6250562506

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

June 24, 2021Judge Prouty
DismissedContract InterpretationCDA Jurisdiction

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company directly appealed the Air Force contracting officer's unilateral definitization of two undefinitized contract actions. The majority held that unilateral definitization is not a government claim subject to direct appeal and dismissed the consolidated appeals for lack of jurisdiction because Lockheed Martin had not first submitted claims to the contracting officer.

Material Facts

  • The Air Force contracted with Lockheed Martin to upgrade F-16 fighter aircraft for two foreign governments under the Foreign Military Sales program.
  • The two contracts were undefinitized contract actions awarded before the final prices were set.
  • The contracts permitted Lockheed Martin to charge the government for costs incurred during performance before definitization and included not-to-exceed amounts.
  • The contracts contained definitization provisions requiring the contracting officer, with approval, to determine a reasonable price if the parties could not agree.
  • The contracts included the FAR 52.233-1 Disputes clause.
  • The parties were unable to agree on the contract prices after several years of negotiations.
  • On February 12, 2020, the contracting officer issued modifications unilaterally setting the prices for both contracts.
  • At the time Lockheed Martin filed its appeals, both contracts allegedly had more than a year of performance remaining and its costs had not exceeded the prices unilaterally set by the contracting officer.

Parties

Appellant
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Respondent Agency
Air Force
Contracting Agency
Air Force
Contract Number
FA8615-16-C-6048; FA8615-17-C-6045
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.