Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc.
Docket: ASBCA 58343
Decision date: 2014-09-02

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of --
Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc. 
Under Contract No. N62470-95-B-2399 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58343 
Mr. Peter C. Nwogu 
President 
Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 
Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
Ellen M. Evans, Esq. 
Senior Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE FREEMAN 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL 
Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc. (ESCI) is appealing the deemed denial 
of its termination settlement claim. After extensive pre-hearing proceedings, ESCI 
now moves for recusal of the presiding judge and his panel on the grounds that they 
have a bias and prejudice against appellant that makes a fair judgment impossible. 
Alternatively, ESCI asks that we voluntarily transfer the appeal to the Civilian Board 
of Contract Appeals (CBCA). The government has not responded to the motion. 
After careful consideration, we find the motion without merit. 
ESCI contends that: "The Board's administration of appellant's appeal is 
plagued with bias and prejudice as demonstrated in the rejection of a[ n] evidential 
hearing in appellant's ASBCA No. 58343 T4C, the denial of ASBCA No. 51722-
Appellant's Equal Access for Justice Act, the denial of ASBCA 58221 and ASBCA 
58847-Appellant's Request for Payment of Invoice No. 7" (mot. at 2). 
The rejection of an evidential hearing to which ESCI refers was a rejection of 
ESCI's proposed hearing dates of 15-18 February 2014 because those dates did not 
allow for completion of a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit report on the 
claim. The audit report was not completed and published until 24 February 2014 (Bd. 
corr. file). On 2 April 2014 the Board requested the parties to confer and propose a 
mutually agreed hearing date no later than 15 May 2014 (Bd. corr. file email). The 

parties to date have engaged in extensive motion practice and have not yet proposed a 
mutually agreed hearing date for ASBCA No. 58343.1 
The Board's decisions in favor of the government in the EAJA claim in 
ASBCA No. 51722 (13 BCA ~ 35,352, aff'd on recon., 14-1BCA~35,468, 2nd 
recon. dismissed, 14-1BCA~35,520) and in the Invoice No. 7 appeals in ASBCA 
Nos. 58221 (13 BCA ~ 35,329) and 58847 (14-1BCA~35,510) are no more 
indicative of bias and prejudice against ESCI than the Board's decision in favor of 
ESCI in the default termination appeal in ASBCA No. 51722 ( 11-2 BCA ~ 34,848) is 
indicative of bias and prejudice against the government. We note in this regard that 
the decision in ASBCA No. 51722 ( 11-2 BCA ~ 34,848) converting the default 
termination to a convenience termination, without which ESCI would have no 
termination settlement claim, was authored by the presiding judge in the present 
appeal. The same judge also authored the Board's denial of the government's Motion 
for Relief from Judgment from that decision (13 BCA ~ 35,316). 
ESCI alleges that the presiding judge's suggestion of, and request for briefs on, 
a potential lack of jurisdiction over a substantial amount of ESCI' s termination 
settlement claim, and other interlocutory rulings and comments "with intent to favor 
the Government. .. are evidence of deep-seated favoritism and partiality in favor of the 
government" (mot. at 6). The ESCI termination settlement claim included substantial 
amounts for changes and delays by the government incurred in contract performance 
which, insofar as the pre-hearing record indicated, had not been submitted as claims 
under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109, within the 
time prescribed for such claims. Considering that the CDA statute of limitations on 
the submission of claims is jurisdictional, see Taj Al Rajaa Company, ASBCA 
No. 58801, 14-1BCA~35,522 at 174,104, there were reasonable grounds for the 
presiding judge's request for the parties to brief the issue. 
ESCI states that: "the Board's management of appellant's appeal is based on 
innuendos and false representations of the fact that the Board is receiving from 
perceived extra judiciary communications between the Board and the Navy," and that 
"[the presiding judge's] comment that appellant did not cooperate with DCAA audit 
could have been derived from extrajudicial source since there was no evidential 
1 ESCI states that "[the presiding judge] required appellant to travel with his 
witnesses to [the 
Board's offices in Falls Church, Virginia] for the T4C hearing 
in June 2014" (mot. at 16). The June hearing date was suggested, not required, 
by the presiding judge, and 
both parties declined the suggested date. 
Subsequently, ESCI's President 
and legal representative in the appeal requested 
a "leave" from Board proceedings for the period 10 July-15 September 2014 
for family commitments (Bd. corr. file, email <ltd. 24 June 2014). The Board 
granted the request (Bd. corr. file, ltr. <ltd. 18 July 2014). 
2 

hearing to determine whether appellant cooperated with DCAA audit process" 
(mot. at 5-6, 8). There is not a scintilla of evidence supporting ESCI' s allegations of 
"perceived extra judiciary communications" between the Board and the Navy 
regarding ESCI' s lack of cooperation with the DCAA audit. There is ample 
documentation in the pre-hearing record, culminating in the 24 February 2014 DCAA 
audit report, from which the presiding judge could reasonably question ESCI's 
cooperation with the audit2 (Bd. corr. file, DCAA Audit Report, 24 February 2014). 
The standard for recusal of the Board or a presiding judge is stated in Corners 
and Edges, Inc., ASBCA No. 55611 et al., 10-1 BCA ii 34,326 at 169,530, quoting the 
Supreme Court in Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994), in pertinent 
part as follows: 
First, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid 
basis for a bias or partiality 
motion [citation omitted]. In 
and of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding comments 
or accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show 
reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the 
rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or 
antagonism required (as discussed below) when no 
extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they 
are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal. Second, 
opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts 
introduced or events occurring in the course of the current 
proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a 
basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a 
deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair 
judgment impossible. Thus, judicial remarks during the 
course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even 
hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do 
not support a bias or partiality challenge. They may do so 
if they reveal an opinion that derives from an extra judicial 
source; and they will do so if they reveal such a high 
degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair 
judgment impossible .... Not establishing bias or partiality, 
however, are expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, 
annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of 
2 The audit report stated that it could not provide an audit opinion because, contrary to 
FAR 49.206-2(b)(2), "ESCI's termination for convenience settlement proposal 
was not prepared using actual costs incurred through the effective date of the 
termination, but instead was based on an estimated increased contract price" 
(Bd. corr. file, DCAA Audit Report at 4). 
3 

what imperfect men and women, even after having been 
confirmed as federal judges, sometimes display. A judge's 
ordinary efforts at courtroom administration-even a stem 
and short-tempered judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom 
administration-remain immune. [Emphasis in original] 
The Board's decisions denying the Equal Access to Justice Application in 
ASBCA No. 51722 and the Invoice No. 7 claims in ASBCA Nos. 58221and58847, 
and the presiding judge's request for briefing, interlocutory rulings and comments on 
the case to the parties in the course of the pre-hearing proceedings, are clearly within 
the Liteky rule quoted above. "Moreover, allegations of unlawful bias or other 
unlawful conduct must be supported by evidence. Mere conclusory statements are 
insufficient." Corners and Edges, 10-1 BCA ii 34,326 at 169,530. ESCI has not 
shown any "extrajudicial source" involved in those Board decisions, or in the 
interlocutory rulings or comments of the presiding judge. Nor has it shown any 
comment or conduct of the Board or presiding judge indicating "such a high degree of 
favoritism or antagonism as to make a fair judgment impossible." 
In Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc., ASBCA No. 54995, 06-2 BCA 
ii 33,321 (an appeal under an Army Corps of Engineers contract), ESCI sought, on 
reconsideration, the removal of the presiding judge because "[he] has demonstrated 
pattern of suspect of extremely sympathetic to government's side of the cases he 
reviewed" (syntax in original). Id. at 165,212. In that appeal, we held that: "A 
judge's decisions in the instant case or in past cases are not valid grounds for his 
recusal. . . . Movant has identified no statement or conduct of [the presiding judge] or 
any of the other judges who concurred with the decisions ... that show 'personal bias or 
prejudice' concerning appellant." Id. at 165,213. That is also the case here. 
Finally, even if we were so inclined, appellant has pointed to no authority and 
we are aware of none, that permits the transfer of an appeal from the ASBCA to the 
CBCA. 
4 

CONCLUSION 
The motion is denied. 
Dated: 2 September 2014 
I concur 
~~~~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
MAN, JR. 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
~RD 
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 No. 58343, Appeal of 
Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's 
Charter. 
Dated: 
5 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals