Northrop Grumman Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation sought reconsideration of the Board's quantum decision concerning the government's disallowance of post-retirement benefit costs associated with NGC's transition from the DEFRA methodology to the FAS 106 methodology. The Board affirmed the quantum decision, concluding that the entitlement decisions did not resolve the quantum issues and that the government had not proved any excess costs were claimed or paid.
Material Facts
- NGC used the DEFRA PRB cost accrual methodology during the pre-transition years.
- The entitlement decisions concluded that NGC failed to comply with the FAS 106 PRB cost accrual methodology in the pre-transition years.
- The quantum decision addressed the monetary consequences of that noncompliance.
- NGC executed a negative PRB Plan amendment in 2006.
- The pre-transition incurred-cost and forward-pricing proposals did not contain the disputed disallowed amount.
- The government did not pay the disputed excess PRB costs.
- The entitlement decisions remanded the quantum consequences and required development of a record concerning the transition obligation.
- The quantum record included expert testimony concerning the effect of the 2006 Plan amendment on the transition obligation.
Parties
- Appellant
- Northrop Grumman Corporation
- Respondent Agency
- Defense Contract Management Agency
- Contract Number
- N68936-05-C-0059
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
- John C. Grimberg Co., Inc.No. 58791, 59717January 2, 2019
- John C. Grimberg Co., Inc.No. 58791, 59167, 59168, 59169, 59170, 59171, 59717October 25, 2018
- CANVS CorporationNo. 57784, 57987September 6, 2018
- K&K Industries, Inc.No. 61189September 5, 2018
- Nelson, Inc.No. 57201, 58166November 8, 2017
- Nelson, Inc.No. 61133, 61229November 8, 2017
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