Fluor Intercontinental, Inc.
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
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
- Korte Construction CompanyNo. 63539, 63540September 30, 2026
- Dubai Pearl CompanyNo. 64444August 26, 2026
- U.S. Aeroteam, Inc.No. 61972, 61973August 6, 2026
- J. Star Enterprises, Inc.No. 63627, 63647, 63656, 63657, 63658June 10, 2026
- J. Star Enterprises, Inc.No. 63603June 9, 2026
- Vectrus Systems CorporationNo. 63420May 11, 2026
Same Year
- Columbia State Bank f/k/a Castle-Rose, Inc.No. 59531December 28, 2017
- Fluor Federal Solutions, LLCNo. 61431-983December 28, 2017
- Goodwill Services, Inc.No. 61439December 27, 2017
- Suffolk Construction Company, Inc.No. 60990December 27, 2017
- Parsons Government Services, Inc.No. 60218December 21, 2017
- Parsons Government Services, Inc.No. 60221December 21, 2017
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