L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P., ASBCA No. 60713, 60716

Background

L-3 Communications performed flexibly-priced government contracts (including cost-reimbursement travel line items) and was reimbursed for FY2009 international airfare costs, some exceeding $6,000.
DCAA issued an April 13, 2016 audit applying a 79% decrement factor (based on prior audits) to L-3’s claimed international airfares over $6,000 and questioned certain costs.
Two DCMA administrative contracting officers (ACOs) issued final decisions (June 29 and July 1, 2016) seeking recoupment: $755,091 (premium airfare and use of non‑U.S. flag carriers) and $16,354 (premium airfare), each referencing the DCAA audit.
L-3 timely appealed to the ASBCA and moved to dismiss ASBCA Nos. 60713 and 60716 for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the final decisions failed to give adequate notice of bases and amounts of the government claims.
The government argued the ACO final decisions constituted written, sum‑certain government claims that provided adequate notice and therefore satisfied CDA jurisdictional requirements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board has jurisdiction because the ACO final decisions adequately state the basis and amount of the government claims under the CDA	L-3: final decisions lack specificity (must identify specific cost items and basis for unallowability), so they fail jurisdictional sufficiency	Government: final decisions set forth sum certain, identify bases (premium airfare, foreign carriers), and reference the DCAA audit explaining calculation	Held: Denied dismissal — final decisions are sum‑certain, provide adequate notice of basis and amount; jurisdiction exists
Proper standard of review for motion to dismiss (12(b)(1) jurisdictional v. 12(b)(6) merits)	L-3: treat as 12(b)(1); Board may consider facts outside pleadings and resolve disputed jurisdictional facts	Government: treat as 12(b)(6) — failure to state claim	Held: Board analyzes as jurisdictional (12(b)(1)) but explains distinction and applies precedent; resolution supports denial of motion regardless of rule
Whether government must allocate claimed amount to multiple bases within the final decision (e.g., amount per alleged violation)	L-3: government must state value for each separate basis of liability	Government: not required to itemize value per basis; overall sum and explanation of calculation (decrement factor × claimed fares) suffices	Held: Board rejects L-3’s proposed strict itemization rule; overall explanation and ACO inability to apportion does not defeat jurisdiction
Whether collateral critiques of DCAA audits or alleged ACO errors can be resolved on motion to dismiss	L-3: cites problems in prior audits and ACO process to show the decisions are deficient	Government: such contentions raise merits, not jurisdictional facts	Held: Board treats those challenges as merits issues and declines to resolve them on the motion to dismiss

Key Cases Cited

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishing threshold jurisdictional questions from merits and explaining proper treatment of jurisdictional facts)
Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (when jurisdictional allegations are controverted, court may consider outside evidence; government bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (CDA jurisdiction requires a valid claim and a contracting officer’s final decision)
Contract Cleaning Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 586 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (claim must contain clear and unequivocal statement giving adequate notice of basis and amount)
Spruill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 978 F.2d 679 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (discussing slippery nature of the term "jurisdiction" and contextual meanings)