- 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