Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00396-MCW

Document 81

Filed 07/08/2008

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 06-396C (Filed July 8, 2008) **************************** L-3 COMMUNICATIONS INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, L.P., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and LOCKHEED MARTIN AERONAUTICS COMPANY, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * __________________________________________________________________ ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE RECORD __________________________________________________________________ In conjunction with Defendant's motion to dismiss this action as barred under the AntiAssignment Act, the parties are directed to supplement the record, addressing the issue of whether Raytheon's Aircraft Integration Systems Business Unit was the unit that submitted the proposal in the C-5 AMP procurement and incurred the bid and proposal preparation (B&P) costs at issue.1 This L-3 asserts that Raytheon's Aircraft Integration Systems Business Unit was the unit that submitted the proposal, but the record is unclear. Pl.'s Response at 4. Tr. (June 27, 2008) at 55-58; 66. The proposal appears to have been submitted by Raytheon Systems Company, but the cost volumes were submitted with a cover letter on stationery of "Raytheon Systems Company Intelligence, Information and Aircraft Integration Systems," Waco, TX. A 331-32. This reference to AIS on the letterhead is not sufficient to prove that the AIS business unit submitted the proposal and incurred the claimed B&P costs, especially when that same letter is signed by the vice president and general manager of Raytheon Systems Company. A332. In addition to Anti-Assignment Act
1

Case 1:06-cv-00396-MCW

Document 81

Filed 07/08/2008

Page 2 of 2

supplementation may take the form of declarations, excerpts from Raytheon's proposal and other supporting data, and shall be filed by July 18, 2008. s/Mary Ellen Coster Williams MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Judge

implications, this uncertainty raises issues as to whether the B&P claim was a claim "relating exclusively or primarily to the AIS business." A 17-20. Further confusing matters Plaintiff, in its Amended Complaint, asserted that it is the successor in interest to "Raytheon E-Systems." First Amd. Compl. at 1. 2