62189

Northrop Grumman Corporation

April 13, 2021Judge Wilson
DismissedCost Allowability / Allocability (FAR 31)Contract InterpretationCDA JurisdictionDCMA Involved

The ASBCA considered whether it had jurisdiction over Northrop Grumman Corporation's appeal concerning the allowability of litigation-settlement costs. The Board held that neither Northrop's letter nor DCMA's responsive letter established a proper government claim and contracting officer's final decision, and it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Material Facts

  • A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the parties reached a settlement approved by the court.
  • Northrop informed DCMA that it believed the litigation and settlement costs were allowable and planned to claim them in forward pricing rates and incurred costs submissions.
  • DCMA stated that the settlement costs were expenditures in connection with mergers and acquisitions and raising capital and that costs connected with defending or settling the lawsuit were unallowable as directly associated costs.
  • DCMA directed Northrop to exclude the costs from its 2019-2023 Sector Home Office Allocation Submission and from billing, claims, or proposals applicable to a government contract.
  • DCMA's letter did not advise Northrop that it was a final decision or notify Northrop of appeal rights under the applicable FAR provisions.
  • Northrop filed a notice of appeal asserting that DCMA's letter was a final decision asserting a government claim concerning the unallowability of costs incurred defending and settling the litigation.

Parties

Appellant
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Respondent Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Contracting Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Contract Number
NNM07AA75C
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.