Noncompliance with Planning "Directive" Renders Subcontract Costs Unreasonable
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.02.18
In the long-running case of Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (ASBCA No. 58175), the Board disallowed as unreasonable certain subcontract headcount-based dining facility costs under FAR Part 31 and the Allowable Cost and Payment clause (FAR 52.216-7(a)). The Board found KBR’s costs unreasonable because they “exceeded the amounts that should have been billed” if KBR had adjusted the subcontractor’s pricing to reflect a government-issued Letter of Technical Direction (LOTD). The LOTD told KBR to expect a lower headcount at a dining facility. KBR argued that the LOTD was issued by a government official who lacked authority to do so, and was a “planning document[], not [a] binding contract modification[],” that did not require KBR to reprice the subcontract to reflect the new anticipated headcount. The Board disagreed, finding that KBR’s disregard of a valid directive – and its failure to adjust prices to reflect the lower anticipated headcount – rendered its excess subcontract costs unreasonable (and therefore unallowable). The Board also found probative KBR’s contemporaneous treatment of the LOTD as binding and KBR’s initial issuance of a credit to the government to repay the excess dining facility costs.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 10.01.25
On September 29, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a sweeping Interim Final Rule (IFR), (the “Affiliates Rule”) expanding which entities qualify as Entity List or Military End-User entities, thereby subjecting those entities to elevated export control restrictions under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). U.S. export restrictions applicable to entities on the Entity List, Military End-User (MEU) List, and Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) now apply to foreign affiliates that are, in the aggregate, owned 50% or more by one or more of the aforementioned entities. An entity that becomes subject to these restrictions because of its ownership structure will be subject to the most restrictive controls that attach to any of its parent entities, regardless of ownership stakes.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.30.25
CARB Issues Preliminary List of Entities Covered by California Climate Disclosure Laws
Client Alert | 10 min read | 09.30.25
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.29.25
White House Seeks Industry Input on Laws and Rules that Hinder AI Development