The Boeing Company
The Boeing Company sought summary judgment on whether two Air Force contracts permitted it to place certain marking legends on technical data delivered with unlimited government rights. The Board denied the motion, agreeing that the proposed legends were nonconforming while concluding that the contracts' protection of Boeing's property rights could not be resolved on the existing record.
Material Facts
- The Air Force awarded Boeing Delivery Order 0138 under Contract No. F33657-01-D-0026 for work under the F-15 Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System program.
- The Air Force awarded Boeing Contract No. FA8634-17-C-2650 for additional work under the EPAWSS program.
- The contracts incorporated the 1995 and 2014 versions of DFARS 252.227-7013.
- Both contracts required Boeing to deliver technical data with unlimited government rights.
- Boeing retained ownership of the data.
- Boeing submitted more than 50 technical data deliverables according to its complaint.
- The government rejected or disapproved the deliverables because it contended that Boeing's marking legends were nonconforming.
- The contracting officer directed Boeing to remove the legends at its own expense and resubmit the data.
- Boeing's proposed legends included proprietary, third-party-disclosure, and copyright language.
- The contracting officer concluded that the only authorized legends were those identified in DFARS 252.227-7013(f).
Parties
- Appellant
- The Boeing Company
- Respondent Agency
- Air Force
- Contracting Agency
- Air Force
- Contract Number
- F33657-01-D-0026; FA8634-17-C-2650
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
- AT&T Corp.No. 61868December 21, 2018
- Gilbane Federal Joint VentureNo. 61590December 21, 2018
- WIT Associates, Inc.No. 61547December 19, 2018
- Avis Industries, Inc.No. 61609December 19, 2018
- Tetra Tech Tesoro, Inc.No. 61209, 61210, 61211, 61212 61213, 61214December 19, 2018
- J.F. Brennan Co., Inc.No. 60737December 19, 2018
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