Cost Reasonableness. The Settling Parties stipulate and agree that the Commission shall keep this docket open for the purpose of determining whether the implementation of the Platform should be built or whether it should be deferred pursuant to RSA 378:51. To facilitate this determination, the Settling Parties stipulate and agree that as soon as is practicable, but in any event no longer than one (1) year from the date of Commission approval of this Agreement (a) the NH Utilities shall utilize an RFP process as contemplated in Appendix D which the Council shall review to select one or more contractors to develop and operate the Platform Hub; (b) the Council shall review on a confidential basis all responses to the RFP; (c) the Council shall make a recommendation to select one or more contractors to develop and operate the Platform Hub; (d) the NH Utilities shall utilize an RFP process to hire a consultant to review for the Council the Utility proposals for Back-End Integration and construction of the Utility-Specific APIs for consideration as the Settling Parties balance the needs of the Platform and the NH Utility Back-End Integration; and
Cost Reasonableness. Individual elements of cost will be evaluated for reasonableness in terms of: • Labor rates and other elements will be evaluated to determine fairness and reasonableness; • Level of effort, in that the proposed labor mix and labor hours are based on reasonable assumptions related to the base IDIQ PWS and in each of the sample task orders (0001, 0002, and 0004). • Consistency with the technical approach, in that the costs are consistent with and reflect the proposed staffing requirement; and • Fee that reflects an appropriate level of risk.
Cost Reasonableness. All costs, including subcontractor costs, shall be objectively reasonable, ordinary and necessary and shall be reported at actual cost with no mark-up, i.e. profit, administrative or other indirect costs. Using the Implementer’s approved budget, the IOU Agreement Representative may review all reported costs. The IOU reserves the right to reduce costs, with the concurrence of the CPUC Agreement Representative if the costs are in excess of the same costs in Implementer’s approved budget, and if there is a reasonable basis for the conclusion that the costs are excessive, unreasonable, not ordinary or necessary. Any reduced costs shall be used when calculating actual costs expended, below.
Cost Reasonableness. The Third Pricing Agreement seeks to extend the terms, with modifications, of the prior amendment for the Burney facility. In this sense, it primarily seeks to maintain the status quo for the term of the Third Pricing Agreement to address the tree mortality emergency and to bridge to the BioRAM program. As discussed in more detail in Confidential Appendix E, the amended price of the PPA is above the price that PG&E would expect to obtain for other RPS-eligible products in a general RPS solicitation. Additionally, the pricing in the Third Pricing Agreement is higher than the pricing in the underlying PPA and will therefore increase customer costs if the facility generates pursuant to the Third Pricing Agreement as expected. However, this higher cost is necessary to secure the opportunity for this facility to contribute toward addressing the needs of the Governor’s Emergency Proclamation while transitioning to the BioRAM program. Additionally, the Third Pricing Agreement will provide other valuable information and rights to PG&E, as described in Confidential Appendix E
Cost Reasonableness. All costs, including subcontractor costs, shall be reasonable, ordinary and necessary and shall be reported at actual cost with no mark-up, i.e. profit, administrative or other indirect costs. Using the Implementer’s approved budget, the IOU Agreement Representative may review all reported costs, including labor hours spent on particular tasks. The IOU reserves the right to reduce costs, including labor hours, with the concurrence of the CPUC agreement representative if they are excessive, unreasonable, not ordinary or necessary. Any reduced costs shall be used when calculating actual costs expended, below.
Cost Reasonableness. The MRLF Funds reserved herein are subject to adjustment based upon a cost reasonableness review to be conducted by LHC. The conclusions and determination of LHC’s costs reasonableness review are not subject to appeal. LHC’s costs reasonableness review and determination shall be based upon submission by the Applicant by the deadline stipulated in Section 6(d) hereof of documentation including the following items:
Cost Reasonableness. The Government may reject an offer if it is materially unbalanced as to prices for the basic requirement and the option quantities. An offer is unbalanced when it is based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and prices that are significantly overstated for other work.
Cost Reasonableness a. On page 6, paragraph 3 under “Cost Reasonableness Should Be Determined and Documented”, the report states:
Cost Reasonableness. Costs are fully justified and supported and are considered fair under current market conditions and reasonable to the government. Reasonableness may also be determined by comparison with the Government Estimate, and/or other proposals received.
Cost Reasonableness. Prior to granting approval of any and all change orders, the City will complete a Cost Reasonableness to ensure the value of the Extra Work is in line within Program Requirements and the value determination outlined herein. No change order will be approved that exceeds or is less than 10% of the cost reasonableness.
