Free Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:99-cv-00440-SGB

Document 162-2

Filed 04/19/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ATK THIOKOL, INC. Plaintiff, vs. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON ENTITLEMENT ATK Thiokol, Inc. ("ATK") filed a claim under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 601-612, on May 10, 1999, asserting that: (1) the decision of the cognizant administrative contracting officer to disallow $8,149,888.00 of research and development ("R&D") and capital costs as unallocable and unallowable indirect costs under government contracts subject to the Cost Accounting Standards ("CAS") and Federal Acquisition Regulation ("FAR") was improper; and (2) ATK is entitled to recover these indirect costs in accordance with the terms of its contracts subject to the CAS and FAR impacted by the disallowance. Based upon this Court's rulings on cross motions for summary judgment and subsequent motions relating to the scope of this Court's jurisdiction to grant monetary relief, and after full briefing and oral arguments on these issues, this Court's rulings are as follows: 1. Pursuant to the Court's ruling in ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States, 68 Fed. Case No. 99-440c (Judge Braden)

Cl. 612 (2005), ATK is entitled to judgment that the R&D and capital costs are properly accounted for as allocable and allowable indirect costs under the CAS and FAR; and

Case 1:99-cv-00440-SGB

Document 162-2

Filed 04/19/2007

Page 2 of 2

2.

Pursuant to this Court's ruling in ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States, 72

Fed. Cl. 306 (2006), ATK is entitled to monetary relief under all contracts subject to the CAS and FAR impacted by the ACO's disallowance for the entirety of the disallowed costs; and 3. ATK's Amended Complaint filed with this Court on September 18, 2006,

in response to the Court's 2006 decision, will be entered into the record; and 4. Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 611, ATK is entitled to interest on all disallowed

costs from the date the defendant, the United States, failed to pay these costs under terms of the relevant contracts, or May 10, 1999 (the date of ATK's claim), whichever is later, until the date of payment. Dated this ______ day of __________, 2007.

Honorable Susan G. Braden
DN:32123013.2

Page 2