The Boeing Company
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
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
- HECO Pacific Manufacturing, Inc.No. 63217, 64512September 1, 2026
- Erik Robinson d/b/a The Artwork FactoryNo. 63727, 63809August 19, 2026
- ACC Construction Co., Inc.No. 63528, 64067July 16, 2026
- Gibraltar-Caddell, a Joint VentureNo. 64379July 13, 2026
- Akima Range Readiness Operations, LLCNo. 64012-ADRJune 4, 2026
- Envistacom, LLCNo. 63796May 13, 2026
Same Year
- Gray Personnel, Inc.No. 54652, 55833December 31, 2012
- ECC, InternationalNo. 55781December 28, 2012
- DODS, Inc.December 18, 2012
- Raytheon CompanyNo. 57576, 57679December 17, 2012
- TMS Envirocon, Inc.December 12, 2012
- The Public Warehousing CompanyDecember 3, 2012
Same Issue
- Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling SupportNo. 61612September 22, 2026
- Wild Hare Haulers, LLCNo. 64596, 64597, 64598September 15, 2026
- Hensel Phelps Construction CompanyNo. 64327September 14, 2026
- Bahadir Construction Engineering Contracting & Trading Inc. Co. and Impreza Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro S.p. A Joint VentureNo. 64038, 64336, 64428September 9, 2026
- VAE, Inc.No. 64437, 64464, 64465September 9, 2026
- Dubai Pearl CompanyNo. 64444August 26, 2026