ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. F A8620-06-G-4003 et al. ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 60431, 60432 
Karen L. Manos, Esq. 
Erin N. Rankin, Esq. 
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 
Washington, DC 
E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 
DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 
Cara A. Wulf, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
Defense Contract Management Agency 
Boston, MA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL 
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
Appellant, L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P. (L-3), appeals from two 
contracting officer's final decisions demanding payment to the government. Those two 
decisions have been rescinded, and the government requests dismissal of the appeals for 
lack of jurisdiction with prejudice, or as moot. L-3 opposes. We dismiss the appeals as 
moot. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
On 3 November 2015, two administrative contracting officers (ACOs) of the 
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) each issued a contracting officer's final 
decision, pursuant to several contracts between the government and L-3, demanding 
payment of what the contracting officers found were unallowable costs paid to L-3 through 
interim billings, and relying upon a 2015 Defense Contract Audit Agency audit report of 
L-3's costs for fiscal year 2008 (notice of appeal, attachs. 1, 2). One decision demanded 
that L-3 pay the government $266,274; the other demanded payment of$31,952 (id.). L-3 
timely appealed from the decisions, asserting that the government's claims were barred by 
the six-year statute of limitations in the Contract Disputes Act (notice of appeal). On 
1March2016, two ACOs (one of whom issued one of the final decisions) each issued 
a letter to L-3 stating that she "hereby withdraw[s]" one of the 3 November 2015 final 

decisions (app. resp., exs. 1, 2). The letters do not state whether the government intends to 
reassert the claims set forth in the 3 November 2015 decisions (id.). 
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 from the contracting 
officer's decision is dismissed as moot. Combat Support Associates, ASBCA Nos. 58945, 
58946, 16-1BCAii36,288 at 176,973. 
Here, the final decisions asserting the government's claims that are the subject of 
these appeals were rescinded without any equivocation, but the ACOs who rescinded those 
final decisions have 
not expressly stated whether the claims set forth in those decisions 
would ever be reasserted. However, because contracting officials are presumed to act in 
good faith, D.J. Miller & Associates, Inc., ASBCA No. 55357, 11-2 BCA ii 34,856 
at 171,469, we presume that the rescissions of the final decisions reflect the intent not to 
reassert the claims set forth in the rescinded decisions. L-3 points to no evidence to the 
contrary. Because the contracting officers' final decisions that are the subject of these 
appeals have been unequivocally rescinded, there is nothing left of the merits of the 
appeals for us to adjudicate, and the appeals are moot. 
L-3 asserts that the government has refused its requests to enter into a settlement 
agreement releasing L-3 from the rescinded claims, or to issue letters stating that the 
government does not intend to reissue the contracting officers' decisions or otherwise 
disallow the costs disallowed in those decisions (app. br. at 2), and implies (id. at 2-3) that, 
therefore, our decision in Combat Support, compels the denial of the government's motion 
to dismiss, because there, the government had stated its intent not to reassert rescinded 
claims very similar to those rescinded here. 16-1BCAii36,288 at 176,973. In view of the 
presumption, unrebutted here, that contracting officials act in good faith, we see no reason 
to doubt that the rescission of the claims against L-3 is unequivocal, and that they will not 
be reasserted. Consequently, Combat Support is not meaningfully distinct from the 
situation here, and does not require the denial of the government's motion to dismiss. 
Although dismissal of the appeals as moot is without prejudice, id., we trust that the 
rescinded claims will not be reasserted. 
2 

CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, the appeals are dismissed as moot. 
Dated: 25 April 2016 
I concur 
d~d;;i------
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
-r ---phA;::jP TI~ 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
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. 60431, 60432, Appeals of L-3 
Communications Integrated 
Systems, L.P., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals