Opinion ID: 716638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Air Force Approved Reasonably Precise Specifications

Text: 22 In Stout v. Borg-Warner Corp., 933 F.2d 331 (5th Cir.1991), this Court enumerated some of the constituents of reasonably precise specifications and government approval of those specifications for the purposes of satisfying the first element of the government contractor immunity defense. We held that the government contractor immunity defense is available where review [of the project] involved, inter alia, [the contractor's] submission of detailed drawings at various progressive stages of the design, critical design reviews where Army engineers' critiqued [the contractor's] work, and, finally, the production of prototype models tested and evaluated for months by the Army for its actual performance. Stout, 933 F.2d at 336. See Trevino v. General Dynamics Corp., 865 F.2d 1474, 1480 (1989) (if government engages in meaningful review of design the first element of Boyle test is established); see also Kleemann v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 890 F.2d 698, 701 (4th Cir.1989) (It is this salient fact of governmental participation in the various stages of the aircraft's development that establishes the military contractor defense.); Harduvel v. General Dynamics Corp., 878 F.2d 1311, 1320 (11th Cir.1989) (requirement that government approve reasonably precise specifications is met where contractor incorporated design that government subsequently reviewed and approved). 23 In this case, the Air Force's substantive review, evaluation and testing of the C-5A clearly implicates the Government's discretionary function and approval of reasonably precise specifications. The defendants included with their motion for summary judgment unrebutted affidavits declaring that Lockheed, General Electric and the Air Force worked closely together on the development of the C-5A from its planning stages to its full production. In addition, the Air Force, through its personnel, inspected and supervised every aspect of the production of the C-5A. Clearly, the approvals in this case go far beyond mere rubber stamping. See Trevino, 865 F.2d at 1480 (When the government merely accepts, without any substantive review or evaluation, decisions made by a government contractor, then the contractor, not the government, is exercising discretion). In this case, the Government did not leave the critical design decisions to the private contractor, but worked closely with the defendants every step of the way. Trevino, 865 F.2d at 1480. 24