60729

Fluor Intercontinental, Inc.

May 3, 2017Judge O'Connell
Sustained / Appellant PrevailedContract Interpretation

The government sought summary judgment on whether Modification No. 60 fixed the fee for the third and fourth option years of Fluor Intercontinental, Inc.'s task order at 5.87 percent and requested remand of the subsequent extension period for fee negotiations. The Board denied the motion, holding that the contract language could not be interpreted on summary judgment without further development of the record.

Material Facts

  • The Army awarded Fluor task order 5 in early 2009 to provide a menu of services in Afghanistan on a cost-plus-award-fee basis.
  • The task order included a base year and four option years, all of which the Army exercised, followed by an additional 12-month extension.
  • The Army issued requests for proposals for the option years because the work was evolving and costs could exceed the established matrix-pricing baseline.
  • Modification No. 60 stated that it converted the task order retroactively to a cost-plus-fixed-fee type task order beginning 1 July 2012, with a single negotiated fixed fee of 5.87 percent.
  • When Modification No. 60 was executed, the Army had not issued requests for proposals for the third and fourth option years.
  • Fluor submitted a proposal for the third option year that included a fixed fee of 7.5 percent.
  • The Army exercised the third option year and later executed Modification No. 81 for the fourth option year, using a 5.87 percent fixed fee.
  • The Army also used a 5.87 percent fixed fee for the 12-month extension after the fourth option year.
  • A 19 December 2012 email from a senior Army official described an agreement to convert option year two to cost-plus-fixed-fee status with a total fee of 5.87 percent and did not mention negotiations concerning the third or fourth option years.

Parties

Appellant
Fluor Intercontinental, Inc.
Respondent Agency
Army
Contracting Agency
Army
Contract Number
W52PIJ-07-D-0008
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.

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

Same Year

Same Issue

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.