The Boeing Company

Material Facts

• Boeing and the government were parties to numerous contracts.
• Boeing's Shared Services Group provided non-production goods and services to the corporation.
• Beginning in 2003, the Shared Services Group used a workforce-served base to allocate costs related to the procurement of non-production goods.
• DCAA issued an audit report concluding that the workforce-served allocation base was inconsistent with CAS 418.
• The DACO issued a final determination that the workforce-served allocation was not in compliance with CAS 418.
• The government requested a General Dollar Magnitude cost impact for every CAS-covered contract and subcontract.
• The contracting officer's final decision asserted a claim against Boeing resulting from the workforce-served allocation of costs.
• The final decision identified Contract Number F33657-02-D-0009 as a representative contract affected by the CAS noncompliance.
• The parties agreed that Boeing was not a party to Contract No. F33657-02-D-0009.
• Boeing had communicated with the government for years about the Shared Services Group's cost allocation and its impact upon Boeing's government contracts.
• Boeing did not deny that it was a party to Contract No. N00019-04-C-3146.

Parties

Appellant

The Boeing Company

Respondent Agency

Defense Contract Management Agency

Contract Number

F33657-02-D-0009