Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. moved to amend the Board's prior judgment to recognize an alleged offset based on amounts it asserted the government owed for incurred costs. The Board denied the motion because the requested amendment was unsupported by the record and there was no probative, undisputed evidence that the judgment had been satisfied.
Material Facts
- KBR performed dining facility services in Iraq under Contract No. DAAA09-02-D-0007.
- The prior post-hearing decision concerned costs KBR incurred after failing to follow government direction to reduce a site headcount.
- KBR sought to amend the prior judgment to account for an alleged offset based on incurred costs owed by the government.
- KBR submitted declarations from Scott Booth, a project manager, in support of its financial claims.
- The PCO stated that KBR had submitted a contract-closeout proposal containing legal costs and that the government had not yet made allowability determinations.
- The PCO stated that undisputed amounts owed to KBR should be paid through the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and the routine invoicing process.
- KBR's supplemental declaration stated that the costs identified by Booth were included in the contract-closeout proposal.
- Booth declared that the Defense Contract Audit Agency had audited about half of the costs and found them allowable.
Parties
- Appellant
- Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.
- Respondent Agency
- Defense Contract Management Agency
- Contract Number
- DAAA09-02-D-0007
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
- Pratt & Whitney, a division of Raytheon Technologies CompanyNo. 59222November 22, 2021
- Raytheon CompanyNo. 58212, 58753June 14, 2021
- Raytheon CompanyNo. 58841June 14, 2021
- Raytheon CompanyNo. 58842June 14, 2021
- Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile SystemsNo. 59439, 59440, 59441June 14, 2021
- Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile SystemsNo. 60699June 14, 2021
Same Year
- AT&T Corp.No. 61868December 21, 2018
- Gilbane Federal Joint VentureNo. 61590December 21, 2018
- WIT Associates, Inc.No. 61547December 19, 2018
- Avis Industries, Inc.No. 61609December 19, 2018
- Tetra Tech Tesoro, Inc.No. 61209, 61210, 61211, 61212 61213, 61214December 19, 2018
- J.F. Brennan Co., Inc.No. 60737December 19, 2018
Same Issue
- Africa Transport Logistics CompanyNo. 64120October 1, 2026
- Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling SupportNo. 61612September 22, 2026
- U.S. Aeroteam, Inc.No. 61972, 61973August 6, 2026
- Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile SystemsNo. 59435, 59436, 59437, 59438, 60056, 60057, 60058, 60059, 60060, 60061May 14, 2026
- IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.No. 62638, 63879May 6, 2026
- CACI International, Inc.No. 63663March 10, 2026