Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 651
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- ICE awarded Northrop a Delivery Order to lease Oakley software and provide support for one year at $900,000 with three option years at $800,186 each.
- Northrop funded the project through ESCgov, which assigned its rights to Citizens, with no notice to ICE.
- On Sept. 30, 2005 ICE declined option due to funding, and Northrop filed a CDA claim on Sept. 21, 2006 seeking damages of $2,697,558.
- ICE denied the CDA claim on Dec. 29, 2006; Northrop filed suit Aug. 20, 2007 alleging breach of the Delivery Order.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, contending the CDA claim failed to provide adequate notice and misrepresented sponsor interests.
- Court held Northrop’s CDA claim lacked adequate notice and that the assignments were void against the United States, denying jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Northrop’s CDA claim provide adequate notice? | Northrop asserts it filed a CDA claim within the statutory framework. | Northrop failed to disclose sponsorship by second-level assignee Citizens. | No; claim lacked adequate notice. |
| Was Northrop proper party to pursue the claim? | Northrop contends it may pursue the claim despite assignments. | Assignments mechanics and lack of notice undermine Northrop’s standing. | Northrop was the proper party to bring the claim. |
| Whether Severin doctrine applies to allow recovery through pass-through claims | Northrop argues damages flow through from its contractors/subcontractors under Severin. | Severin requires notification and proper structure; failure bars recovery. | Severin defense not satisfied; damages not recoverable by Northrop here. |
| Does the Anti-Assignment Act and related law bar this CDA claim? | Assignments do not nullify Northrop’s claim against the United States. | Assignments, if valid, would shield against double payment and complicate a CDA claim. | Assignments were null against the United States, undermining pursuit and jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaconwear Clothing Co. v. United States, 355 F.2d 583 (Ct.Cl.1966) (assignments cannot defeat original contractor’s claim against the government)
- Transamerica Ins. Corp. v. United States, 973 F.2d 1572 (Fed.Cir.1992) (adequate notice analysis for CDA claims)
- Scott Timber Co. v. United States, 333 F.3d 1358 (Fed.Cir.2003) (CDA claim must give adequate basis for the claim)
- M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed.Cir.2010) (definition of a CDA claim and adequacy of notice)
- Winter v. Floor-Pro, Inc., 570 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2009) (sovereign immunity and CDA context)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (sovereign immunity and consent to sue)