ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of --
URS Federal Support Services, Inc. 
Under Contract 
No. F A8108-09-D-0006 
Task Order No. 0055 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 60364 
Thomas 0. Mason, Esq. 
Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq. 
Erin M. Estevez, Esq. 
Cooley LLP 
Washington, DC 
Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 
Air Force 
Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
Maj George M. Ebert, USAF 
Christopher M. McNulty, Esq. 
Trial Attorneys 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'CONNELL ON THE 
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 
This appeal arises from a final decision demanding payment from appellant of 
about $1.2 million, which the contracting officer has now withdrawn. The government 
has moved to dismiss without prejudice. Appellant agrees that the appeal should be 
dismissed but contends that it should be with prejudice. We dismiss the appeal as moot. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
On 17 May 2013, the Air Force awarded appellant a task order that called for it 
to provide aircraft maintenance support services at a base-year price of $7,105,724.27 
(R4, tab 14; compl. & answer~~ 19-20). 
On 6 November 2015, a contracting officer issued a final decision demanding 
repayment of $1,211,286.47 due to insufficient manning under the firm-fixed-price 
contract line item numbers for the task order (R4, tab 139). Appellant filed this appeal 
on 11December2015; the government filed an answer on 25 March 2016. On 7 June 
2016, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment. 
On 29 July 2016, the government filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice. 
Attached to the motion is a memorandum from the contracting officer to appellant 
issued the previous day stating that the contracting officer's final decision was 
"rescinded without prejudice." The contracting officer further stated 
that "if it is 

determined in the best interest of the Government, the Contracting Officer reserves the 
right to assert a revised claim based upon a different legal theory on this matter." 
DECISION 
The only issue before us at the moment is the precise form of dismissal for this 
appeal. Thus, we do not address whether the government can reassert this claim under 
a different legal theory. 
When a contracting officer rescinds a government claim and the final 
decision asserting that claim, the voluntary action moots the appeal, leaving the 
Board without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal any further. Combat Support 
Associates, ASBCA Nos. 58945, 58946, 16-1 BCA ~ 36,288; L-3 Communications 
Integrated Systems, L.P., ASBCA Nos. 60431, 60432, 16-1 BCA ~ 36,362. 
This appeal is in one respect different from Combat Support Associates and L-3 
because the contracting officer in this appeal has reserved the right to issue another 
final decision seeking repayment on a different legal theory. By contrast, in Combat 
Support Associates the contracting officer stated that she had no intention of issuing 
another final decision disallowing the costs that had been at issue. Combat Support, 
16-1 BCA ~ 36,288 at 176,972. In L-3, the contracting officers did not state 
whether the government intended to reassert the claims that had been withdrawn. L-3, 
16-1 BCA ~ 36,362 at 177,252. 
Despite this difference from our recent precedent, we conclude that the mere 
possibility that the contracting officer could reassert the claim based on some 
unidentified legal theory does not change our determination that the appeal must be 
dismissed as moot. In our view, the overriding consideration is that the final decision 
providing the jurisdictional basis for this appeal no longer exists and the government 
cannot enforce its repayment demand. Put another way, there is simply no live 
controversy for the Board to adjudicate. 
As appellant observes, in the past we have sometimes dismissed appeals with 
prejudice when the contracting officer withdrew his or her final decision. KAMP 
Systems, Inc., ASBCA No. 54253, 09-2 BCA ~ 34,196. However, we subsequently 
clarified that such dismissals are without prejudice as to the merits, Combat Support, 
16-1 BCA ~ 36,288 at 176,973 (citing, inter alia, Lasmer Industries, Inc., 
ASBCA No. 56411, 10-2 BCA ~ 34,491 ), and, as cited above, in recent years we have 
dismissed such appeals as moot. 
2 

CONCLUSION 
This appeal is dismissed as moot. 
Dated: 5 December 2016 
I 
concur 
7 , L 
/ , .~ . -~-~. ··---'/,. i;!YI ./ ./ ~ ,// / . / . ' , 
/~ / G-C~,y;,/T/;i;,.£/{4-. 
MARK N. STEMPLER I J ~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
MICHAEL N. O'CONNELL ~ 
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 No. 60364, Appeal of URS 
Federal Support Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals