Combat Support Associates
Docket: ASBCA 58945, ASBCA 58946
Decision date: 2016-03-02

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of.--
Combat Support Associates 
Under Contract No. DASA02-99-C-1234 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
ASBCA Nos. 58945, 58946 
Karen L. Manos, Esq. 
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 
Washington, DC 
E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 
DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 
Douglas R. Jacobson, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
Defense Contract Management Agency 
Bloomington, MN 
David C. Hoffman, Esq. 
Deputy General Counsel 
Defense Contract Audit Agency 
Fort Belvoir, VA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON THE 
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 
Appellant, Combat Support Associates (CSA), appeals from two contracting 
officer's final decisions: one establishing indirect cost rates and the other demanding 
payment of an alleged overpayment. Those two decisions have been rescinded, and 
the government requests dismissal of the appeals with prejudice, for lack of 
jurisdiction. CSA opposes, contending that live issues remain. We dismiss the 
appeals as moot. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
On 13 July 1999, the Department of the Army (government) awarded Contract 
No. DASA02-99-C-1234 to CSA for the provision of support and security services in 
Kuwait (R4, tab 1 at 1). On 30 April 2007, CSA submitted to the government its fiscal 
year (FY) 2006 incurred cost submission (ICS) (ex. 3 at 2). On 17 June 2013, the Defense 
Contract Audit 
Agency (DCAA) issued a report of an audit of the ICS (R4, tab 2). In the 
report, DCAA questioned $3,504,263 in costs and "qualified" $48,245, 100 in other costs 
(id. at G-42). 

On 23 August 2013, the administrative contracting officer (ACO), having reviewed 
the DCAA audit report, issued two final decisions, one demanding that CSA pay the 
government $332,167 in disallowed direct costs (R4, tab 4 at G-166), and the other 
disallowing certain indirect costs and unilaterally determining CSA's indirect cost rates 
for FY 2006 (R4, tab 5 at G-171 ). 
On 2 October 2013, CSA timely filed an appeal docketed as ASBCA No. 58945 
(appealing the ACO's final decision demanding payment of disallowed direct costs), and 
filed an appeal docketed as ASBCA No. 58946 (appealing the ACO's final decision 
disallowing indirect costs and determining indirect cost rates). In its complaint, CSA 
asserted 
that the government's claims were time-barred by the six-year statute of 
limitations, because, CSA contended, the government's claims accrued no later than 
20 May 2007, by when the government was in possession of CSA's "complete FY 2006 
ICS" (compl. at 9, il 34). 
On 20 February 2014, CSA filed a motion 
to dismiss the appeals for lack of 
jurisdiction, contending that the government's claims were time-barred. On 
30 November 2014, the Board scheduled a hearing of the appeals to commence on 
2 November 2015. On 16 March 2015, upon reconsideration of an earlier decision 
denying CSA's motion to dismiss on the merits, Combat Support Associates, ASBCA 
Nos. 58945, 58946, 14-1BCAil35,782, we vacated that decision and denied CSA's 
motion to dismiss, pursuant to Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315 
(Fed. Cir. 2014), on the ground that the six-year statute of limitations set forth in the 
Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4), is not jurisdictional. Combat Support 
Associates, ASBCA Nos. 58945, 58946, 15-1BCAil35,923 at 175,591. On 
29 October 2015, the ACO rescinded her two, 23 August 2013 decisions, stating: 
(R4, tab 6) 
I hereby withdraw the Contracting Officer's Final Decision 
(COFD) and demand for payment dated August 23, 2013. 
CSA is hereby released of the Government claim for 
$332,167 of direct costs. Also, I rescind the COFD dated 
August 23, 2013 which unilaterally set CSA's indirect 
rates for FY 2006 and disallowed $1,409 ,464 of indirect 
costs. The Government has no intention of issuing another 
COFD disallowing the costs in the August 23, 2013 
COFDs. 
On 2 November 2015, the Board commenced a two-day hearing of the appeals, 
and the government moved for dismissal of the appeals with prejudice, contending that 
as a result of the rescission of the government's claims, there were no longer any claims 
before the Board to adjudicate. On 20 November 2015, CSA opposed the motion. 
2 

Characterizing its reliance upon the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, CSA 
contended that the appeals should be sustained on the merits of that affirmative defense, 
despite the rescission of the government's claims, because the government's practice of 
"disallowing costs more than six years after submission of an adequate ICS" is "capable 
of repetition, yet evading review" (app. opp'n at 13). 
DECISION 
Where a contracting officer unequivocally rescinds a government claim and the 
final decision asserting 
that claim, with no evidence that the action was taken in bad 
faith, there is no longer any claim before the Board to adjudicate, and the appeal is 
dismissed. KAMP Systems, Inc., ASBCA No. 54253, 09-2 BCA ii 34,196 at 168,995. 
In such circumstances, the government's voluntary action moots the appeal, cf Teddy's 
Cool Treats, ASBCA No. 58384, 14-1 BCA ii 35,601at174,410 (dismissing appeal as 
moot where government changed default termination to a notice termination), leaving 
the Board without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal further. See Lasmer Industries, 
Inc., ASBCA No. 56411, 10-2 BCA ii 34,491 at 170,123. 
That is the case here. The ACO unequivocally rescinded the final decisions 
asserting the government's claims that are the subject of the appeals, expressly stating 
that "[t]he Government has no intention of issuing another COFD disallowing the 
costs in the August 23, 2013 COFDs," thereby voluntarily providing the relief sought 
in the appeals. In addition, there is no suggestion that the rescissions are in bad faith. 
Consequently, there are no longer any claims before us to adjudicate, and the appeals 
are moot. CSA points to certain costs, including those that DCAA "qualified," that 
CSA suggests are still at issue between the parties (app. opp'n at 11-12). However, 
because the ACO unequivocally rescinded her final decisions, there is nothing left of 
the merits of the appeals for us to adjudicate, and, therefore, there are no costs at issue 
before us. 
We disagree with CSA that we are confronted with a dispute that is "capable of 
repetition, yet evading review." A case is moot when the issues presented are no 
longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Humane 
Society of the United States v. Clinton, 236 F.3d 1320, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 
However, a claim is not moot ifthat action is capable of repetition, yet evading review. 
Id. To qualify for this exception, the challenged action must meet two conditions. Id. 
First, the action must in its duration be too short to be fully litigated prior to its 
cessation or expiration. Id. Second, there must be a reasonable likelihood that the 
party will again suffer the injury that gave rise to the suit. Id. CSA contends that the 
government's practice of"disallowing costs more than six years after submission of an 
adequate ICS" is capable of repetition, yet evading review, making the appeals still 
live disputes. 
3 

A problem with CSA's argument is that its "dispute" with the government 
regarding whether the statute of limitations begins to run upon the submission of an 
"adequate" ICS is not a claim, it was the theory behind CSA's affirmative defense 
against the government's claims in these appeals. Because the ACO unequivocally 
rescinded those claims, there is nothing left of the appeals for CSA to defend against. 
As such, CSA's request that we rule on the merits of its affirmative defense is, 
essentially, a request for an advisory opinion regarding claim accrual, which we 
decline to provide. 
Finally, we note that a dismissal of an appeal as moot is without prejudice to its 
merits. See Textile Productions, Inc. v. Mead Corp., 134 F.3d 1481, 1486 (Fed. Cir. 
1998); see also Lasmer Industries, 10-2 BCA ii 34,491 at 170, 123 (explaining that 
dismissal of appeal "with prejudice," after rescission of government claim, was not on 
the merits). 
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, the appeals are dismissed as moot. 
Dated: 2 March 2016 
I concur 
e,~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
4 
'"'tIM011fY ~MIL 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
~ 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 58945, 58946, Appeals of 
Combat Support Associates, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
5 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals