Raytheon Company
Raytheon Company challenged a contracting officer's demand for a price adjustment arising from a voluntary change in the actuarial asset valuation method for its CAS-covered pension plan. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Board held that the accounting change produced no increased cost to the Government in the aggregate and sustained the appeal.
Material Facts
- Raytheon maintained the Raytheon Salaried Plan for salaried employees and used the Long Range Yield Method to calculate the plan's actuarial value of assets from 1978 to 1 January 2004.
- Raytheon proposed changing the actuarial asset valuation method to the 5-Year Smoothed Market Value Method with Phase-In and proposed a change in the plan's funding method.
- The CACO approved the proposed accounting practice changes and initially determined that no cost or price adjustments were necessary because there was no increased cost in aggregate to the Government.
- Raytheon implemented the accounting practice changes on 1 January 2004.
- Contract 0020 was a negotiated cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for specified services in connection with the Patriot missile system.
- Contract 0197 was a negotiated firm fixed-price contract for various electronic parts and services.
- Both representative contracts were CAS-covered and included the FAR 52.230-2 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS clause.
- The accounting change affected all of Raytheon's CAS-covered contracts in force on 1 January 2004.
- The DCAA audit evaluated Raytheon's General Dollar Magnitude estimate for the cost impact of the accounting change.
- The CACO's final decision adopted the DCAA audit's conclusion that the accounting change resulted in an increased cost to the Government in the aggregate.
Parties
- Appellant
- Raytheon Company
- Contract Number
- DAAHO 1-03-C-0020; DAAHO 1-03-C-0 197
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
- 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
- Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile SystemsNo. 59435, 59436, 59437, 59438, 60056, 60057, 60058, 60059, 60060, 60061May 14, 2026
- Science Applications International CorporationNo. 63509May 27, 2025
- CACI International Inc.No. 63663May 6, 2025
- Northrop Grumman CorporationNo. 62165July 5, 2023
- Honeywell International, Inc.No. 63286June 7, 2023
- General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.No. 61633, 61731February 8, 2023