Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
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
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
- KBR Services, LLCNo. 63870, 63956August 24, 2026
- AeroKool Aviation CorporationNo. 64377August 24, 2026
- Kropp Holdings, Inc.No. 64523August 24, 2026
- BFBC, LLCNo. 64509August 18, 2026
- Mvation Worldwide Inc.No. 64633August 18, 2026
- Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc.No. 64438July 30, 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
- Huffman Construction, LLCNo. 62591, 62783September 30, 2026
- Martin Brothers ConstructionNo. 63196, 63431September 30, 2026
- Vigor Marine, LLCNo. 63405September 24, 2026
- US Military CorpNo. 64321September 24, 2026
- Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling SupportNo. 61612September 22, 2026