57490

The Boeing Company

January 6, 2012Judge Melnick
DismissedCDA JurisdictionStatute of Limitations / TimelinessAccord & Satisfaction / Release / WaiverDCAA InvolvedDCMA Involved

The Boeing Company challenged a government claim arising from a voluntary accounting-system change, asserting that the claim was submitted more than six years after accrual. The Board held that the claim was untimely and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Material Facts

  • Boeing submitted a Cost Accounting Standards Disclosure Statement on 31 October 2000 notifying DCMA of revised accounting practices for 2001 and later years.
  • The revised accounting practices became effective on 1 January 2001.
  • Boeing submitted an analysis of the accounting change's cost impact on Department of Defense contracts.
  • DCAA audited the analysis and issued its final audit report to DCMA on 14 June 2002.
  • The audit report stated that substantially all of the increased government costs occurred in 2001.
  • On 17 September 2003, the contracting officer determined that the accounting change was not desirable to the government and proposed a cost adjustment.
  • The 17 September 2003 letter invited Boeing to reach agreement and stated that the contracting officer was prepared to make a unilateral determination if agreement could not be reached.
  • Boeing disputed the government's conclusions and continued discussions concerning the accounting revision costs through 2010.
  • The government issued its final decision on 25 October 2010, allocating the alleged costs between Chinook foreign military sales contracts and V-22 spare-parts contracts.
  • Boeing appealed the final decision on 21 January 2011.

Parties

Appellant
The Boeing Company
Respondent Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Contracting Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Contract Number
N00383-97-G-002N; DAAH23-00-C-0044
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.