48 C.F.R. § 31.205-26

31.205-26 Material costs.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Material costs include the costs of such items as raw materials, parts, subassemblies, components, and manufacturing supplies, whether purchased or manufactured by the contractor, and may include such collateral items as inbound transportation and in-transit insurance. In computing material costs, the contractor shall consider reasonable overruns, spoilage, or defective work (unless otherwise provided in any contract provision relating to inspecting and correcting defective work).

(b) The contractor shall—

(1) Adjust the costs of material for income and other credits, including available trade discounts, refunds, rebates, allowances, and cash discounts, and credits for scrap, salvage, and material returned to vendors; and

(2) Credit such income and other credits either directly to the cost of the material or allocate such income and other credits as a credit to indirect costs. When the contractor can demonstrate that failure to take cash discounts was reasonable, the contractor does not need to credit lost discounts.

(c) Reasonable adjustments arising from differences between periodic physical inventories and book inventories may be included in arriving at costs; provided such adjustments relate to the period of contract performance.

(d) When materials are purchased specifically for and are identifiable solely with performance under a contract, the actual purchase cost of those materials should be charged to the contract. If material is issued from stores, any generally recognized method of pricing such material is acceptable if that method is consistently applied and the results are equitable.

(e) Allowance for all materials, supplies and services that are sold or transferred between any divisions, subdivisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the contractor under a common control shall be on the basis of cost incurred in accordance with this subpart. However, allowance may be at price when—

(1) It is the established practice of the transferring organization to price interorganizational transfers at other than cost for commercial work of the contractor or any division, subsidiary or affiliate of the contractor under a common control; and

(2) The item being transferred qualifies for an exception under 15.403-1(b) and the contracting officer has not determined the price to be unreasonable.

(f) When a commercial product or commercial service under paragraph (e) of this section is sold or transferred at a price based on a catalog or market price, the contractor—

(1) Should adjust the price to reflect the quantities being acquired; and

(2) May adjust the price to reflect the actual cost of any modifications necessary because of contract requirements.

[69 FR 34243, June 18, 2004, as amended at 86 FR 61029, Nov. 4, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1988–2018 · leading case: United States v. James M. Castner, United States of Am. v. Kenneth D. Sechler, Jr., 50 F.3d 1267 (4th Cir. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. James M. Castner, United States of Am. v. Kenneth D. Sechler, Jr., 50 F.3d 1267 (4th Cir. 1995). · cites it 7× “A government audit determined that between 1989 and 1991 SEI impermissibly overcharged the Navy for materials under the contract by using the “price method” rather than the “cost method” to establish its material costs under the FAR, 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-26 (d) and (e). Castner…”

United States v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 14 F. Supp. 3d 982 (S.D. Ohio 2014). · cites it 3× “48 C.F.R. § 31.205-26 (a). Accordingly, Lockheed was permitted to bill the Government for nonconforming tools as long as the costs incurred were reasonable.”

UMC Elec. Co. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 776 (Fed. Cl. 1999). · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 31.205-26 (d). Mr. Knowlton. testified that invoices and canceled checks are considered cost or pricing data and that UMC was obligated to furnish cost and pricing date, even if UMC did not rely on that data.”

United States v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., the Shipbuilders Council of Am., Amicus Curiae, 862 F.2d 464 (4th Cir. 1988). “205-26(e), 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-26 (e) (1987). The government contends that cost entries submitted to it may not reveal the amount of profit hidden in the purchase price or the relationship between the companies involved in the transaction.”

Dyncorp Int'l LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “DI’s CMJAR at 12 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-26 ). Plaintiff also alleges that defendant-intervenor’s pricing proposal “cannot support its CFP purchase,” which would “intensify” JLS’s alleged “financial difficulties.”

United States v. Hernandez (4th Cir. 1999). “See 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-26 (1998). These costs must be "allowable" before they can be passed along to the government.”

— 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-26(a) — 1 case

United States v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 14 F. Supp. 3d 982 (S.D. Ohio 2014). “48 C.F.R. § 31.205-26 (a). Accordingly, Lockheed was permitted to bill the Government for nonconforming tools as long as the costs incurred were reasonable.”

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.