Opinion ID: 716638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The C-5A Conformed to the Reasonably Precise Specifications

Text: 25 The plaintiffs argued that the C-5A did not conform to the original design specifications because [w]hat the Air Force chose in the C-5A procurement program was a failsafe performance specification.... According to the plaintiffs, the design of the circuit was not failsafe because a single point electrical failure, such as the one alleged to have occurred, could result in an accident. However, such a general design specification is not contemplated by the first element of the Boyle test because [o]nly the detailed, quantitative specifications--and not those calling for such vagaries as a failsafe, simple or inexpensive product--are relevant to the government contractor defense. Kleemann, 890 F.2d at 703 (4th Cir.1989). 26 The defendants introduced evidence showing that the Air Force inspectors were present and actively involved throughout the design, review, development and testing of the C-5A. Furthermore, the evidenced showed that the Air Force accepted and has used the C-5A for over 20 years without any significant problems. From this evidence the district court could have concluded that the C-5A was built in accordance with Air Force specifications. See Smith v. Xerox Corp., 866 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989). 27 In an attempt to rebut the defendants' evidence, the plaintiffs included affidavits and other exhibits describing the general process of military procurement for military aircraft, such as the C-5A, where the Government has very little to do with the actual design and development of the plane. However, none of that information specifically addresses the actual development of the C-5A; the information describes only how procurement was to work in theory. This background information, while interesting, is of no legal relevance because it does not rebut the defendants' highly specific information about the actual development of the C-5A. 28