Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy v. Contel Advanced Systems, Inc.

days after cutover. NEWMAN, DYK, Before LOURIE and Judges. Circuit dispute aspect here involves one relating contract to the implementation phase. issued, RFP Opinion for the court When the the Navy filed Circuit Judge Dissenting DYK. opinion quantities filed did not know the exact of cer- Judge Circuit PAULINE types NEWMAN. tain station/ancillary equipment In equipment approved January need. SDP. that it would This requested line item number to reduce the LTO listed under B007”). (“CLIN these in- to reflect overestimates. B007 Offerors were April May performed of 1992 prices unit for provide fixed structed equip- audit ascertain the amounts of under CLIN B007. The would items ment installed and submitted multiply prices by the unit its best then Navy, letter to the recommending that the quantity at a bid for estimate to arrive adjusted be downward $33.5 The RFP stated project. parties May million. The met in 1992 to rede- “total B007 shall be [CLIN] modify price the LTO to but were unable equip- on of quantity termined based the agree to at that time. -modification . a¡ installed,” actually to the pursuant ment Thereafter, the a unilateral issued (J.A. 120.) Thus, the approved SDP. at that, among things, other modification equipment of included under amount the LTO price imple- stated for the B007 in the offer was to be original CLIN phase mentation at approximate- remained of adjusted to reflect actual amount the ly million. Cutover occurred $36.2 .on SDP, equipment according installed to the April system and acceptance oc- adjusted price the final to be and May curred on .1992. The of- accordingly. potential RFP asked quote prices implementa- the ferors to for to fund its expenditures during order under four methods of phase tion different implementation рhase, the CASI obtained (1) (2) straight lease purchase: purchase, corporation. a loan from its The parent (3) (“LTO”), option lease with ownership to upon full of this balance loan was due purchase, straight to lease. However, acceptance. system under the contract, project only begin CASI to would in CASI submitted ah offer accordance installment the im- payments receive for the RFP and the con- with was awarded system To plementation acceptance. after project September trаct for the in obligation repay parent corpora7 the to its imple- to opted purchase acceptance, system sought tion on CASI of phase mentation the contract at the third-party a under which it obtain loan $30,009,154.80 price paid of LTO be assign Navy’s pay- installment would monthly the LTO installments. Under Navy at ments to the lender. While Navy’s option, payments installment financing, no time CASI to obtain directed included an interest component. payments to make the third- refused prepared its initial SDP Janu- exactly unless party lender the invoices It was ary approved of 1991. ap- the official of price matched contract after, par- months later. a few Soon million. CASI conclud- proximately $36.2 price ties several modifications executed if it financing only that it could obtain ed price increased the LTO for tentative existing the full amount of the borrowed $36,223,371. implementation phase principal price. borrowed price This new tentative was based million, amount approximately $27 quantity estimates for several CLIN May equivalent price tо the 1992 contract parties that a recognized B007 items. The million, once inter- approximately $36.2 quantity number of these estimates were LTO term in. The est over the was added higher amount significantly than the actual million that was bor- approximately $27 under amount equipment principal would be installed rowed exceeded (“CO”) $2,121,106, equipment purchased under for explained which as it the SDP. The excess borrowed funds were represented additional interest costs it placed interest-bearing in an account. The suffered as a result of thе failure to deposited interest rate on the amount was price reconcile the LTO in 1992. In a final borrowing from far lower than cost decision dated March the CO third-party lender. denied this claim because there “was no agreement for any reimbursement of costs system acceptance, After be- incurred financing” gan monthly making payments of about a contractor “[h]ow finances its efforts ... $600,000(approximately one-sixtieth of the (J.A. is not the Government’s concern.” approximately official contract 248-249.) CO also blamеd the million) third-party to CASI’s lender. $36.2 finalizing the LTO on CASI’s fail- This continued until October 1996 when promptly provide ure to an “accurate ac- Navy finally issued a unilateral modifi- counting” of the equipment installed. reducing cation 248.) Further, the CO determined $32,351,679, a net decrease of approxi- Navy actually overpaid that the had CASI, mately Curiously, million.1 $4.4 $279,464.32 repayment and demanded which Navy had earlier insisted that the in this amount. price, objected reduce the contract “that erroneous, the LTO reconciliation [ ] was later, Several months CASI submitted a Navy аuthority and the had no to unilater- second certified claim that asserted “alter- Contel, ally reduce the contract value.” (J.A. recovery.” native theories] slip op. at 22. At this time the had 251.) Specifically, argued made 52 installment payments. After price LTO adjusted should not have been making another payment installment downward because it was set at a fixed partial payment November and a in De- price million, of approximately re- $36.8 cember concluded gardless quantities of the of equipment had repaid adjusted the entire contract installed. urged CASI also it was making and ceased pay- installment entitled the “administrative costs” and Following Navy’s ments. refusal attorney’s fees it incurred as a result of pay remaining payments, installment Navy’s “wrongful pay- cessation of third-party payment demanded lender third-party ments” to the lender. from negotiated CASI. CASI pay- new 252-53.) Both of these theories were also lender, ment third-party schedule with the rejected, and appealed the denial of required which it to pay the lender an both certified claims to the ASBCA. $2,121,106, additional representing interest owed on the funds borrowed in excess of On June the ASBCA issued a the final price, less the interest decision in favor of CASI on its first certi- CASI earned deposit from the of these fied claim. The Board held that “the prior funds to the determination of the duty had a to reconcile price] [LTO no final contract price. system later than acceptance and its refus- 4, February

On al CASI submitted a without a valid excuse to do so was a certified claim to the contracting officer duty breach of its to coopеrate and a 1. The October 1996 proposed purchase modification decreased cation also a switch $6,978,825.08 $2,527,769.00. price by upgrade to account for for The net decrease $4,451,056.08. the overestimates to CLIN B007. The modifi- in LTO Contel, entitled to recover on its first certified slip op. at 26 contract.” breach claim, remanded to the omitted). the ASBCA CO (citations rejected Navy’s It quantum. a determination unresolved obsta- that “various arguments reconciling the it from prevented cles duplicative as The Board dismissed be- system acceptance,” price by LTO[] recovery presented alternative theories of i.e., “reconciliation,” it found that cause certified claim. It ex- CASI’s second upon the reduction of the that the second certified claim did plained installed, claims, merely “pres- present not new but equipment quantity measuring an alternate method ent[ed] based on accomplished have been “could supple- CASI’s claimed and that the SDP”' the information spe- certified claim to ment[ed] [first] the reconcili- eager complеte “CASI in- cifically identify allegedly certain costs ation.” Id. at 30. repairing curred in its financial relations n “no- further held that The Board making ... ceased when recovery on the rule” did bar payment called for sched- payments claim, represented certified which first ule.” at 24. Id. interest costs CASI suffered additional Navy" the ASBCA’s deci- appealed promptly failure a result certified claim. sion on CASI’s first We rec price. The ASBCA

reconcile the LTO jurisdiction to 28 pursuant have U.S.C. the “no-interest ‍​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‍generally ognized 1295(a)(10). § on de recovery of interest rule” bars the from money payments or defaulted layed DISCUSSION the rule can be but that legal conclusions of We review in a Gov by including provision “a waived the ASBCA without deference. Rumsfeld of in payment for the ernment Contract (Fed. 1328, Cos., F.3d 1334 Applied v. 325 cut, ‘affirmative, clear is] terest [that ”). Cir.2003) in Companies (“Applied ” Contel, op. at 27 slip unambiguous.’ of a contract the ASBCA terpretation Thayer-West v. (quoting United States that is reviewed without question of law Co., 107 329 Point Hotel U.S. appeal. on Metric Constructors deference 398, 521 91 L.Ed. Ct.Cl. 67 S.Ct. Admin., Space Aeronautics and v. Nat’l (1947)). Board, no^ According to the (Fed.Cir.1999). 751 169 F.3d in case had been waived this un accepted interest rule fact are findings of Board’s “fraudulent, arbitrary, or was an or payment they of interest less are “[t]he because as to grossly erroneous capricious, or so contract.” Id. part parties’ of the integral faith, if such deci necessarily or imply bad in by the intentional This was evidenced by substantial evi supported is not sion in the for interest” component of “a clusion Eng v. E.L. Hamm & Assocs. dence.” monthly payments. installment required (Fed.Cir.2004). land, F.3d 1338 ... payment of interest Because “the Id. itself, the by the contract” required was I rule did that the no-interest ASBCA held must, whether we recovery on first certified first determine CASI’s We bar hear this case. CASI jurisdiction have Having decided claim.2 $279,464.32 overpayments to CASI. from CO’s determi- ASBCAalso reversed the 2. The Navy was entitled to recover nation that the question argues contends that the decision the ASBCA the of entitlement. CASI because, quantum CO decided only it decided enti- was not final because claims, rejecting addition to CASI’s reach quantum. tlement and did not We CO determined thаt had over- disagree. $279,464.32.

paid the amount of However, Navy’s overpayment claim 1295(a)(10) § Although 28 U.S.C. against separate from CASI’s decision,” appeal to an from a “final refers damages against Navy.3 claim for Be- repeatedly our held that cases have cause the CO determined that CASI was concept finality in this context is a flexi damages, not entitled to the CO never concept. DynCorp, ble Brownlee v. determined the quantum required by (Fed.Cir.2003) (“Dyn- F.3d recognized CASI’s claims. The ASBCA ”). 1295(a)(10), Corp Under section “[t]he scope the limited of the CO’s decision. It determining ... inquiry finality relevant “[o]nly stated that entitlement is before contracting scope ‘the officer’s the Board” and parties “remanded to the decision, for this determines the extent of Contel, negotiate quantum.” slip op. at right appeal contractor’s and the Thus, we conclude that the ASBCA’s ” jurisdiction.’ (quoting Dewey board’s Id. decision was a “final decision” the issue States, Elecs. Corp. United 803 F.2d jurisdiction of entitlement. There is under (Fed.Cir.1986)). 650, 655 In eases where 1295(a)(10) section Navy’s ap- hear the contracting yet officer had not reached peal.4 thus, quantum only issues of entitle Board, ment was before we have re II peatedly found the Board’s decision on en merits, Navy argues On jurisdiction titlement “final” and our within seeking that CASI is damages interest 1295(a)(10). under section See DynCorp., that are barred the no-interest rule. 1347; Cos., Applied F.3d at 325 F.3d The no-interest rule bars the award of 3; at 1333 n. Dewey, 803 F.2d at 654-58. on a claim As we noted in Applied Companies, Library Congress United States. v. contracting only “where the officer decided Shaw, 2957, 478 U.S. 106 S.Ct. 92 entitlement the board thereafter de (1986) (“Shaw ”). L.Ed.2d 250 appel The cided entitlement and rеmanded to the lant contends that the ASBCA erred parties regarding quantum, the board’s de inferring a agree waiver that rule. We cision appealable.” was final and thus 325 with the that the no-interest rule is F.3d at 1333 n. 3. here and applicable has not been waived. A case,

In jurisdiction this we have 1295(a)(10) under section because the urges the no-interest rule scope of the CO’s decision was limited to not apply does because “[t]he interest challenge interest,” i.e., appeal The does not pay on eminent is liable to wheth- overpаyment. ASBCA's denial of its claim for anything er CASI (Reply can recover at all. 8.) Appellant Br. of at In its determination of ‍​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‍reject argument 4. We also CASI’s that the properly entitlement the ASBCA reached this Navy’s appeal timely is not because it ad- question and decided it in CASI's favor. We only damages dresses issues and not entitle- jurisdiction Navy's appeal have to hear the appeal ment. The is not directed to the from that decision. Rather, quantum damages. "challenges holding the board’s that the Gov-

1379 456 on a borrower not recoverаble.” F.2d at is not interest substantive CASI seeks claim, plain 1330. The noted that had the money that the Gov- court cost of but the money tiff “used and so lost his own pay order to defer agreed ernment 13.) (Br. might interest which it have earned for at Appellee payment.” him, the claim ... not have would differed an aspect rule is no-interest in principle.” (quoting Myerle, Id. 33 Ct. sovereign immunity. basic See rule 25). atCl. Shaw, 315, 2957; 106 see U.S. at S.Ct. 478 too, So no-interest rule is appli Principi, 281 F.3d 1384 also v. Smith cable CASI’s claim. CASI’s claim (Fed.Cir.2002). It has been construed represents states that claimed “amоunt In apply broadly to claims interest. the interest funds which CASI urged on explained that: Supreme Court Shaio the Spring prepay 1992.” no-interest cannot force of the rule [T]he 245.) words, at In other CASI is simply by devising a new be avoided paid it seeking recover the interest on char- an old institution: “[T]he name for money the extra it forced to borrow as of ‘interest’ cannot be acter or nature Navy’s delay a result of in reconciling ‘loss,’ by calling ‘damages,’ changed price. In the absence of waiv increment,’ ‘just compensation,’ ‘earnеd er, recovery rule no-interest bars ‘discount,’ ‘offset,’ ‘penalty,’ any or or damages against gov of such term, it is still interest other because Hedin, See, ernment. 456 e.g., J.D. F.2d applies rule to it.” and the no-interest 1330; Komatsu, 950; F.Supp. at at 131 Shaw, at 2957 356-57; 478 U.S. S.Ct. Myerle, Ramsey, F.Supp. States Mescalero (quoting United 33 Ct.Cl. at 25. Tribe,

Apache 207 Ct.Cl. F.2d (alteration original)). B only has held to bar the rule been claims recovery of interest on substantive alternative, CASI argues see, Smith, e.g., rule has been waived no-interest but also interest costs F.3d Navy. with the by provision of its contract money bоrrowed a result of incurred only by The no-interest rule can be waived government’s or in pay breach statute, “specific provision by contract or ment, see, e.g., Hedin Constr. Co. v. J.D. Shaw, Congress.” express or consent States, 782, (internal 197 Ct.Cl. 456 F.2d United 317, at 2957 478 U.S. 106 S.Ct. 1315, (1972); Mfg. see also Komatsu omitted); 1330 quotation alterations see States, 314, 132 Ct.Cl. 131 Co. United Thayer-West Point also United States v. (1955); 949, Ramsey Co., 950 v. Unit F.Supp. 398, 67 S.Ct. Hotel 329 U.S. States, ”) 101 F.Supp. ed 121 Ct.Cl. (“Thayer-West 91 L.Ed. 521 States, (1951); Myerle v. United 356-57 the (stating provision requiring gov that a (1897). For example, Ct.Cl. J.D. affirma ernment to interest “must be pay that, Hedin, court predеcessor tive, clear-cut, unambiguous.”). held our [and] like on substantive claims that the rule argument there is no While statute, argues paid the on bank CASI the by “[interest was waived rule stringency Navy of financial the no-interest because loans made because waived contract by price under the included resulting from a breach the Govern disagree. component. it the an interest We ment of a contract between for ently requirements claim here is not the inter inflexible its for as- The which component price, signment of the LTO the paymеnts, est of installment Instead, already CASI paid. has to not sufficient waive the ‍​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‍no-interest rule. additional it is entitled to “the claims waiver, there has been no Because to the of interest ... owed bank” amount no-interest rule bars CASI from recover- third-party financing. a result of its as ing the excess interest costs that occurred (Br. 20.) Appellee at The inclusion of Navy’s as a prompt- result failure to price LTO component the interest ly price upon system reconcile the LTO “affirmative, clear-cut, unam [and] not an holding The acceptance. ASBCA erred in for additional biguous” agreement pay that was entitled to its CASI recover on loan as third-party interest accrued on a first claim. certified Navy’s the result of the breach. See Thayer-West, 329 U.S. at S.Ct. contrary, To the the contract is silent Ill to the CASI was to method which Finally, its CASI contends that project.

fund the provided second certified claim an “alter The ASBCA that “in- found theory recovery” not native that was that the amount reflect sist[ed] borrowed based on the additional amount of interest current contract аmount” and LTO[] lender, that owed the third-party CASI “CASI’s decision to as it proceed that did and therefore is not barred no- it [by borrowing money more than knew it (Br. 20.) Appellee interest rule. at Un a re- due] was was reasonable theory, argues der this alternative CASI Contel, sponse.” slip op. at 16. basis of the implementation the cost phase findings these clear. for is less than on price was awarded a fixed basis for explain Navy’s does how the insistence price LTO of approximately million. $36.8 rendering corresponding invoices fixed, Because the con May price compelled contract tends it is entitled to “the difference than money CASI to borrow more it knew the current between fixed LTO[ ] ultimately the con- paid would be under $36,802,685.08 paid and the amount date However, assuming that tract. even for implementation [the correct, findings Board’s were most the 252.) phase].” argument This Navy required only that CASI borrow fails for a number of reasons. equivalent May amount to the 1992 LTO First, both contract and the RFP if price, assign CASI elected to quantities make clear the estimated payments. sug- installment is no There equipment, upon CLIN B007 which gestion Navy required CASI to based, subject were financing, or otherwise instructed obtain change. project contract stated that: Indeed, money. borrow is an indefinite-quantity “[t]his specifically Board Navy “[t]he found that or supplies specified services ... in the not money, did instruct to CASI borrow quantity Schedule. The of supplies and express any nor opinion as to whether or in specified the Schedule esti- any particular not CASI should services are enter into Contel, only purchased of mates and аre not financing agreement.” slip form this (J.A. 93.) Navy too, at 8. The op. fact that the was aware contract.” So RFP of the financing arrangement, appar- that made clear the LTO not reject a matter We also as price for was erroneous. that total “[t]he It recited fixed. theories as set of law CASI’s “alternative” be redetermined B007 shall [CLIN] certified claim. Ac- actually in- forth the second equipment of quantity the decision of the ASBCA is cordingly, the Govern- in accordance with stalled Plan.” Design Station ment-approved REVERSED. 120.) Morеover, clearly under- parties both COSTS not fixed. price was the LTO stood Navy repeatedly urged in fact CASI No costs. actual to reflect the

adjust the LTO Accord- equipment installed. quantity NEWMAN, Judge, Circuit PAULINE asked findings, CASI to the ASBCA’s ing dissenting. ap- adjust the LTO appeal the decision of did prior system million proximately $33.5 Ap- Board of Contract the Armed Services in a parties later met acceptance. The breached to peals that this contract was modify price to attempt to the LTO failed by the Board. Nor is the extent found under the installed equipment reflect (CASI) mon- suffered disputed that Contel in June and system acceptance After SDP. injury panel etary breach. urge continued to July of majority’s holding damages cannot be Contel, price. the LTO Navy to decrease they are measured assessed because slip op. at 19. money contrary to fundamen- the cost of reasons, we conclude For these relationships, of commercial principles tal implementation phase price for the scope of the “no-interest and outside the fixеd, to be was not but was project must, respectfully, I dissent. rule.” Thus quantity actual adjusted according to the with the between accordance re- therefore equipment installed. We CASI, provided and recovery” theory of ject this “alternative system, in- a telecommunications installed certified in CASI’s second presented for which esti- cluding equipment claim.5 at an quantity maximum esti- mated the $36,223,371. This estimate cost of mated CONCLUSION per cost the line item derived from B007) (CLIN Navy’s esti- times the unit applies rule that the no-interest We hold units; number of of the maximum matе claim for interest first certified to CASI’s indefi- of this parameters these were a result of the damages incurred as contract, validity of and the nite-quantity price to reflect reducing The con- dispute. adoption is not install- their equipment quantities the actual Navy in by the payment provided tract that there has we conclude ed. Because installments, to commence rule, monthly sixty no-interest no waiver of the been in- completed acceptance following was entitled decision ASBCA’s understood, con- and the It was stallation. certified claim under the first stated third-party the reasons lender. For “adminis- reject CASI’s claim for 5. We also above, payment was not Navy's the cessation stemming from the trative costs” wrongful. “wrongful payments” to cessation of 1382 provides,

tract the total cost would be are “interest” and therefore barred on the number of units that were proper no-interest rule. That is not a application installed. damages of the rule. These are not interest on a claim completion Before installation it government, whereby on а interest mone recognized by Navy both tary obligation ‍​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‍of government is not CASI that the actual cost would be several available unless authorized statute or million dollars the stated maximum.1 below agreed by contract. See Library Con Starting January requested 1992 CASI Shaw, gress 310, 317, 478 U.S. 106 S.Ct. adjustment a downward of the contract (1986) 2967, (interest 92 L.Ed.2d 250 does maximum; persistent the record reports not run on a judgment against the United reconciliation, requests by for a cost States, authorization); absent consent or upon acceptance May the installation on Cо., States, Mfg. Komatsu Ltd. v. United 11, 1992, and thereafter. All of these re- F.Supp. Ct.Cl. vain, quests were in for four and a half (same). damages The here at issue are years. significant This because the direct cost to the contractor of the Navy refused to make payments to the government’s breach of contract. (as financing required) lender terms unless the invoices orig- were based on the panel The majority states no- “[t]he $36,223,371 inal contract maximum. Thus aspect interest rule is an of the basic rule obliged carry CASI was several million of sovereign immunity.” Op. at 1379. The dollars of borrowing excess for over four basic rule of “sovereign immunity,” that years. the ruler could not be sued without his consent, interest, was not directed to but Navy October 1996 the made the to the underlying liability. The ancient modification, appropriate contract reduc- recovery bar to when there was ing the contract cost. The testified underlying obligation valid reflects the before the Board that it knew that less canonical and common prohibitions law equipment had been installed than was usury, not the right kings. divine See originally рrojected, at lower total cost. Shaw, 478 U.S. at 106 S.Ct. 2957 Board ruled that “the had a McCormick, (citing C. Damages, Law of duty to reconcile the LTOP [Lease-to- (1935) (in 51, p. Sec. early common Ownership sys- no later Plan] than law, only by interest was allowed agree- acceptance tem and its refusal without a ment of the parties, and was limited valid excuse to do so was a breach of its amount)). Shaw, As discussed in 478 U.S. duty cooperate and a breach of the 315-16, 106 S.Ct. government contract.” appeal does not has permitted been “occupy appar- breach; finding of appeal solely ently favored position” (quoting United question of entitlement to damages.2 Verdier, States v. 164 U.S. (1896)). The panel majority, reversing the S.Ct. 41 L.Ed. 407 Enlarging Board, holds that damages the awarded government’s liability freedom from 1. The final audit showed a cost reduction of 2. The amount of was not deter- $6,978,825.08. Some two mined; million dollars of the Board's decision was limited to this amount pur- were used entitlement. equipment; aspect chase other this is not at issue. argument provides the contract obligations is unwarrant- of its fоr breach that CASI actu- payment obligation of the is not a tool immunity” “Sovereign ed. incurred, thereby waiving recourse ally with do business to those who unfairness undisputed It was uncritically a no-interest rule. not It should be government. recovery included of the the contract cost expanded. option. in interest incurred the LTOP in favor Board’s decision a claim of interest on not an award damages flow from breach of When judgment or a government against money, the nature obligation involves or a debt of government relationship to the obligаtion and its recognized that The Board government. in de injury economic must be considered resulted from the monetary injury money the cost of termining whether con- reconciling in cooperate refusal damages. in In this properly included installation, for completion of tract after case, of that measure is the correctness to maintain required this breach majority. The challenged by panel not This than was needed. borrowing higher liability by the Board of Con assessment in the contractor which is not a situation law, not conflict with Appeals tract does perform additional sums had to borrow policy national of fair implements by the after it was breached a contract Ap ness to contractors. See Rumsfeld Hedin Constr. Co. as in J.D. (Fed.Cir. Cos., 1317, 1324 plied 318 F.3d States, F.2d 197 Ct.Cl. v. United 2002) (the non-breaching party is entitled (1972). held The Hedin court it in the damages place that would to the loans made because that interest on “bank occupied absent the it would have position resulting from a stringency of financial breach); Bay Transp. Auth. v. Mass. of a contract by the Government breach (Fed. States, 1226, 1232 129 F.3d United recov- the borrower is not it and between (same). Cir.1997) award of The Board’s damage.” And as an item erable in circumstances of this case “a herein was not breach Navy’s breach precedent. statute or barred only money results pay which ruling, I re contrary From the court’s Ramsey v. as in delay payment,” a spectfully dissent. States, F.Supp. 121 Ct.Cl. United no (1951); there was issue payment. that even alternatively pointed out that the dam- theory government’s on the their retaining

ages be treated should the LTOP borrow-

identity as interest on Plan includ- Lease-to-Ownership

ing, the Board found: interest. The

ed a factor for option the LTOP

“The chose a 10% analysis based on value ‍​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‍present offered the rate.” Thus CASI

Case Details

Case Name: Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy v. Contel Advanced Systems, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date Published: Oct 6, 2004

Citation: 384 F.3d 1372

Docket Number: 04-1006

Court Abbreviation: Fed. Cir.