Systems Development Corporation
Systems Development Corporation appealed the contracting officer's denial of its claims related to defective specifications and other issues under Contract 0077. The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Material Facts
- The government awarded Contract 0077 to SDC for the production of circuit card assemblies for the HAWK missile system effective May 9, 2000.
- The contract included provisions for disputes and termination for convenience.
- SDC identified numerous defects in the technical data package provided by the government and requested assistance, which was not adequately provided.
- SDC and its subcontractor decided to stop ordering parts and sought a termination for convenience due to the government's failure to provide necessary data.
- SDC submitted a certified claim for a termination for convenience settlement in April 2003, which was denied by the contracting officer in June 2003.
- The contracting officer terminated the contract for convenience in February 2004, and SDC submitted a termination settlement proposal in April 2004.
- The contracting officer found SDC entitled to a termination settlement of $403,563 but denied all claimed termination settlement expenses.
- SDC appealed the contracting officer's decision to the Court of Federal Claims, which was dismissed without prejudice.
- SDC submitted a certified claim for defective specifications and other issues in February 2008, which was denied in September 2008.
Parties
- Appellant
- Systems Development Corporation
- Respondent Agency
- Department of the Army
- Contract Number
- DAAH01-00-C-0077
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
- Phoenix Management, Inc.No. 59273April 8, 2015
- Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc.No. 58343March 2, 2015
- SureTec Insurance CompanyNo. 59343, 59647January 2, 2015
- Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc.No. 58343November 7, 2014
- Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc.No. 58343October 23, 2014
- Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc.No. 58343October 22, 2014
Same Year
- C.E.M.E.S. S.p.A.No. 56253, 57355December 29, 2010
- Shaw Environmental, Inc.No. 57237December 16, 2010
- Thorington Electrical and Construction CompanyNo. 56997December 13, 2010
- Phoenix Management, Inc.No. 57234December 13, 2010
- Parsons Global Services, Inc.No. 56731December 3, 2010
- Kelly-Ryan, Inc.No. 57168November 29, 2010
Same Issue
- Bodell Construction CompanyNo. 63517-ADR, 63850-ADROctober 2, 2026
- Huffman Construction, LLCNo. 62591, 62783September 30, 2026
- Martin Brothers ConstructionNo. 63196, 63431September 30, 2026
- WSP USA Solutions Inc.No. 62674September 1, 2026
- Mvation Worldwide Inc.No. 64633August 18, 2026
- U.S. Aeroteam, Inc.No. 61972, 61973August 6, 2026