1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Defective Pricing

Defective Pricing

Event | 09.27.06 - 09.28.06, 12:00 AM UTC - 12:00 AM UTC

A two-day custom course in all the problems, the consequences, the fraud risks, and the operating realities of satisfying Government contract "truth in negotiation" requirements.

Includes coverage of special contracting situations:

  • GSA Schedule pricing issues
  • Health Care, Biotechnology, and Pharmaceutical contracting issues

    Who can quarrel with the concept of "truth in negotiation?" The principle that in negotiating prices for contracts and changes contractors should inform the Government of the data upon which their quotations are based—that they should not, in other words, mislead the Government or play games with the taxpayers' dollars—is certainly commendable. Few would say that this is not a proper object for the Government to pursue or a reasonable standard to which contractors should adhere. But saying it is easier than doing it. And there's the problem ... and the reason for this course.

    The subject is not a new one. It's been with us since 1962 when Public Law 87-653 was enacted. Because of its significance it has been covered--from its inception--in other general procurement courses. But its presentation often led to frustration spawned by the many questions to which there were no definite answers. With the passage of years, however, have come a host of developments, a more complete definitization of the defective pricing requirements and—most importantly—a cumulation of experience in cost and pricing data problems.

    Now, therefore, we can devote two full days to intense instruction on the subject. Now, we can help you deal with those practical operating problems which sometimes are at odds with the principles of truth in negotiation. Now, we can detail the full range of possible penalties which you may face should your prices be defective—and catalog the battery of defenses available to charges of defective pricing. Now, we can analyze some questions which are still unanswered—but analyze them in a more predictable way, based upon a respectable body of precedents. Now, in short, we can offer you our special course: Defective Pricing.

    As developed by Federal Publications, the course is intended to serve all those, in both Government and industry, who have any connection with pricing matters. It takes you through all phases of the subject . . . and a little bit beyond, into areas of innovative theory and practice.

    Additional Information:

    The Course Curriculum

    Introduction

    • A Panorama
    • Capsule Of The Rules

    Truth In Negotiations

    • Requirements Of Public Law 87-653
    • Exemptions & Exceptions
    • Contractor Submission Of Data
    • Government Disclosure Of Cost-Facts
    • Government Audit Rights
    • Subcontractor Data
    • Contractor's Liability
    • Special Contracting Situations

    Crowell & Moring's Kent Morrison and David Bodenheimer will co-host this two-day seminar.

For more information, please visit these areas: Government Contracts

Insights

Event | 02.20.25

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today: In 1997, the California Supreme Court decided Buss v. Superior Court. In Buss, the court concluded that a liability insurer that defended a mixed action could seek reimbursement from the insured for the defense costs associated with the claims that were not even potentially covered. Since then, numerous courts have held that insurers are entitled to recoup their defense costs associated with uncovered claims or causes of action. On the other hand, a significant number of courts have rejected insurers’ right to recoupment, at least in the absence of a policy provision granting the insurer that right. Some commentators have even suggested that the current judicial trend might be away from permitting insurers to recoup their defense costs. Is that correct? Has the Buss stopped? This panel of coverage experts will analyze insurers’ claimed right to recoupment today, and offer their perspectives on what the law on recoupment should perhaps be and might be in the future.