Northrop Grumman Corporation
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
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
- Kearfott CorporationNo. 64328October 1, 2026
- Relyant Global, LLCNo. 64606October 1, 2026
- Relyant Global, LLCNo. 64651October 1, 2026
- GiaMed Alliance JV, LLCNo. 64484September 29, 2026
- DCS CorporationNo. 64648September 22, 2026
- Wild Hare Haulers, LLCNo. 64596, 64597, 64598September 15, 2026
Same Year
- Cellular Materials International, Inc.No. 61408December 27, 2021
- Meltech Corporation, Inc.No. 61706, 61768December 17, 2021
- Telos CorporationNo. 62950December 16, 2021
- General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.No. 62180-ADRDecember 13, 2021
- Adjuvant/Capital, LLCNo. 62760December 13, 2021
- Veteran Facility Services, LLCNo. 61855, 61983, 62386December 9, 2021
Same Issue
- Africa Transport Logistics CompanyNo. 64120October 1, 2026
- Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling SupportNo. 61612September 22, 2026
- U.S. Aeroteam, Inc.No. 61972, 61973August 6, 2026
- Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile SystemsNo. 59435, 59436, 59437, 59438, 60056, 60057, 60058, 60059, 60060, 60061May 14, 2026
- IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.No. 62638, 63879May 6, 2026
- CACI International, Inc.No. 63663March 10, 2026