AeroVironment, Inc.

Material Facts

• The government claims concerned AeroVironment's FY 06 final incurred cost proposal.
• The contracting officer's final decisions adopted conclusions from a DCAA audit report.
• The contracting officer's decisions used a methodology for computing the executive-compensation cap that neither party disputed at the time.
• The government's proposed amendment relied on a proration methodology developed by DCAA's Mid-Atlantic Region Compensation Team.
• The DCAA auditor rejected the proration methodology because AeroVironment's fiscal year was not aligned with the calendar year.
• The contracting officer's final decision did not mention the proration methodology.
• The proposed amendment would have increased the executive-compensation amount and the associated penalty asserted by the government.
• The parties executed partial settlement agreements resolving the government's tax-penalty claim and reserving certain executive-compensation and penalty issues.
• AeroVironment paid the full penalty demanded by the contracting officer, together with associated interest.
• The government did not issue a superseding contracting officer's decision asserting the revised methodology before seeking to amend its answers.

Parties

Appellant

AeroVironment, Inc.

Respondent Agency

Defense Contract Management Agency

Contracting Agency

Defense Contract Management Agency

Contract Number

W58RGZ-05-C-0338