Wolverine Tube, Inc.
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
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
- Group III Mgt, Inc.No. 64176August 26, 2026
- Peritia LLCNo. 64495, 64586August 20, 2026
- MicroTechnologies, LLCNo. 64544August 11, 2026
- M.A. Mortenson CompanyNo. 64072-ADRJuly 14, 2026
- Fluor-AMEC II, LLCNo. 64131June 23, 2026
- Inland Service Corporation, LLCNo. 63770May 21, 2026
Same Year
- Bodell Construction CompanyNo. 63517-ADR, 63850-ADROctober 2, 2026
- Procal Electric, Inc.No. 63580-ADROctober 2, 2026
- Africa Transport Logistics CompanyNo. 64120October 1, 2026
- Kearfott CorporationNo. 64328October 1, 2026
- Relyant Global, LLCNo. 64606October 1, 2026
- Relyant Global, LLCNo. 64651October 1, 2026
Same Issue
- Scot Cardillo dba Engineers Tooling SupportNo. 61612September 22, 2026
- VESEQU LLCNo. 64468August 21, 2026
- Peritia LLCNo. 64495, 64586August 20, 2026
- Gibraltar-Caddell, a Joint VentureNo. 64379July 13, 2026
- VESEQU LLCNo. 64468May 21, 2026
- Northcon, Inc.No. 64343, 64417April 1, 2026