63877

Wolverine Tube, Inc.

January 22, 2026Judge Laufgraben
Partially SustainedTermination for ConvenienceQuantum / DamagesCost Allowability / Allocability (FAR 31)Contract Interpretation

On cross-motions for summary judgment in a termination for convenience dispute under an Air Force pallet contract, the Board held that a stop‑work order issued under FAR 52.242‑15 expired after 90 days and did not categorically bar Wolverine Tube, Inc. from recovering post‑stop‑work termination costs, granting Wolverine entitlement only to profit and settlement‑preparation costs and otherwise denying both parties’ broader summary judgment positions.

Material Facts

  • On May 18, 2021, the Air Force awarded Contract No. FA8534-21-D-0002, an indefinite delivery requirements contract under FAR 16.503, to Wolverine Tube, Inc. for the manufacture and delivery of air cargo pallets with an 18‑month base period followed by multiple options.
  • The contract required Wolverine to deliver six first article pallets for government testing within 365 days of award and incorporated FAR 52.209-4, which placed the risk of acquiring production materials before first article approval on the contractor and made such costs not allocable to termination settlements.
  • The contract incorporated FAR 52.242-15, STOP-WORK ORDER, FAR 52.233-3, PROTEST AFTER AWARD, and FAR 52.249-2, TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT (FIXED-PRICE).
  • On June 2, 2021, incumbent contractor AAR Manufacturing, Inc. protested the Wolverine award at GAO, and on June 4, 2021 the contracting officer issued a stop‑work order by email directing Wolverine to cease all work in accordance with FAR 52.242-15.
  • On July 1, 2021, the Air Force informed GAO it would take corrective action by reopening discussions and reevaluating proposals, GAO dismissed the protest on July 2, 2021, and on July 7, 2021 the contracting officer incorporated the stop‑work order into the contract via Modification P0001 citing FAR 52.242-15.
  • On September 15, 2021, the Air Force notified Wolverine that discussions were reopened with all offerors in the competitive range, requested proposal revisions, and asked Wolverine to extend its proposal validity through March 31, 2022, which Wolverine did.
  • Despite no pallet orders being placed and no further Air Force communication about performance, Wolverine after September 2, 2021 placed over $2 million in orders for materials and equipment, including a $1,599,400 order to Modern Forge Companies for 220,000 D‑Rings and $400,961 in dies and equipment from Zarbana Aluminum Extrusions LLC, and incurred $107,987 in operating costs.
  • Wolverine needed 132 D‑Rings to produce the six first articles and purchased the remaining 219,868 D‑Rings in anticipation of Air Force orders during the first option period.
  • The Air Force’s corrective action resulted in a new award to AAR on April 13, 2022, GAO denied Wolverine’s protest of that award on July 26, 2022, and the Air Force terminated Wolverine’s pallet contract for convenience on March 29, 2023.
  • On May 31, 2023, Wolverine submitted a termination settlement proposal seeking $1,242,068, including first article contract price, operating costs, a Modern Forge termination fee, inventoried D‑Rings, pallet dies, profit, and settlement preparation costs.
  • The Air Force only agreed to pay Wolverine’s operating costs incurred between May 18 and June 4, 2021 totaling $35,308, leading Wolverine to certify its proposal as a claim and appeal from a deemed denial.
  • The Board found that material factual disputes existed regarding the reasonableness and allocability of Wolverine’s disputed post‑stop‑work costs, including its large production‑oriented D‑Ring purchases and supplier settlement fee, in light of FAR 31.201-3 and FAR 52.209-4(h).

Parties

Appellant
Wolverine Tube, Inc.
Respondent Agency
Department of the Air Force
Contracting Agency
Department of the Air Force
Contract Number
FA8534-21-D-0002
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.