Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. appealed a contracting officer's final decision concerning the allowability of subcontractor Defense Base Act insurance costs and moved to require the government to file the complaint. The Board granted the motion because the final decision and audit report did not articulate the basis for treating the incurred costs as unallowable.
Material Facts
- The LOGCAP Support Contract was awarded to KBR, then known as Brown & Root Services, on 14 December 2001.
- The contract required KBR to provide workers' compensation insurance for its employees and to flow down that requirement to subcontractors.
- KBR provided DBA insurance for subcontractors because insurance might not be easily accessible in the areas where the contract work was performed.
- Subcontractor DBA premiums were based on estimated payroll, and KBR did not reimburse itself through subcontractor billings for those premiums.
- KBR's FY 2007 incurred cost proposal included subcontractor DBA insurance premiums.
- DCAA's audit stated that KBR did not true up subcontractor DBA insurance costs based on actual subcontractor labor and questioned the costs using a 43 percent decrement.
- The audit also stated that DCAA verified invoices, installment payments, competitive quotes, and valid insurance policies, and that the premium was reasonable.
- The ACO's final decision stated that the billed cost was not based on actual subcontractor labor incurred during FY 2007.
- The final decision referenced and relied upon the DCAA audit report and KBR's response.
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
- ECC International, LLCNo. 58993, 60167, 60283February 24, 2022
- ECC International, LLCNo. 60167January 25, 2022
- General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.No. 62180-ADRDecember 13, 2021
- Sungjee Construction Co., Ltd.No. 62002, 62170March 23, 2021
- General AtomicsNo. 61495January 5, 2021
- Engility LLCNo. 61281August 11, 2020
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
- 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