As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost and cost-plus-a-fixed-fee system may be used under the authority of the State Procurement Director when: (1) There exists no other economically practicable price arrangement to secure the commodity; (2) A cost saving may be proved over the least expensive alternative; or (3) The pricing schedule involved is tied to an industry standard or other reliable system of cost prediction. Acts 1979, No. 482, § 39; 1983, No. 517, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 14-264; Acts 1995, No. 1234, § 1; 2001, No. 1237, § 29. As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost and cost-plus-a-fixed-fee system may be used under the authority of the State Procurement Director when: (1) There exists no other economically practicable price arrangement to secure the commodity; (2) A cost saving may be proved over the least expensive alternative; or (3) The pricing schedule involved is tied to an industry standard or other reliable system of cost prediction. Acts 1979, No. 482, § 39; 1983, No. 517, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 14-264; Acts 1995, No. 1234, § 1; 2001, No. 1237, § 29. As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost and cost-plus-a-fixed-fee system may be used under the authority of the State Procurement Director when: (1) There exists no other economically practicable price arrangement to secure the commodity; (2) A cost saving may be proved over the least expensive alternative; or (3) The pricing schedule involved is tied to an industry standard or other reliable system of cost prediction. Acts 1979, No. 482, § 39; 1983, No. 517, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 14-264; Acts 1995, No. 1234, § 1; 2001, No. 1237, § 29. As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost and cost-plus-a-fixed-fee system may be used under the authority of the State Procurement Director when: (1) There exists no other economically practicable price arrangement to secure the commodity; (2) A cost saving may be proved over the least expensive alternative; or (3) The pricing schedule involved is tied to an industry standard or other reliable system of cost prediction. Acts 1979, No. 482, § 39; 1983, No. 517, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 14-264; Acts 1995, No. 1234, § 1; 2001, No. 1237, § 29.
‹ Prev All Arkansas sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.