6224962727

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

December 9, 2022Judge Witwer
Denied / Government PrevailedContract InterpretationCDA JurisdictionDCAA InvolvedDCMA Involved

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company appealed a contracting officer’s determination that the Navy was entitled to government purpose rights in nine items of noncommercial F-35 verification simulation software. The Board denied the Navy’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Lockheed presented a genuine dispute concerning whether the software was developed and that the Navy had not shown entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Material Facts

  • The Navy awarded Contract No. N00019-02-C-3002 to Lockheed for development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Air System.
  • The contract identified verification by modeling and simulation, and the dispute concerns nine items of noncommercial verification simulation software.
  • At contract award, Lockheed was not required to deliver any portion of the verification simulation software.
  • The contract incorporated DFARS 252.227-7014 and DFARS 252.227-7019, and the parties later added the H-40 clause for the nine software items.
  • The H-40 clause premised the negotiated license rights on Lockheed’s assertion that the software was developed exclusively at private expense and required records sufficient to justify that assertion.
  • The Navy initiated a challenge to Lockheed’s assertion in May 2018 and designated DCAA as the lead audit agency.
  • DCAA reported that it was unable to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to form an opinion on whether development was accomplished exclusively at private expense.
  • Lockheed submitted declarations from software engineers, project leads, and system architects describing testing and analysis of the disputed software.
  • The declarations included descriptions of unit testing and additional testing intended to confirm that software would perform as intended.
  • The contracting officer concluded that Lockheed had failed to justify its asserted restrictions and that the Navy was entitled to government purpose rights.

Parties

Appellant
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Respondent Agency
Department of the Navy
Contracting Agency
Department of the Navy
Contract Number
N00019-02-C-3002
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.