Raytheon Missile Systems Company
In the quantum phase of Raytheon Missile Systems Company's appeal, the Board determined the damages attributable to the government's increase in the price of JP-10 fuel. The Board awarded Raytheon the proven fuel-cost differential, plus CDA interest, while rejecting a markup request.
Material Facts
- The missiles under Contract 0569 were delivered to the Navy fully fueled.
- Raytheon contended that it loaded approximately 128 gallons of fuel into each missile.
- The Navy's calculations produced a mean of 126.3036 gallons per missile.
- Raytheon submitted fuel invoices at the higher price and a listing of missiles and DD 250 acceptance dates.
- The missile listing identified 1,762 missiles delivered between 1 October 2006 and 29 September 2010.
- The first invoice for fuel at the higher price was dated 29 November 2006.
- The first missile accepted after that invoice was missile number 19, accepted on 1 December 2006.
- The first missile accepted in January 2007 was missile number 65.
- The Navy did not audit Raytheon's Statement of Costs.
- The government's identified documents did not expressly identify losses attributable only to commodities other than JP-10.
Parties
- Appellant
- Raytheon Missile Systems Company
- Respondent Agency
- Navy
- Contracting Agency
- Navy
- Contract Number
- N00019-04-C-0569
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
- Metal Trades, Inc.No. 62966November 2, 2021
- Powertronic Systems Florida, Inc.No. 62174October 19, 2021
- Huffman Construction, LLCNo. 62591, 62783August 5, 2021
- U.S. Pan American Solutions, LLCNo. 62629August 5, 2021
- URS Federal Support Services, Inc.No. 59998-QUANAugust 3, 2021
- G&S Carpet Mills, Inc.No. 62799June 25, 2021
Same Year
- Lawn Legends LLCNo. 59078December 30, 2015
- Soluciones Especializadas de Transporte S.A.No. 58579December 29, 2015
- First Transit, Inc.No. 59700December 22, 2015
- Xerox CorporationNo. 60117December 22, 2015
- EMTA Insaat A.S.No. 60031December 18, 2015
- Soap Creek Marina, LLCNo. 59445December 18, 2015
Same Issue
- Africa Transport Logistics CompanyNo. 64120October 1, 2026
- Huffman Construction, LLCNo. 62591, 62783September 30, 2026
- Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling SupportNo. 61612September 22, 2026
- DCS CorporationNo. 64648September 22, 2026
- VAE, Inc.No. 64437, 64464, 64465September 9, 2026
- Hensel Phelps Construction Co.No. 63316, 63397, 63398August 28, 2026