## Facts

- The Air Force and United Technologies Corporation, Pratt & Whitney entered a six-year, multi-billion-dollar contract for aircraft engines and related items.
- Under the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), the contractor was required to submit cost or pricing data and certify it was accurate, complete, and current as of the date of price agreement.
- The Air Force later sought about a $300 million downward price adjustment, alleging the contractor provided defective cost or pricing data in its initial proposal and in its best and final offer.
- The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals found the contractor’s submissions contained several inaccuracies and omissions meeting TINA’s definition of defective data.
- The Board nevertheless found the Air Force failed to prove its negotiators actually reviewed and relied on the challenged data in negotiating the final contract price, and also failed to show the defects resulted in an overcharge.
- The Board denied the Air Force’s TINA claim, and the Air Force appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Air Force was entitled to a TINA contract price reduction where defective cost or pricing data existed but the Air Force failed to prove detrimental reliance on that data in negotiating price.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s factual findings on reliance, causation, and absence of overcharge.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s denial of the Air Force’s TINA claim.
- The court held that defective cost or pricing data alone does not justify a price reduction under TINA.
- Because the Air Force did not prove it relied on the defective data to its detriment (i.e., that the data caused a higher agreed price), TINA’s price-adjustment remedy was not triggered.
- The court deferred to the Board’s reliance and causation findings because they were supported by substantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A TINA price adjustment requires proof that (1) the contractor furnished defective cost or pricing data and (2) the government relied on that data to its detriment, causing an increased contract price.
- The government bears the burden of proving detrimental reliance and a causal link between the defective data and the price agreed upon.
- Existence of defective data is insufficient where the record does not show that government negotiators used the data in reaching the final price.
- On appeal, board findings on reliance and causation are reviewed as factual determinations and are upheld if supported by substantial evidence; legal interpretations of TINA are reviewed de novo.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that TINA does not permit a price reduction based solely on defective cost or pricing data; the government must also prove it relied on the defective data in negotiating a higher price, and the Board’s finding of no such reliance defeated the Air Force’s claim.


Wynne v. United Techs. Corp., 463 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2006)