General Dynamics Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 59

                                       - 59 -                                         

               contractor's costs exceed the target cost), its profits                
               are being impacted, even prior to reaching the point of                
               total cost assumption.  Prior to reaching the point of                 
               total cost assumption, however, the contractor bears                   
               its share of the cost overrun as provided for by the                   
               share line.  In [Contract 2034], petitioner would have                 
               borne 40 cents of every dollar of cost overruns up to                  
               the point of total cost assumption at which point it                   
               would have borne 100% of the cost overruns.  [Citations                
               omitted.]                                                              
               We agree with petitioner that the point of total cost                  
          assumption in a fixed-price incentive contract is determined by             
          the relationship between the target cost, the target profit, and            
          the share line.  Contract 2034 had only one share line and,                 
          accordingly, only one point of total cost assumption.  Thus,                
          respondent's argument is not borne out by the facts.                        
               Respondent has also asked us to find that                              
               Under the provisions of Contract 2034, as definitized                  
               by * * * [P00 80], when a final determination is made,                 
               if no single program year exceeds its ceiling, then the                
               profits on the other three program years, would not be                 
               affected.                                                              
               We agree with petitioner that respondent's requested finding           
          is misleading because there is only one ceiling price and one               
          incentive price revision for the entire contract; there are no              
          separate program year ceilings or price determinations.                     
               In a similar vein, respondent also argues that the                     
          dependency of price terms among the program years under the                 
          incentive provisions might be entitled to some weight in the                
          determination to treat Contract 2034 as several agreements if               
          there was a significant probability that the cost overruns                  




Page:  Previous  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011