1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |ASBCA Decision a Mixed Bag on Cost Allowability Issues

ASBCA Decision a Mixed Bag on Cost Allowability Issues

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.17.17

In Raytheon Co., ASBCA No. 57743, et al., the Board addressed penalties associated with various unallowable costs, finding that salaries of employees engaged in unallowable lobbying activities were “expressly unallowable” as “directly associated costs,” and subject to level 1 penalties, even though “directly associated costs” are, by definition, not expressly unallowable. The Board also found that costs that Raytheon had previously agreed to treat as unallowable, but erroneously included in incurred cost submissions, were not subject to level 1 penalties because they were not expressly unallowable (the Government apparently did not argue that such costs were subject to level 2 penalties). Finally, the Board held that testimony and other credible evidence can be used to demonstrate allowability of consultant costs in the absence of perfect documentation, and that a contractor must prove the CO’s failure to waive penalties for expressly unallowable costs is an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.25.26

Recent Court Decision Highlights Effectiveness of “Second Bite” Protests

A recent U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision serves as an important reminder that when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) denies a protest, this is not necessarily the end of the road. Often, contractors retain the right to file a new protest at the COFC, which conducts its own de novo review of the procurement record. This so-called “second bite at the apple” protest is a powerful tool as the COFC’s recent decision in Chugach Logistics & Facility Services JV, LLC v. USA makes clear....