Rare Decision about Pricing Interorganizational Transfers
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.14.17
In rare litigation over the pricing of items transferred between a contractor’s commonly controlled subdivisions, C&M successfully appealed a Contracting Officer’s refusal to pay commercial prices for materials a contractor had transferred between its business units. In A-T Solutions, Inc. (ATS), ASBCA No. 59338, the Board found that ATS was permitted to transfer at price under FAR 31.205-26(e) because it had demonstrated an “established practice” of pricing interorganizational transfers at other than cost for commercial work, as evidenced by records and the testimony of ATS’ witnesses and accounting expert. The Board rejected the Government’s argument that ATS’ internal transfers lacked “economic substance,” holding that FAR 31.205-26(e) does not impose any “economic substance” requirement and that ATS’ internal transfers were adequately recorded at price, notwithstanding limitations in the detail provided by ATS’ accounting software.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 09.21.26
Congressional Letter Puts Spotlight on Unenforceable Secrecy Demands in Federal Subpoenas
When federal law enforcement agencies issue subpoenas to companies for information about their customers, the subpoenas or cover letters often contain boilerplate nondisclosure language. This language generally directs companies not to notify those customers and implies that there may be legal consequences for doing so. But as two lawmakers recently called out in a formal letter to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), this boilerplate language may not carry the force of law.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.18.26
Mining, Indigenous Consultation Rights, and Investment Treaty Protection: Part 2
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.18.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.18.26
What AI Companies Need to Know About NY AG's Whistleblower Push
