61274

DynCorp International LLC

March 20, 2018Judge Sweet
OtherContract Changes / Constructive ChangesMistake / Reformation

DynCorp International LLC appealed the deemed denial of a request for an equitable adjustment concerning allegedly inaccurate aircraft-parts consumption data used to develop site-specific pricing. The Board denied the Government's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that collateral estoppel did not apply because the issue in the appeal was not identical to the completeness issue decided in DynCorp I.

Material Facts

  • The T-6A/B aircraft was used by the United States Air Force and the United States Navy for pilot training and was stationed at multiple sites.
  • The 6208 RFP included 3XXX CLINs for maintenance, repairs, overhauls, and replenishments or replacements of T-6A/B aircraft at various sites.
  • The Government stated that it would pay on a fixed-rate cost per flight hour basis for a variable number of flight hours.
  • Offerors required historical aircraft-parts and component-consumption information to propose site-specific cost-per-flight-hour prices.
  • The USAF provided historical consumption data in the bidder's library.
  • DynCorp alleges that parts for T-6B aircraft from Whiting Field were incorrectly coded as issued from Pensacola during the first quarter of 2010.
  • DynCorp alleges that its Whiting Field pricing was lower than it would have been if the correct consumption data had been provided.
  • DynCorp's complaint alleged a constructive change based on inaccurate consumption data and sought reformation based on mutual mistake regarding the accuracy of that data.
  • DynCorp I involved another appeal arising out of the COMBS contract and addressed the completeness of the consumption data.

Parties

Appellant
DynCorp International LLC
Respondent Agency
United States Air Force
Contracting Agency
United States Air Force
Contract Number
FA8617-12-C-6208
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.