Vectrus Systems Corporation
Vectrus Systems Corporation sought additional fixed fee under a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort task order after the Navy ordered fewer labor hours than estimated. The Board held that the contract required payment based on actual hours performed and denied both appeals.
Material Facts
- The FSET II contract was an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract that permitted cost-plus-fixed-fee task orders.
- The task order was a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort term contract for technical systems engineering support services.
- The solicitation stated that actual contract performance could vary from the estimated labor hours and that the Government could not guarantee the estimated hours.
- The task order estimated 333,962 labor hours for each performance period.
- The task order specified fixed fees and fee-per-direct-labor-hour rates for the base period and option periods.
- The task order provided that fixed fee would be paid for each direct labor hour performed by Vectrus or a subcontractor, subject to an 85 percent hold-back until final payment.
- Clause SEA 5252.216-9122(g) addressed the circumstance in which the total specified level of effort was not provided and authorized a proportional fee reduction or continued performance without an increase in fee.
- The Navy ordered 234,140 labor hours for the base period and 220,077 labor hours for option year 1.
- Vectrus prepared a reduced-hours rough order of magnitude using the same methodology and percentages used for its original lump-sum fee.
- Vectrus’s claims sought the difference between the fixed fee associated with the full estimated hours and the fee actually paid for the base period and option year 1.
Parties
- Appellant
- Vectrus Systems Corporation
- Respondent Agency
- Navy
- Contracting Agency
- Navy
- Contract Number
- N00178-15-D-8477
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
- Arctic Swan Construction Inc.No. 64085September 22, 2026
- WSP USA Solutions Inc.No. 62674September 1, 2026
- Jaxon Construction, Inc.No. 64432June 24, 2026
- Arctic Swan Construction Inc.No. 63510, 64085June 16, 2026
- Eleven Bravo Group, LLCNo. 63932April 8, 2026
- Penna Group, LLCNo. 61708-ADR, 61641-ADR, 61642-ADRFebruary 20, 2026
Same Year
- Globe Trailer Manufacturing, Inc.No. 60979December 30, 2025
- Kallidus TechnologiesNo. 61377, 61976December 18, 2025
- Warfighter Defense, Inc.No. 63908, 63909December 11, 2025
- Targe Logistic Services CompanyNo. 63282December 10, 2025
- K2 Solutions, Inc.No. 62768December 9, 2025
- Paragon Defense Solutions, Inc.No. 64307December 8, 2025
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