Here's how Judge Talwani concludes on count I (that the 15% rate is against NSF statutes). She rejects a flat 15% rate, but notes that does not preclude any across-the-board cap.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
For count II (whether it violates 2 C.F.R. § 200.414), Talwani rejects this for reasons similar to DOE and NIH:
On using 15% for a 'class' of awards, she writes: "construing 'a group of federal awards' to IHEs to encompass all awards to all IHEs would allow the exception to swallow the whole."
Count III (violates cost recovery) basically fails because the 15% rate violates Section 200.414(c) and ultimately it "deviates from a regulatory framework that ties indirect cost
rates to actual indirect costs."
(One gets the sense that 'deviates' was choice wording by the Judge.)
The judge finds that "efficiency, consistency, and effectiveness" are aspirational goals, not reasoning.
Talwani: "the court cannot discern from the Policy Notice how NSF concluded the 15% Indirect Cost Rate would further NSF’s stated goals, the 15% Indirect Cost Rate is arbitrary and capricious."
There are several more pages justifying the decision to vacate the policy as unlawful opposed to issuing a permanent injunction as relief—notably, she cites res judicata (vacatur prevents NSF from issuing a substantively similar policy).
Comments
On using 15% for a 'class' of awards, she writes: "construing 'a group of federal awards' to IHEs to encompass all awards to all IHEs would allow the exception to swallow the whole."
rates to actual indirect costs."
(One gets the sense that 'deviates' was choice wording by the Judge.)
Talwani: "the court cannot discern from the Policy Notice how NSF concluded the 15% Indirect Cost Rate would further NSF’s stated goals, the 15% Indirect Cost Rate is arbitrary and capricious."
Anyhow, here's the conclusion: