ASBCA 60086
Board: ASBCA
Agency: Defense Contract Management Agency
Appellant: Luna Innovations, Inc.
Date: 2017-11-29
Outcome: sustained in part
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
Appeal of -- )
)
Luna Innovations, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 60086
)
Under Contract No. N68335-05-C-0005 et al.)
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Nicole D. Picard, Esq.
Michael J. Vernick, Esq.
Hogan Lovells US LLP
Washington, DC
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.
DCMA Chief Trial Attorney
Gregory T. Allen, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Defense Contract Management Agency
Chantilly, VA
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGED' ALESSANDRIS
Luna Innovations, Inc. (Luna) appeals from a contracting officer's final decision
determining that Luna included unallowable employee stock option costs in its fiscal
year (FY) 2007 indirect cost pricing proposal, and assessing penalties against Luna due
to the inclusion of expressly unallowable costs. As a publically-traded company, Luna
was required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to account, at the
time of award to its employees, for the stock options that could be exercised in later
years. Pursuant to Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised
2004) (FAS 123r), Luna calculated the value of the awarded stock options pursuant to
the "Black-Scholes" method. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)
contracting officer found that Luna's use of the Black-Scholes model violated Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 3 l .205-6(i) which makes unallowable compensation for
personal services calculated or valued based on changes in stock price, because one of
the five variables used by the model was the variance of the stock price. In this appeal,
Luna asserts that its employee stock option costs were allowable and, even ifthe costs
were not allowable, they were not "expressly unallowable" and thus were not subject to
penalty, and finally, even if the costs were expressly unallowable, the contracting
officer should have waived the penalties. As explained below, we hold that Luna's
employee stock option costs were unallowable, but not expressly unallowable, and
uphold the government's final decision in part.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Luna Innovations, Inc.
Luna is a corporation headquartered in Roanoke, Virginia. Currently, its largest line
of business is based on optical fiber technologies. Additionally it has a technology
development business, which largely involves government contracts through the small
business innovative research program. (Compl. ~ 1; tr. 1/19-20) During the time period at
issue, much of Luna's government work was performed for components of the Department
of Defense on a cost-reimbursable basis (R4, tabs 1-3). Approximately $14 million of
Luna's business, out of a total $60 million, is performed pursuant to contracts with the
United States (tr. 1/20).
Luna's fiscal year is the calendar year (R4, tab 4 at 62; tr. 1/21 ). During its
FY 2007, Luna held open government cost-reimbursement contracts containing
FAR 52.216-7, ALLOWABLE COST AND PAYMENT (MAR 2000); FAR 52.233-1, DISPUTES
(DEC 1998); and FAR 52.242-3, PENALTIES FOR UNALLOWABLE COSTS (OCT 1995). The
Allowable Cost and Payment clause incorporates by reference: ( 1) subpart 31.2 of the
FAR in effect on the date of the contract; and (2) subpart 42.7 of the FAR in effect for the
period covered by the indirect cost rate proposal. (R4, tab 1 at 7-8, tab 2 at 30-31, tab 3 at
51-52; tr. 1/21)
In June 2006, Luna completed an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of its common
stock (tr. 1/29). As a publically-traded company, Luna became subject to certain
additional accounting rules, including rules for accounting for employee stock options
(tr. 1/28-29). As a part of its employee compensation program, Luna issued stock
options to select employees and corporate officers during its FY 2007 (R4, tab 4 at
65-66; tr. 1/22). Although Luna had previously issued employee stock options, its
prior accounting treatment was not permissible once Luna became a publically-traded
company (tr. 1/142). Luna's employee stock options generally had a 10-year term, and
had a strike price (the price at which the option could be exercised) set equal to the
current market price (tr.