54853

The Boeing Company

May 15, 2012Judge Younger
OtherContract InterpretationDCMA Involved

The Boeing Company appealed a contracting officer's denial of a sponsored claim seeking indemnification for environmental response and remediation costs and toxic-tort litigation costs arising from Lockheed's SRAM propulsion work. On cross-motions for summary judgment concerning laches and contractual notice, and on Boeing's motion to strike, the Board denied all motions because material factual disputes remained.

Material Facts

  • The Air Force awarded Boeing five SRAM development and production contracts between 1966 and 1973.
  • Boeing awarded Lockheed a development subcontract and four production subcontracts for the SRAM propulsion system.
  • The prime contracts and subcontracts contained indemnification provisions concerning unusually hazardous risks, together with notice and insurance provisions.
  • Lockheed performed at least part of the subcontract work at its Redlands, California facility.
  • TCE and ammonium perchlorate were associated with contamination and pollution at or near the Redlands facility.
  • The Water Board issued cleanup and abatement orders concerning the Redlands facility and required remedial measures.
  • Third-party environmental and toxic-tort litigation followed, including the Carrillo and Acklin actions and a state CERCLA action.
  • Lockheed sent Boeing a written indemnification demand dated 23 May 1997.
  • Boeing's counsel stated in January 1998 that Boeing intended to inform its government customer, but Boeing did not thereafter inform the government of Lockheed's demand.
  • Lockheed's outside counsel sent an indemnification request to an Air Force attorney dated 29 March 2000.
  • Boeing submitted the sponsored claim to the contracting officer on 6 February 2004.
  • The record included evidence of deceased witnesses, destroyed documents, and diminished recollections concerning contract formation and the environmental events.

Parties

Appellant
The Boeing Company
Respondent Agency
Air Force
Contracting Agency
Air Force
Contract Number
AF33(657)-16584
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.