General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc.
General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc. sought an equitable adjustment based on allegedly inaccurate or negligently prepared quantity estimates for small munitions orders. The Board denied the Government's motion for summary judgment because the record presented unresolved issues concerning whether the arrangement was a basic ordering agreement or a requirements contract and whether the Government's estimates were negligently prepared.
Material Facts
- The issued solicitation replaced express references to a requirements contract with references to a basic ordering agreement.
- The solicitation retained FAR 52.216-18, FAR 52.216-19, and estimated-quantity provisions commonly associated with requirements contracts.
- The solicitation did not include the FAR clause identified as applicable when a requirements contract is contemplated.
- The solicitation and award document did not include all provisions the decision identified as required for a basic ordering agreement.
- The award document referred to the arrangement as both a basic ordering agreement and a contract.
- The Government issued delivery orders for small caliber ammunition, and the appellant accepted and performed under those orders.
- The Government did not obtain competition before issuing the delivery orders and did not seek or allow price negotiation before issuing them.
- The appellant's claim alleged that the Government provided no projected quantities beyond the first year and that later quantities caused increased performance costs.
- The Government refused to disclose documents allegedly used to develop the quantity estimates, asserting that disclosure would violate the Trade Secrets Act.
Parties
- Appellant
- General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc.
- Respondent Agency
- Department of the Army
- Contracting Agency
- Department of the Army
- Contract Number
- W52PIJ-05-G-0002
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
- Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.No. 59357, 59358August 29, 2016
- GSC Construction, Inc.No. 59644, 59956, 60069, 60070, 60112, 60113June 21, 2016
- Access Personnel Services, Inc.No. 59900June 15, 2016
- CI², Inc.No. 59948June 6, 2016
- CI², Inc.No. 59948June 6, 2016
- CI², Inc.No. 59948June 6, 2016
Same Year
- Joint Venture Makyal Ins. Ve Tic. A.S. & Mehmet Erdal Kamisli Co. Ltd.No. 56956December 28, 2011
- Distributed Solutions, Inc.No. 57266December 28, 2011
- Quimba Software, Inc.No. 57636December 19, 2011
- American General Trading & Contracting, WLLNo. 56758December 13, 2011
- Harry RichardsonNo. 57582December 9, 2011
- Sharp Electronics CorporationNo. 57583December 6, 2011
Same Issue
- Africa Transport Logistics CompanyNo. 64120October 1, 2026
- Huffman Construction, LLCNo. 62591, 62783September 30, 2026
- Martin Brothers ConstructionNo. 63196, 63431September 30, 2026
- Vigor Marine, LLCNo. 63405September 24, 2026
- US Military CorpNo. 64321September 24, 2026
- Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling SupportNo. 61612September 22, 2026