The Boeing Company
The Department of the Army moved for reconsideration of the Board’s prior summary-judgment decision holding that software developed with costs charged to a Technology Investment Agreement constituted software developed exclusively at private expense. The Board denied reconsideration, concluding that the Army presented new or previously rejected arguments and identified no mistake affecting the outcome.
Material Facts
- The appeal involved The Boeing Company under Contract No. W58RGZ-09-C-0161.
- The software was developed with costs charged to a Technology Investment Agreement pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2358.
- The contract incorporated FAR 52.202-1.
- The Technology Investment Agreements at issue stated that they were not procurement contracts.
- The Board’s prior decision granted summary judgment in favor of Boeing.
- The Army’s reconsideration motion asserted three alleged legal errors concerning deference, the meaning of costs not allocated to a government contract, and the Board’s treatment of case law.
- The 2010 regulatory language relied upon by the Army was proposed but unadopted.
Parties
- Appellant
- The Boeing Company
- Respondent Agency
- Department of the Army
- Contract Number
- W58RGZ-09-C-0161
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
- Bahadir Construction Engineering Contracting & Trading Inc. Co. and Impreza Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro S.p. A Joint VentureNo. 64038, 64336, 64428September 9, 2026
- Elbit Systems of America-Night Vision, LLCNo. 64450August 11, 2026
- Globe Trailer Manufacturing, Inc.No. 60979-EAJAJuly 30, 2026
- Bahadir Construction Engineering Contracting & Trading Inc. Co. and Impreza Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro S.p.A Joint VentureNo. 64038, 64336, 64428July 16, 2026
- Filanc-Orion, JVNo. 63730, 6388, 63928, 63979July 1, 2026
- IVA'AL Solutions, LLCNo. 63430June 4, 2026
Same Year
- Sweet Star Logistic ServiceNo. 62082December 29, 2020
- Nan, Inc.No. 61472, 61482, 61500, 61509, 61514, 61523, 61555, 61569, 61705, 61726, 61727, 61728, 61821, 61822, 61823, 61963December 18, 2020
- Asahi General Trading & Cont. Co. W.L.L.No. 62445December 18, 2020
- Kautaq Construction Services, LLCNo. 62462-ADRDecember 18, 2020
- MAC Electric Inc.No. 62503December 18, 2020
- Parsons Government Services, Inc.No. 62112December 17, 2020
Same Issue
- Africa Transport Logistics CompanyNo. 64120October 1, 2026
- Huffman Construction, LLCNo. 62591, 62783September 30, 2026
- Martin Brothers ConstructionNo. 63196, 63431September 30, 2026
- Vigor Marine, LLCNo. 63405September 24, 2026
- US Military CorpNo. 64321September 24, 2026
- Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling SupportNo. 61612September 22, 2026