Raytheon Company

Material Facts

• The government responded to Interrogatory No. 12 by identifying two audit reports concerning Raytheon Corporate's compliance with CAS 405 between January 1, 2002 and September 1, 2005.
• The government's supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 23 identified factors considered by the contracting officers in deciding whether to waive penalties but stated that the response was not necessarily an exclusive list of all possible bases supporting the denial of a waiver.
• CACO Dowd testified during his deposition that he considered outstanding CAS 405 noncompliances and other CAS noncompliances in deciding whether to waive penalties.
• Rodger Christiansen testified that a subsequent CAS 405 noncompliance was one factor considered in assessing the penalty and identified another CAS 405 matter concerning incentive compensation.
• The government identified eight DCAA audit reports in a later supplemental response, and those reports did not include the two audit reports at issue in Raytheon's motion to strike.
• The government stated that CACO Dowd had considered Raytheon's recurring inclusion of other expressly unallowable costs in its proposals.
• CACO Dowd testified at the hearing that he considered CAS 405 noncompliances concerning dividend equivalents and incentive compensation.
• Raytheon's motion to strike sought exclusion of specified hearing testimony and exhibits, including testimony by CACO Dowd and expert Darrell Oyer.
• The government's motion to strike concerned excerpts from sealed materials in an unrelated Court of Federal Claims proceeding.

Parties

Appellant

Raytheon Company

Respondent Agency

Defense Contract Management Agency

Contract Number

N00024-04-C-6101