BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P.
BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P. contested the government's motion to strike its affirmative defense of laches in response to defective pricing claims. The Board granted the government's motion, ruling that laches is not a viable defense in CDA claims due to the existence of a statutory limitation.
Material Facts
- The Army entered into a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) with BAE Systems on March 31, 2005.
- Delivery Order No. 0009 was awarded to BAE Systems on July 26, 2006, for $192,628,556.
- Modification No. 05 to Delivery Order No. 0009 was issued on July 12, 2007, for $404,307,844.
- BAE Systems submitted a giveback proposal for Delivery Order No. 0009 in 2007, which was settled in 2014.
- The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) issued post-award audit reports regarding Delivery Order No. 0009 and Modification No. 05 in 2015.
- The Contracting Officer issued a demand letter on September 15, 2020, seeking $3,224,623 for defective pricing related to Delivery Order No. 0009.
- BAE Systems filed a notice of appeal on October 15, 2020, pursuant to the CDA.
- The Contracting Officer issued a second demand letter on September 22, 2020, seeking $9,450,215 for defective pricing related to Modification No. 05.
- BAE Systems filed a second notice of appeal on October 15, 2020.
- BAE Systems asserted that the government's claims were barred by laches and the six-year statute of limitations under the CDA.
Parties
- Appellant
- BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P.
- Respondent Agency
- Department of the Army
- Contract Number
- Contract No. W56HZV-05-G-0005
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
- Hensel Phelps Construction Co.No. 63316, 63397, 63398August 28, 2026
- J.A.M. Construction Services, Inc.No. 63378, 64226, 64439July 28, 2026
- TYD ServicesNo. 64429, 64430July 8, 2026
- Granite Construction CompanyNo. 63667June 23, 2026
- J.A.M. Construction Services, Inc.No. 63378, 64226, 64439June 2, 2026
- Malika and Refa Environmental SolutionsNo. 63960December 8, 2025
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
- Left Hand Design CorporationNo. 62458November 7, 2024
- Supreme Foodservice GmbHNo. 60309April 12, 2024
- AAI Corporation, d/b/a Textron Systems, Unmanned SystemsNo. 61195, 61356March 23, 2022
- Advanced Technologies Group, Inc.No. 59986, 61092November 18, 2020
- Alloy Surfaces Company, Inc.No. 59625April 9, 2020
- BAE Systems Tactical Vehicle Systems LPNo. 59491, 60433July 25, 2016