- 6 - or other contract provisions.2 The accountant’s methodology, which had been examined by respondent’s engineer, would not satisfy the approach that respondent now contends is appropriate. Respondent does not contend that her method will result in a larger or smaller credit than the amount reflected in the engineer’s report. She only argues that it is necessary to compute the amount of the credit based on the terms of the contract. Petitioner objected to respondent’s refusal to stipulate to the amount of the increased credit contained in respondent’s engineer’s report, on the following grounds: (1) Respondent should be held to the amount agreed to by the engineer, and, further, respondent should be precluded from reauditing3 and 2 Respondent contends that petitioner is required to identify research expenditures in terms of each contract line item in the fixed-price Government contracts. Respondent bases her contention on language in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, as follows: The Court of Federal Claims correctly held that the availability of the credit does not depend on whether the researcher is in fact paid; it depends, as stated in Treasury Regulation � 1.41-5(d)(1), on whether, by the terms of the research agreement, payment is contingent upon development of a specified "product or result," to be paid "contingent on the success of the research." [Fairchild Indus., Inc. v. United States, 71 F.3d 868, 872 (Fed. Cir. 1995), revg. 30 Fed. Cl. 839 (1994).] We do not intend to decide in this opinion whether petitioner’s accountant’s approach or the approach that respondent contends should be followed is the correct approach. Our focus is solely on the procedural questions raised and relief sought in petitioner’s motion. 3 Petitioner has couched the language of its motion in terms (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011