(a) A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Reasonableness of specific costs must be examined with particular care in connection with firms or their separate divisions that may not be subject to effective competitive restraints. No presumption of reasonableness shall be attached to the incurrence of costs by a contractor. If an initial review of the facts results in a challenge of a specific cost by the contracting officer or the contracting officer's representative, the burden of proof shall be upon the contractor to establish that such cost is reasonable.
(b) What is reasonable depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including—
(1) Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the contractor's business or the contract performance;
(2) Generally accepted sound business practices, arm's length bargaining, and Federal and State laws and regulations;
(3) The contractor's responsibilities to the Government, other customers, the owners of the business, employees, and the public at large; and
(4) Any significant deviations from the contractor's established practices.
[52 FR 19804, May 27, 1987]
Notes of Decisions
Beta Analytics Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 155 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
· cites it 4× “at 8 (citing 48 C.F.R. §§ 31.201-3 , 31.201-4). Of course, when monetary relief is specifically “limited to bid preparation and proposal costs,” 28 U.”
George Sollitt Constr. Co. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 229 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 2× “201-3, codified at 48 C.F.R. § 31.201-3 (a) (2004). This regulation states that “[n]o presumption of reasonableness shall be attached to the incurrence of costs by a contractor.”
United States v. Dyncorp Int'l, LLC, 253 F. Supp. 3d 89 (D.D.C. 2017).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 31.201-3 (a). Either when making initial payments or during the audit process prior to final payment, the government may reduce payments by the amounts that it finds are not allowable costs.”
Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 35 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D.D.C. 2014).
“, “it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business,” 48 C.F.R. § 31.201-3 (a), is “alloca-ble,” complies applicable accounting standards, and is not otherwise disallowed by regulation or contract.”
Meridian Eng'g Co. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 147 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
· cites it 2× “201-3 also provides that “[a] cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business[,]” 48 C.F.R. 31.201-3. Ms. Hadley derived the twenty-five and sixty-five day period from a…”
United States ex rel. Garzione v. Pae Gov't Servs., Inc., 164 F. Supp. 3d 806 (E.D. Va. 2016).
· cites it 2× “201-2 governs “Determining allowability [of a cost] and states “[a] cost is allowable only when the cost complies with all of the following requirements:-(1) reasonableness -” 48 C.F.R. § 31.201-3 governs "Determining reasonableness” and states that "[a] cost is reasonable if,…”
United States v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 14 F. Supp. 3d 982 (S.D. Ohio 2014).
“” ( 48 C.F.R. § 31.201-3 (b)). . At the summary judgment hearing, attorneys for Lockheed agreed, and the attorneys for Relators did not object, when the Court concluded that § 3729(a)(1) (pre-2009 amendments) and § 3729(a)(1)(B) (post-2009 amendments) were applicable.”
Louis Caldera, Sec'y of the Army v. Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc., 192 F.3d 962 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
“48 C.F.R. 31.201-3(a) (1998). 5 . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) states that: In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy,…”
— 48 C.F.R. § 31.201-3(a) — 1 case
Louis Caldera, Sec'y of the Army v. Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Servs., Inc., 192 F.3d 962 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
“48 C.F.R. 31.201-3(a) (1998). 5 . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) states that: In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy,…”
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.