61775

Northrop Grumman Corporation

October 7, 2020Judge Prouty
Sustained / Appellant PrevailedCost Accounting Standards (CAS)Contract InterpretationCost Allowability / Allocability (FAR 31)Quantum / DamagesAuthority of Government AgentsStatute of Limitations / TimelinessDCAA InvolvedDCMA InvolvedCAS at Issue

Northrop Grumman Corporation appealed a contracting officer’s denial of its certified claim concerning the CAS treatment of a curtailed nonqualified pension plan. The Board sustained the appeal in whole, concluding that the mortality-table change was allowable and that the tax-related CAS noncompliance was not material, and remanded for calculation of the amount currently due.

Material Facts

  • Northrop Grumman’s OSERP was a defined-benefit, nonqualified pension plan for a small number of highly compensated employees.
  • The OSERP was curtailed effective December 31, 2014.
  • The OSERP’s costs were allocated to numerous government contracts that included FAR 52.215-15, FAR 52.230-2, and FAR 52.233-1.
  • Northrop Grumman allocated 81.93% of the OSERP to government contracts for which the CAS calculations applied.
  • Northrop Grumman used the RP-2014 mortality table for the curtailment calculation after previously using the RP-2000 table.
  • Northrop Grumman adopted the RP-2014 table as part of a company-wide move to use updated mortality information.
  • Northrop Grumman paid taxes on OSERP investment income before curtailment and did not receive reimbursement from the trust until after curtailment.
  • The OSERP trust reimbursed Northrop Grumman for the estimated tax amount on June 7, 2017.
  • DCAA issued an audit report asserting that Northrop Grumman’s reduction of projected investment income for taxes was noncompliant with CAS 412.
  • The contracting officer denied Northrop Grumman’s certified claim even though she determined that the government owed Northrop Grumman an amount.
  • The contracts at issue included cost-reimbursement contracts.

Parties

Appellant
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Respondent Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Contract Number
FA8620-13-D-3014 et al.
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.