Honeywell International, Inc.
Honeywell International, Inc. sought judgment on the pleadings concerning a government claim that its treatment of interorganizational gyro transfers violated CAS 410 and its disclosed total cost input practice. The Board denied the motion, holding that the government plausibly alleged a CAS 410 violation and that factual disputes precluded judgment on the pleadings.
Material Facts
- Honeywell has performed government contracts subject to the Cost Accounting Standards since the 1980s.
- SGP manufactured ring laser gyros at a Minneapolis facility and transferred some gyros to Honeywell's Coons Rapids segment for incorporation into products for commercial customers.
- SGP disclosed that it used a total cost input base.
- When SGP transferred the gyros, it transferred the associated labor, materials, and overhead costs from SGP's allocation base to Coons Rapids, while SGP retained its G&A costs.
- The DACO's claim alleged violations of CAS 410-40(b)(1), 410-50(d), 410-50(f), and SGP's disclosed practice of using a total cost input base.
- DCAA prepared a rough order of magnitude used by the DACO to estimate the effect of the higher G&A rate on government contract costs.
- The gyro costs transferred to Coons Rapids included direct costs and overhead.
- DCAA concluded in an audit report that the gyro line was a final accumulation point in SGP's system.
Parties
- Appellant
- Honeywell International, Inc.
- Respondent Agency
- Defense Contract Management Agency
- Contract Number
- FA8576-20-C-0001
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
- Korte Construction CompanyNo. 63539, 63540September 30, 2026
- Dubai Pearl CompanyNo. 64444August 26, 2026
- U.S. Aeroteam, Inc.No. 61972, 61973August 6, 2026
- J. Star Enterprises, Inc.No. 63627, 63647, 63656, 63657, 63658June 10, 2026
- J. Star Enterprises, Inc.No. 63603June 9, 2026
- Vectrus Systems CorporationNo. 63420May 11, 2026
Same Year
- Central Environmental, Inc.No. 62628December 28, 2023
- Horizon Environmental Services, Inc.No. 63428, 63463December 28, 2023
- O-Tech Solutions, LLCNo. 61898-EAJA, 62095-EAJADecember 26, 2023
- PAE Applied Technologies LLCNo. 63233December 26, 2023
- G-W Management Services, LLCNo. 63318December 26, 2023
- SOC LLCNo. 63660December 22, 2023
Same Issue
- Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile SystemsNo. 59435, 59436, 59437, 59438, 60056, 60057, 60058, 60059, 60060, 60061May 14, 2026
- Science Applications International CorporationNo. 63509May 27, 2025
- CACI International Inc.No. 63663May 6, 2025
- Northrop Grumman CorporationNo. 62165July 5, 2023
- General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.No. 61633, 61731February 8, 2023
- Beechcraft Defense Company, LLC; Textron Aviation Inc.; and Textron Aviation Defense, LLCNo. 61743, 61744, 61745February 3, 2023