ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON THE 
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 
 
 On February 13, 2023, appellant, Crowley Government Services, Inc. (Crowley 
or CGS), appealed from a contracting officer’s January 30, 2023 final decision in 
which the contracting officer at least purported to rescind a Contractor Performance 
Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) made by Military Sealift Command (MSC) in 
connection with Contract No. N62387-15-C-2505, in response to Crowley’s 
November 14, 2022 claim to the contracting officer challenging the CPARS.  
Crowley’s claim states: 
 
This [Contract Disputes Act] (CDA) claim seeks relief 
from the government’s inaccurate and unfair past 
performance evaluations of Crowley under the contract, as 
reflected by three past performance evaluations in the 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System 
(“CPARS”) posted recently by MSC . . . .  For the reasons 
explained in further detail in this claim, the assigned 
ratings of Marginal (and in some cases of Satisfactory) and 
the accompanying adverse narratives are factually 
inaccurate, inconsistent with the requirements at Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Subpart 42.15, and 
unfair.  In addition, contrary to applicable law and 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Crowley Government Services, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63531 
 )  
Under Contract No. N62387-15-C-2505 )  
   
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: James Y. Boland, Esq.  
Caleb E. McCallum, Esq. 
    Venable LLP 
    Tysons Corner, VA 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq. 
    Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
 James L. Johnsen, Esq. 
Donald J. Thornley, Esq. 
Patrick M. Mayette, Esq.  
    Trial Attorneys 
     

2 
 
regulation, Crowley never received an opportunity to 
review and respond to these evaluations before MSC 
finalized and posted them.  Only recently did MSC permit 
Crowley to submit responses, meaning that officials 
evaluating Crowley’s proposals for further government 
business have been relying on unfair and inaccurate 
information regarding Crowley’s performance.  In fact, 
Crowley has performed all aspects of the contract as 
required and in compliance with all contract terms. 
 
(R4, tab 2 at 1) (emphasis added).  And the contracting officer’s final decision states: 
 
Although MSC’s leadership stands by the factual substance 
of its CPARS ratings, in recognition of MSC’s 
longstanding business relationship with CGS and the 
possible procedural irregularities during the issuance of 
these three CPARS entries, I will direct the following 
relief:  MSC will rescind the finalized performance 
evaluations in CPARS for the 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 
2018-2019 reporting periods.  This relief is the most 
equitable resolution to the claim given the difficulty of 
resolving factual disputes from performance periods 
extending back over 7 years, the diminishing relevance of 
these performance periods to CGS’s likelihood of success 
in future government contracts, and the availability of 
other sources of information available to future procuring 
agencies to assess CGS’s performance on this contract, i.e. 
past performance questionnaires. 
 
(R4, tab 1 at 1-2) (emphasis added).  Crowley’s February 13, 2023 notice of appeal 
indicates that the appeal challenges the terms of the rescission – specifically the 
contracting officer’s reservation regarding the “factual substance” of the CPARS 
ratings – stating (emphasis added): 
 
On November 14, 2022, Crowley submitted a claim 
pursuant to the CDA seeking a contracting officer’s final 
decision providing relief from unlawful, factually 
unsupported, and procedurally improper CPARS 
assessments issued under Contract No. N62387-15-C-
2505.  On January 30, 2023, the contracting officer issued 
a final decision denying the full relief sought by Crowley, 
stating that “MSC’s leadership stands by the factual 

3 
 
substance of its CPARS ratings” and that Crowley has a 
right of appeal. 
 
 The government moves to dismiss the appeal, saying that “the contracting 
officer’s relief mooted” the claim (gov’t mot. at 1), and cites DynCorp International, 
LLC, ASBCA No. 62,227, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,682 at 182,944, for the point that “when it 
develops during litigation that the relief sought has been granted, or the matters in 
controversy are no longer at issue, the case is moot and should be dismissed for lack of 
jurisdiction.”  However, there is no “litigation development” at issue in this appeal; 
that is, nothing has happened during the litigation of this appeal that has arguably 
mooted the appeal.  Rather, an element of the contacting officer’s decision – that is, 
what is at least arguably a reservation of the “factual substance” of the CPARS ratings 
despite the rescission of “the finalized performance evaluations in CPARS for the 
2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 reporting periods” – is the subject of the 
litigation (R4 tab 1 at 1). 
 
 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).  At least at this early stage of the 
litigation, we identify in this appeal the following live issues:  (1) whether, given the 
reservation in the rescission decision of the “factual substance” of the CPARS ratings, 
that “factual substance” somehow survives the contracting officer’s rescission 
decision, to the prejudice of Crowley; and (2) whether, if so, the “factual substance” of 
the CPARS ratings is fair, accurate, and consistent with Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) Subpart 42.15.  Consequently, we deny the motion to dismiss for 
lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice. 
 
 Dated:  June 7, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Signatures continued) 
 
 
 
TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 

4 
 
I concur 
 
 
 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 
 OWEN C. WILSON 
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. 63531,
 Appeal of Crowley 
Government Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  June 7, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals