57625

Northrop Grumman Corporation

January 16, 2014Judge Delman
Denied / Government PrevailedCost Allowability / Allocability (FAR 31)Contract InterpretationQuantum / DamagesDCAA InvolvedDCMA Involved

Northrop Grumman Corporation challenged the government's disallowance of unfunded post-retirement benefit costs under FAR 31.205-6(o). The Board held that the costs were unallowable because NGC used the DEFRA method rather than measuring and assigning the costs under GAAP/FAS 106, denied the appeal, and remanded to determine quantum.

Material Facts

  • NGC used an accrual cost method under FAS 106 for financial reporting.
  • NGC used DEFRA to measure, assign, and fund the Plan's post-retirement benefit costs for government contract purposes from 1995 through 2006.
  • FAR 31.205-6(o) required accrual-basis post-retirement benefit costs to be measured and assigned according to GAAP and to be timely funded.
  • NGC disclosed its use of DEFRA in its CAS Part VII disclosure statements.
  • In 2006, NGC sought an advance agreement concerning its continued use of DEFRA or its conversion to FAS 106, and the government declined both proposals.
  • NGC formally notified the government of its switch from DEFRA to FAS 106 in November 2006.
  • DCAA issued a report concluding that unfunded FAS 106 costs were unallowable in future accounting periods.
  • The test contract was a cost-type contract containing FAR 52.216-7, ALLOWABLE COST AND PAYMENT (DEC 2002).
  • The government did not question the lesser-funded DEFRA amounts that NGC funded each year before 2007.
  • NGC's 2006 Plan amendments capped future health care cost increases.
  • The parties did not address quantum in detail during the entitlement proceeding.

Parties

Appellant
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Respondent Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Contracting Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Contract Number
N68936-05-C-0059
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.