Summary
This document is an opinion from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals granting the government’s motion for reconsideration of a prior summary judgment decision. The Board corrected its earlier ruling, which had misread the government’s cross-motion and improperly addressed evidentiary merits not actually raised. The Board ultimately denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, finding genuine factual disputes precluded judgment on the statute of limitations defense.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Board should grant the government's motion for reconsideration of its earlier decision.
- Whether the government's cross‑motion for summary judgment should be denied because genuine factual disputes exist regarding the statute of limitations.
- Whether the portion of the earlier decision addressing the merits of the patent‑cost unallowability should be stricken.
Holdings
- The motion for reconsideration is granted.
- The government's cross‑motion for summary judgment is denied because genuine factual disputes preclude a finding that the government brought its claims within the statute of limitations.
- The portion of the decision addressing the merits of the CO’s patent‑cost unallowability is stricken.
Key quotations
“If we have made mistakes in the findings of fact or conclusions of law, or by failing to consider an appropriate matter, reconsideration may be appropriate.” (at 180,841)
“The government’s motion for summary judgment should be denied for the same reasons that ATGI’s was denied: namely, that statute of limitations defenses that rest upon when the government knew or should have known of its claims are often highly dependent upon the facts.” (at 183,173)
Factual background
The Defense Contract Management Agency contracting officer found that Advanced Technologies Group, Inc. included expressly unallowable costs in its FY 2007 and FY 2009 indirect cost rate submissions. Both parties filed cross‑motions for summary judgment, with the government asserting a statute‑of‑limitations defense and the appellant arguing the CO’s decisions were barred by the six‑year limitation.
Procedural history
The Board previously denied both parties' cross‑motions for summary judgment. The government filed a motion to correct the record/reconsideration, which was granted after the Board found errors in its earlier decision.