1. “Did the Government injure Textron (a requirement for claim accrual) (a) when Textron’s predecessor-in-interest curtailed and terminated the pension plans in December 2012; or (b) when the Government disputed Textron’s routine payment request in 2020?”
2. “Alternatively, even if Textron’s claim accrued before the Government disputed the amount owed, did the Court of Federal Claims err in resolving limitations against Textron as a matter of law, when the record contains no evidence showing how long it should have taken Textron to determine the amount owed and when asserting a claim requires government contractors to certify the amount owed?”
1. “Textron was injured once CAS 413-50(c)(12) was triggered on December 31, 2012, when the pension plans were terminated or curtailed, or at the latest by February 15, 2013, when the bankruptcy proceedings concluded.”
2. “Textron argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the statute of limitations because the government did not meet its burden to show that Textron knew or should have known the information necessary to assert a claim before the critical date. . . . We conclude that the Court of Federal Claims did not err in its summary judgment analysis.”
