Appeal of CACI International, Inc.

Summary

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denied CACI International, Inc.’s and the government’s cross-motions for reconsideration of an earlier decision concerning the allowability of Iraqi litigation costs and the effect of a 2007 settlement agreement. The Board held that the parties identified no mistaken findings of fact or errors of law and declined to consider new arguments raised for the first time on reconsideration.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration is warranted only for a genuine mistake in findings of fact or conclusions of law, failure to consider an appropriate matter, or another genuine oversight affecting the outcome; it is not a second opportunity to present rejected arguments.
2. The Board will not consider new legal theories, factual material, or apportionment arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration when they were not presented in the underlying summary-judgment briefing.
3. Issue preclusion did not bar CACI’s claimed overhead costs because the issue previously adjudicated was not identical to the issue before the Board.
4. The 2007 settlement agreement between CACI Premier Technology and the Department of the Interior did not release or bar CACI International’s claimed indirect overhead costs against the Defense Contract Management Agency.
5. The Department of Defense was not shown to be an intended direct third-party beneficiary of the 2007 settlement agreement and therefore could not enforce it on that basis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether CACI identified a mistake of fact, error of law, or qualifying oversight warranting reconsideration of the Board’s prior ruling on the allowability of its Al Shimari litigation costs.
2. Whether new arguments and factual material raised for the first time in CACI’s motion for reconsideration should be considered.
3. Whether issue preclusion barred CACI’s claimed indirect overhead costs based on the Eastern District of Virginia decision.
4. Whether the 2007 settlement agreement between CACI Premier Technology and the Department of the Interior released or otherwise barred CACI International’s claimed overhead costs.
5. Whether the Department of Defense was entitled to enforce the settlement agreement as a successor agency, co-obligor, or third-party beneficiary.

Disposition

other