Peraton, Inc.

July 10, 2025Judge Woodrow

Denied / Government PrevailedQuantum / DamagesContract Formation / Existence

Peraton, Inc. appealed an ASBCA decision regarding entitlement to a full fixed fee under a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with the Navy. The Board denied the appeal, holding that Peraton was not entitled to additional fees beyond what was paid based on actual hours worked.

Material Facts

The contract was a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort task order issued to Peraton, Inc. for technical systems engineering support services.
The Navy issued the task order under the Seaport Enhanced (Seaport-e) Multiple Award Contract vehicle.
The contract was an indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity contract with a minimum government obligation of $2,501.
The contract incorporated FAR 52.216-18, ORDERING (OCT 1995), and FAR 16.306(a) regarding cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.
The Navy's actual requirements were lower than the estimates provided in the solicitation and task order.
Peraton unilaterally adjusted its fee rate per direct labor hour, resulting in a higher hourly rate for profit than set forth in the contract.
The Navy paid actual fixed fees for each performance period that were approximately two-thirds of the original lump-sum fixed fee.

Parties

Appellant: Peraton, Inc.
Respondent Agency: Navy
Contract Number: N00178-05-D-4395

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.