56731

Parsons Global Services, Inc.

December 3, 2010Judge Peacock
DismissedCost Allowability / Allocability (FAR 31)Indirect Rates / Incurred CostTermination for ConveniencePayment / Progress Payments / FinancingCDA JurisdictionDCAA InvolvedDCMA InvolvedSmall Business

Parsons Global Services, Inc. appealed the denial of a certified request seeking reimbursement for subcontract indirect and termination-related costs. The Board granted the government's motion to dismiss, holding that Parsons had not submitted a valid CDA claim because it neither paid and invoiced the subcontract costs nor settled with the subcontractor and amended its termination settlement proposal.

Material Facts

  • The prime contract was an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract for design-build work in Iraq and included FAR 52.216-7, ALLOWABLE COST AND PAYMENT, and FAR 52.249-6, TERMINATION (COST-REIMBURSEMENT).
  • Parsons subcontracted with Odell to construct healthcare facilities in Iraq and deliver medical equipment in support of the prime contract.
  • The subcontract amendments addressed Odell's G&A, overhead, and other indirect costs through a markup added to direct labor rates.
  • During performance, Parsons paid Odell's markup at 75% of Odell's direct labor costs and included those costs in invoices submitted to the government.
  • DCAA determined that Odell's provisional indirect cost rate for calendar year 2005 was 187% and later audited Odell's claimed costs associated with the terminated task orders.
  • The government terminated Task Orders 4, 11, and 12 for convenience.
  • Parsons did not pay the disputed invoiced amounts or submit invoices to the government for the subcontract indirect costs in question.
  • Parsons did not enter into a settlement with Odell regarding the disputed costs or amend its termination settlement proposals to recover them.
  • Parsons submitted payment approval requests to the TCO and later sponsored Odell's certified claim to the PCO.
  • The TCO indicated that he would not act on the payment approval requests because it was not in the government's best interest to settle the subcontract claim separately from the prime contract.
  • The government audit report did not question the claimed indirect costs and identified the discrepancy between the 75% rate previously billed and paid and the revised 175% subcontract rate.

Parties

Appellant
Parsons Global Services, Inc.
Respondent Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Contracting Agency
Department of the Army
Contract Number
W914NS-04-D-0006
Open Official Decision PDF (asbca.mil)AI-analyzed, grounded in the decision text. Verify against the official PDF before relying on it.

Full Legal Analysis

Create a free account to read the complete grounded legal brief for this decision, including the holding, every issue the Board decided, quantum, verified citations, and the case's citation graph.

Holding & Legal Reasoning

The Board's holding, background, and procedural posture for this decision.

Issues Presented

Every issue the Board decided, with its determination, reasoning, and supporting authority.

Quantum & Recovery

The claimed, awarded, and net dollar amounts at issue, itemized where the record supports it.

Verified Authorities & Citations

Every cited FAR, DFARS, CAS, and case-law authority, cross-checked against the source text.

Practitioner Takeaways

Practical guidance for contractors and counsel, distilled from the Board's ruling.

Similar Cases

Related decisions surfaced by semantic search across the full analyzed corpus.

Citation Graph

An interactive graph of this case's cited authorities, judge, agency, and related decisions.

Related Decisions

Same Judge

Same Year

Same Issue

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.