ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
Appeal of -- ) 
 ) 
DynCorp International, LLC ) ASBCA No. 62227 
 ) 
Under Contract No. FA8617-17-C-6210 ) 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq.  
Erin L. Felix, Esq. 
  Polsinelli PC 
  Washington, DC   
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 
  Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
Erika L. Whelan Retta, Esq. 
  Trial Attorney 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK GRANTING THE 
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING APPELLANT’S 
MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS 
 
This appeal has challenged a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting 
System (CPARS) evaluation.  Appellant, DynCorp International, LLC (DynCorp), has 
sought a judgment ordering the correction of two marginal CPARS ratings issued as 
part of an evaluation by the United States Air Force Materiel Command (government) 
for the contract referenced above.  DynCorp claimed the ratings were inaccurate and 
unfair.  The government seeks dismissal of the appeal as moot.  It explains that the 
contracting officer has recently withdrawn the entire CPARS evaluation for review and 
to make any appropriate changes, taking into account DynCorp’s contentions.  Thus, 
the government says it has already satisfied DynCorp’s demands and there is nothing 
more for the Board to do.   
 
DynCorp responds to the government’s request with its own motion.  It does 
not deny that the government has withdrawn the evaluation or that the appeal is moot.  
Indeed, it says it supports the steps the government intends to take.  But, instead of 
dismissing the appeal DynCorp thinks the Board should retain jurisdiction and suspend 
the proceeding until the government issues a revised evaluation.  It complains about 
the prejudice it might suffer should the government ultimately issue a second set of 
marginal ratings.  DynCorp says that it would have to maneuver through the contract 
claim process again and file a new appeal with its associated pleading procedures.  All 
the while the new, ostensibly objectionable marginal ratings would influence agency 
past performance reviews of DynCorp.  

2 
 
 
Generally, a claim must be dismissed as moot when the issues presented are no 
longer live.  Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dep’t of Defense, 413 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  
So, 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.  See Chapman Law Firm Co. v. Greenleaf Constr. Co., 490 F.3d 
934, 939 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Holstein v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1145, 1147 (7th Cir. 
1994), cited in Rothe Dev. Corp., 413 F.3d at 1331.  This dispute is no longer live given 
that the government has withdrawn the CPARS evaluation and is reconsidering it in light 
of DynCorp’s assertions.*  DynCorp does not suggest that it seeks any other relief from 
the Board.  DynCorp’s request that we retain the appeal in a suspended status anyway 
because it might disagree with a yet to be issued new evaluation reflects a concern 
premised upon mere speculation.  It is not grounded in a live dispute between the parties 
that is properly before the Board.  Because we lack jurisdiction over this moot appeal, we 
are required to dismiss it.  See Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 893 F.2d 324, 327 
(Fed. Cir. 1989).     
 
Appellant’s motion to suspend proceedings is denied.  The government’s 
motion to dismiss is granted.     
 
 Dated:  August 28, 2020 
 
 
 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
(Signatures continued) 
                                              
* DynCorp does not argue that the “voluntary cessation” exception to the mootness 
doctrine applies here.  We see no reason to conclude it should, given the 
presumption that the government will carry out its actions in good faith.  
See Chapman, 490 F.3d at 940.                 


3 
 
I concur 
 
 
 
 
 I concur 
 
 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 J. REID PROUTY 
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. 62227, Appeal of 
DynCorp International, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  August 28, 2020 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals