Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force

 
APPEAL NO.
22-1035
OP. BELOW
OPINION
TBD
SUBJECT
Contract
AUTHOR
TBD

Issue(s) Presented

1. “First, in Section II.A., the plain language of the CDA, the FAR, the DFARS, and this Court’s precedent interpreting those authorities make clear that modifications unilaterally imposing prices, requiring a contractor to continue performing at no additional costs, and adjusting the contract terms constitute a Government nonmonetary ‘claims’ under the CDA. The Definitization clauses expressly direct contractor to ‘appeal’ the CO’s unilateral determination, themodifications were written, they asserted the Government’s authority as a matter of right, and the modifications sought a form of relief, discussed below (Section II.BC). For decades this Court has construed CDA jurisdiction over nonmonetary claims broadly to encompass analogous unilateral decisions, because the CDA is ‘expansive’ and has ‘substantial breadth.’”

2. “Second, specific to what type of Government nonmonetary claim, the Government’s definitization decisions are cognizable as Government ‘other relief’ claims under the plain language of the CDA and FAR, and this Court’s analogous holdings in Garrett, Malone, and similar cases (Section II.B).”

3. “Third, in the alternative, definitization decisions are cognizable as Government ‘adjustment’ claims under the plain language and this Court’s rationale of Alliant and related cases (Section II.C).”

4. “Lastly, Section III sets forth a more limited basis for remand. The ASBCA Majority Decision incorrectly relied upon and found controlling a single, virtually uncited, 33-year old Board decision (Bell), but such reliance was improper because Bell did not consider or rule upon all of the issues in dispute. Bell cannot be controlling on what it did not address. And Bell, issued in 1988, is bad law because it is inconsistent with this Court’s subsequent three decades of decisions.”