Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
ASBCA No. 62209
| A.S.B.C.A. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- In 2007 the Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (LMA) a fixed-price contract to upgrade C-5 aircraft under the RERP program.
- On Oct. 15, 2018 LMA submitted a certified CDA claim for $143,529,290 alleging cumulative impacts from excessive over-&-above (O&A) work and loss of productivity (428,482 production hours claimed).
- The contracting officer declined to issue a final decision (Dec. 7, 2018); LMA appealed to the ASBCA (docketed Oct. 7, 2019) after the claim was deemed denied.
- The government asserted laches as an affirmative defense in its answer; LMA moved for partial summary judgment (or to strike) arguing laches is unavailable where Congress has prescribed a statutory limitations period (the CDA six‑year rule).
- The ASBCA granted LMA’s motion: the Board held that Supreme Court precedent (Petrella and SCA Hygiene) bars invocation of laches against legal claims governed by a congressionally‑enacted statute of limitations (here the CDA), and rejected the government’s reliance on FAR 33.203(c) and pre‑SCA Hygiene Board precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches is available as an affirmative defense to a CDA claim subject to the CDA six‑year limitations period | LMA: SCA Hygiene/Petrella bar laches where Congress prescribed a limitations period; CDA’s six‑year rule fills the gap | USAF: Laches remains viable (ASBCA/Fed. Cir. precedent) to prevent prejudice from untimely, prejudicial claims | Held: Laches is not an available defense against a CDA claim where the statutory limitations period applies; grant partial SJ for LMA |
| Whether FAR 33.203(c) preserves laches as a defense despite Supreme Court precedent and the CDA statute | LMA: FAR does not override Congress or Supreme Court decisions; government offers no material facts to create an issue | USAF: FAR preserves pre‑CDA contract claims and defenses (including laches) for Boards of Contract Appeals | Held: FAR 33.203(c) does not preserve laches as an affirmative defense to CDA claims governed by the statute of limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (U.S. 2017) (Supreme Court held laches cannot bar legal claims subject to a statutory limitations period)
- Petrella v. Metro‑Goldwyn‑Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (U.S. 2014) (Supreme Court holding laches cannot defeat damages claims brought within the Copyright Act limitations period)
- Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (CDA six‑year filing rule is nonjurisdictional and defines accrual)
- S.E.R., Jobs for Progress, Inc. v. United States, 759 F.2d 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (pre‑SCA case recognizing laches as an equitable defense in some contract contexts)
- Nat’l Org. of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 981 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (applied SCA Hygiene/Petrella principles to other statutory time limits)
- Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1946) (statement that a congressional statute of limitations is definitive)