Board Sustains Lockheed Martin’s $131 Million Cumulative Impact Claim
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.05.24
In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209 (a C&M case), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded $131,888,860 in damages plus applicable interest in connection with Lockheed Martin’s claim for the cumulative disruptive impacts it experienced in performing over and above work on the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-Engining Program. The underlying contract related to the modernization of a fleet of C-5 Galaxy Aircraft, which is the largest U.S. military transport plane and has provided heavy intercontinental strategic airlift capabilities since the 1970s. The Board sustained the appeal after finding that Lockheed Martin had met its burden of proof on entitlement and quantum, using the measured-mile methodology, which compares an affected period of performance with an unaffected period. This case is a prime example of marshalling fact and expert witness testimony, and documentary evidence, to demonstrate the impacts of cumulative disruption on performance to justify causation and damages.
The Board previously issued decisions addressing release, the statute of limitations, and laches, as well as written discovery.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.01.26
Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration Policies Restricting Wind and Solar Permitting
A coalition of regional clean energy trade associations — including RENEW Northeast, Alliance for Clean Energy New York, Southern Renewable Energy Association, and Interwest Energy Alliance — along with the Green Energy Consumers Alliance (GECA), filed suit in December 2025 against the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Army Corps of Engineers. The complaint alleged that five agency actions, issued in response to a series of executive orders and presidential memoranda beginning on January 20, 2025, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by arbitrarily halting or restricting federal permitting for wind and solar energy projects. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of these policies while the litigation proceeds. See Renew Northeast, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, et al., No. 25-cv-13961-DJC, (D. Mass. Apr. 21, 2026) ECF Dkt. 89.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.01.26
New Executive Order Promoting Fixed Price Contracting: What It Means for Federal Contractors
Client Alert | 8 min read | 05.01.26
Pre-Approved: ICO Publishes Guidance on "Recognised Legitimate Interests”
Client Alert | 6 min read | 04.29.26
CMS Seeks to Expand Interoperability Requirements to Drug Pre-Authorization (FAQ)
