KOSEN 한인과학기술자네트워크

* Four observations about the specific language in the bill 1. The definition of the amount of fee at risk is unclear. H.R. 723 while eliminating the exemption, provides a limitation on the amount of civil penalties that can be imposed on nonprofit contractors. 2. If the congress decides to limit the amount of fee at risk by specifying that "discretionary fee" means only the incentive fee portion of the total fee, the ability to impose penalties on nonprofit contractors may be limited 3. Under the proposed bill, limitations on payments for civil penalties would be extended to all tax-exempt nonprofit contractors, not just nonprofit educational institutions. 4. The penalty provisions specified in H.R. 723 would apply to contracts entered into after the date of enactment. Consequently, it could be many years before some of the contractors would have to pay a penalty. ◆ Continued Exemption of Nonprofit Contractors From Paying Civil Penalties is not Warranted - Los Alamos national laboratory, new Mexico. - Argonne national laboratory West, Idaho. ◆ Modifications to H.R. 723 could help clarify and strengthen the penalty provisions ◆ Limiting the amount of any payment for penalties made by tax-exempt contractors to the amount of the incentive fee could have unintended effects. - Contractors would be affected in an inconsistent way. - Enforcement of nuclear safety violations would differ from enforcement of security violations. - Disincentives could be created if the congress decides to limit the penalty payment to the amount of the incentive fee. ◆ Preferential treatment would be expanded to all tax-exempt contractors. ◆ Some contractors might not be subject to the penalty provisions until many years in the future.