62596

Northrop Grumman Mission Systems

June 21, 2021Judge O'Connell
Denied / Government PrevailedCost Allowability / Allocability (FAR 31)Indirect Rates / Incurred CostQuantum / DamagesAccord & Satisfaction / Release / WaiverCDA JurisdictionDCAA InvolvedDCMA Involved

Northrop Grumman Mission Systems moved to dismiss the government's complaint concerning allegedly expressly unallowable BACN legal costs, penalties, and interest. The Board denied the motion as to counts one, three, and four, and deferred ruling on the motion concerning count two.

Material Facts

  • NGMS performed the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node contract for the Air Force.
  • Northrop Grumman disclosed that some NGMS employees may have mischarged portions of their time while working at an air base near Abu Dhabi.
  • Northrop Grumman engaged outside counsel to investigate certain OCONUS charging practices and billed the BACN legal costs to the government.
  • NGMS submitted final indirect cost proposals that were audited by DCAA.
  • NGMS later informed the government that it would treat the BACN legal costs as 100% unallowable and remove them from its cost proposals for 2012 to 2016.
  • Northrop Grumman and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California entered into a civil and criminal settlement.
  • The settlement addressed unallowable costs incurred in connection with the investigation, defense, and corrective actions, including attorney's fees, and provided for repayment and applicable interest and penalties.
  • The DACO determined that NGMS had included expressly unallowable legal costs related to the BACN criminal matter in its final indirect cost proposals.
  • The DACO assessed a penalty and interest based on the amount allocated to covered contracts and reimbursed through interim billings.

Parties

Appellant
Northrop Grumman Mission Systems
Respondent Agency
Defense Contract Management Agency
Contracting Agency
Air Force
Contract Number
W91QUZ-07-D-0005
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.