6270362704

BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P.

September 23, 2021Judge Stinson
Denied / Government PrevailedDefective Pricing / TINAStatute of Limitations / TimelinessDCAA Involved

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
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.