URS Federal Support Services, Inc.
URS Federal Support Services, Inc. moved for entry of judgment following an earlier decision sustaining its appeal in part and remanding the matter for negotiation of the price of a contract change. The Board granted the motion in a reduced amount after holding that URS failed to provide actual cost data and therefore failed to establish any reduction or elimination of the Air Force's offset.
Material Facts
- The Air Force contract covered aircraft maintenance services at various locations in the United States.
- The contract specified the number and skills of personnel required to perform the maintenance.
- The Air Force moved five full-time-equivalent aircraft mechanics from Ft. Knox, Kentucky, and Kingsville, Texas, to Ft. Hood, Texas.
- The personnel transfer increased costs at Ft. Hood and decreased costs at Ft. Knox and Kingsville.
- The Air Force used URS's pricing sheets to estimate the savings resulting from the personnel reductions.
- URS did not produce or explain its actual costs of performance at Ft. Knox and Kingsville.
- Neither party presented the details of its calculations concerning the value of the Ft. Hood change.
Parties
- Appellant
- URS Federal Support Services, Inc.
- Respondent Agency
- Air Force
- Contracting Agency
- Air Force
- Contract Number
- FA8108-09-D-0006
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
- G&S Carpet Mills, Inc.No. 62799June 25, 2021
- Quality Trust, Inc.No. 62576June 2, 2021
Same Year
- Cellular Materials International, Inc.No. 61408December 27, 2021
- Meltech Corporation, Inc.No. 61706, 61768December 17, 2021
- Telos CorporationNo. 62950December 16, 2021
- General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.No. 62180-ADRDecember 13, 2021
- Adjuvant/Capital, LLCNo. 62760December 13, 2021
- Veteran Facility Services, LLCNo. 61855, 61983, 62386December 9, 2021
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