Supreme Foodservice GmbH

April 12, 2024Judge O'Connell

Denied / Government PrevailedDefective Pricing / TINACDA JurisdictionDCAA Involved

Supreme Foodservice GmbH appealed a decision regarding the government's claim for restitution due to alleged bid rigging by a former employee. The Board denied the appellant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Material Facts

The contract has been the subject of extensive litigation between the parties, including 47 appeals dating back to December 2011.
In 2019, the Board conducted a one-month hearing on Supreme’s claims related to Premium Outbound Transportation.
The contract was a June 3, 2005, commercial items contract to furnish and deliver food in Afghanistan.
DLA paid Supreme based on a Unit Price that had two components: the Delivered Price and the Distribution Fee.
The contract allowed Supreme to change the prices once every two weeks.
On February 9, 2006, DLA required Supreme to submit a valid manufacturer’s invoice for any item that increased or decreased in delivered price by specified percentages.
Supreme disclosed an apparent scheme by a former purchasing manager to corrupt the Company’s competition for supply of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.
Supreme offered DLA restitution of $1.566 million.
DLA requested assistance from the Defense Contract Audit Agency, which issued a report challenging several of EY’s assumptions and calculated an audit adjusted amount of $4,984,096.
On October 14, 2015, CO Lourdes Valentin issued a final decision demanding $4,984,096 from Supreme.

Parties

Appellant: Supreme Foodservice GmbH
Respondent Agency: DLA Troop Support
Contract Number: SPM300-05-D-3130

Open Official Decision PDF (asbca.mil)AI-analyzed, grounded in the decision text. Verify against the official PDF before relying on it.

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.