HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaawda0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DC(UqMIIfT FESUPV
C3847 - [ A2874070]
rPricinq of Two Negotiated Noncompetitive Prime Contracts
Awarded by the Naval Air Systems Command]. PSAD-77-172;
E-168450. October 5, 1977. 6 pp.
Report to Secretary, Department of Defense; by Richard W.
Gutmann, Director, Procurement and Systems Acquisition Div.
ssue Area: Federal Procurement of Goods and Services:
Reasonableness cf Prices Under Negotiated Contracts and
Subcontracts (1904).
Contact: Procarement and Systems Acquisition Div.
Budget Function: National Defense: Department of Defense -
Procurement & Contracts (058).
Organizaticn Concerned: Department of the Navy: Naval Air
Systems Command; McDonnell Douglas Corp.; Hughes Aircraft
Co., Culver City, CA.
Congressional Relevance: House 'ommittee on Aried Services;
Senate Cowmittee on Armed Services.
Authority: T.uth in Negotiations Act (P.L. 87-653). A.S.P.R.
3-8C7.1(b) (2).
A limited survey was conducted of the pricing of two
negotiated noncopetitive prime contracts awarded by the Naval
Air Systems Command (NACAIR) during fiscal years 1975 and 1976.
Tite objective of the survey was to determine the extent of
compliance with the requirements ci the Truth in egotiations
Act and the implementing provisions of the Armed Services
Procurement Regulation. This effort was part of a nationwide
survey of the Department of Defense noncompetitive prime
contracts to determine whether more intensive examinations of
the reasonableness of the pricing were wfrranted.
Findings/Conclusions: Applicable defense procurement procedures
were effectively implemented except that: (1) an exemption from
the submission of cost or pricing data was gran*ed to one
contractor without an adequate determination baving been made
that the end iteis had been sold ir substantial auaDtities to
the general public to justify the exemption apb the
reasonableness of the contract price was not estabiished; and
(2) contract price negotiations were significantly delayed until
a substantial amount of costs had filready been incurred or
committed. The delay resulted in a large number of upd:.ted cost
submissions and additional Governrent evaluations of the cost
information. (Author)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaawda0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)