48 C.F.R. § 16.301-1
16.301-1 Description.
Cost-reimbursement types of contracts provide for payment of allowable incurred costs, to the extent prescribed in the contract. These contracts establish an estimate of total cost for the purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling that the contractor may not exceed (except at its own risk) without the approval of the contracting officer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2021 · leading case: First Enter. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 109 (Fed. Cl. 2004).
First Enter. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 109 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “48 C.F.R. § 16.301-1 (2004). Accordingly, the contracting officer conducts a cost realism analysis to determine the accuracy of each offeror’s cost estimate.”
Day & Zimmermann Servs., A Div. of Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 591 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “48 C.F.R. § 16.301-1 (1996). Accordingly, an agency is required to conduct a cost realism analysis inasmuch as a bidder’s estimate may not be a valid indication of actual costs.”
Fluor Enter., Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 461 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “See 48 C.F.R. § 16.301-1 . Based in part on the required level-of-effort and the estimated cost of performance, each task order also specified Fluor’s fixed-fee for that period.”
Info. Sys. & Network Corp. v. United States, 437 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “*1175 See 48 C.F.R. § 16.301-1 (2004). Each year ISN negotiates with - the United States to determine ISN’s allowable costs for that year.”
Info. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 599 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “See 48 C.F.R. § 16.301-1 (“Cost-reimbursement types of contracts provide for payment of allowable incurred costs, to the extent prescribed in the contract.”
Info. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 265 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “48 C.F.R. § 16.301-1 (2000). This arrangement is made for contracts for which the contract price is not readily ascertainable at the time of contracting.”
Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp. v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 346 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “28-1 at 11-12 (citing 48 C.F.R. §§ 16.301-1 , 16.304 - 16.307 ).”
Ch2m Hill Hanford Grp., Inc. v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 139 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “See 48 C.F.R. § 16.301-1 (2007). Such contracts “establish an estimate of total cost for the purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling that the contractor may not exceed (except at its own risk) without the approval of the contracting officer.”
Newtech Rsch. Sys. LLC v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 193 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “” 48C.F.R. § 16.301-1 (1999). . Dr. Woodsum’s statements about the new program officer suggest the existence of an acrimonious relationship between Sonetech and the ONR.”
United States of Am. v. MOX Servs., LLC (D.S.C. 2020). “at 6 ¶¶ 25, 25 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 16.301-1 ).) FAR § 31-205-35(a) provides that relocation costs are only “allowable” if “incident[al] to the permanent change of [an] assigned work location (for a period of 12 months or more) of an existing employee or upon recruitment of a new…”
United States of Am. v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. (E.D. Wis. 2021). “See 48 C.F.R. § 16.301-1 ; John Cibinic, Jr., et al.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.