Opinion ID: 561899
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Splitting the Savings Award

Text: 25 ICSD challenges the decision to split the VECP award between ICSD and Numax. First, we observe that the Board found that [ICSD] does not suggest that Numax wrongfully appropriated [ICSD's] idea or design. ICSD now alleges that there is no evidentiary support for the finding that Numax developed its VECP independently of ICSD. Because this argument was not raised before the Board, we do not consider it here. 26 Our precedent permits the split of savings awards between contractors submitting accepted VECPs. NI Indus., Inc. v. United States, 841 F.2d 1104 (Fed.Cir.1988). In this case, Numax's proposal was submitted after ICSD's proposal, but both were under consideration at the same time, and Numax's VECP was found to be superior in one major category. ICSD has not shown that the decision to split the award in this case or the percentage awarded each contractor was arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion.