CBCA 6476

THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN ITS ENTIRETY ON DECEMBER 17, 2020 GRANTED: December 8, 2020 CBCA 6476, 6811 MISSION SUPPORT ALLIANCE, LLC, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Respondent. Marisa M. Bavand and Allison L. Murphy of Groff Murphy PLLC, Seattle, WA, counsel for Appellant. Paul R. Davis and Andrew J. Unsicker, Office of Chief Counsel, Department of Energy, Richland, WA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges SOMERS (Chair), LESTER, and CHADWICK. SOMERS, Board Judge. Pending before us is a motion for summary judgment by Mission Support Alliance, LLC (MSA). MSA seeks a ruling as a matter of law that the Department of Energy (DOE) is not entitled to disallow $11,424,602 in Parent Office Support Plan (POSP) costs reimbursed by DOE during fiscal years (FYs) 2009–2012 and $5,247,135 during FYs 2013–2018. DOE opposes the motion, contending genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. We agree with MSA and grant the motion and the appeal. CBCA 6476, 6811 2 Background In April 2009, DOE and MSA entered into a performance-based cost-plus-award-fee contract with a value of $3,059,369,580. Under the contract, MSA provided infrastructural support to the Hanford Site, a decommissioned nuclear production complex located adjacent to the Columbia River in Washington State. The scope of work required MSA to provide, among other things, laboratory services, security services, transportation infrastructure, utilities, telecommunications and IT support, and various business administrative services. MSA subcontracted a portion of the work. As a cost-reimbursement contract awarded under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 (48 CFR pt. 15 (2008)), the contract included various clauses from the FAR and Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) requiring MSA to document and support its costs. For example, FAR 31.201-2(d) required MSA to “account for costs and maintain records, including supporting documentation, adequate to demonstrate that the costs claimed have been incurred, are allocable to the Contract, and comply with the applicable cost principles.” 48 CFR 31.201-2(d). In addition, the contract provided a mechanism whereby MSA, a joint venture, could receive technical support from its parent organizations1: H.39 Parent Organization Support2 (a) For on-site work, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) fee generally provides adequate compensation for parent organization expenses incurred in the general management of this Contract. The general construct of this Contract results in minimal parent organization investment (in terms of its own resources, such as labor, material, overhead, etc.) in the Contract work. The 1 Originally, the parent organizations were Lockheed Martin Integrated Technology (LLC) (Lockheed Martin); Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs); and Wackenhut Services, Inc. (Wackenhut). During FYs 2013–2018, the parent organizations’ corporate identities changed. Lockheed Martin became known as Leidos. Wackenhut became G4S and then Centerra.