those costs as direct costs against the contract, which I believe violates CAS 9904.402-40, which states that "All costs incurred for the same purpose, in like circumstances, are either direct costs only or indirect costs only with respect to final cost objectives."
Hope that helps, I look forward to hearing your thoughts!