ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of --
Shiloh Services, Inc. 
Under Contract No. W91247-12-C-0002 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 61134 
Hector M. Benavides, Esq. 
Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq. 
Bailey & Bailey, P.C. 
San Antonio, TX 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
MAJ Adam Kama, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE YOUNG 
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 
The government moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the 
contracting officer (CO) issued a final decision that fully satisfies the relief requested 
by Shiloh Services, Inc. (Shiloh or appellant,) thus rendering the dispute moot. 
Appellant does not oppose the motion but requests that the dismissal order reflect that 
it is the prevailing party in this litigation. We dismiss the appeal, but deny appellant's 
request. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. On October 19, 2011, Shiloh was awarded a contract for transportation motor 
pool services at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for $2,298,985.95. The contract was for one 
base year and four option years. (Compl. at 1; R4, tab 1) The government exercised all 
four options. As a consequence of labor wage determination adjustments by the 
Department of Labor, Shiloh incurred increased costs of performance. Shiloh requested 
equitable adjustments corresponding to each of the four option years. Shiloh timely 
appealed the CO's lack of final decision (deemed denial) to the Board on April 18, 2017, 
for a total of$106,970.14. 1 
1 Shiloh submitted a complaint on July 28, 2017, for an amount of $109,172.96. The 
original notice of appeal filed on April 18, 2017, was for $106,970.14. 

2. On February 22, 2018, the CO issued a final decision (COFD) agreeing to pay 
Shiloh $109, 172.96. 2 
3. On March 12, 2018, the government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, 
asserting that the COFD provided Shiloh the relief it requested, so there is no longer a 
dispute before the Board and the appeal is hence rendered moot. On April 11, 2018, 
appellant filed a response stating that it does not oppose the government's motion. 
Appellant also requested that in its dismissal the Board find that it was a prevailing party 
and that the government's position was not substantially justified, so that appellant may 
later submit an Equal Access to Justice Act, 5. U.S.C. § 504 (EAJA), application to 
recover its expenses related to the litigation of the above-captioned appeal. 
4. At a conference call held by the Board on July 10, 2018, the parties expressed that 
the government had issued payment to Shiloh as described in the COFD, and that Shiloh 
had accepted the payment. 
DECISION 
It is well established that a dispute becomes moot when all "relief sought has been 
granted or...the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at 
issue." Chapman Law Firm Co. v. Greenleaf Constr. Co., 490 F.3d 934, 939 (Fed. Cir. 
2007); Lasmer Industries, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56946, 56966, 11-1 BCA ,i 34,671 
at 170,801 (appeal dismissed as moot where CO granted all relief requested, 
extinguishing the dispute between the parties). Here, as undisputed by the parties, the 
government has granted the relief sought by Shiloh. The dispute before the Board is 
extinguished, thus rendering moot the above-captioned appeal. 
Next, we examine appellant's request that the Board find that it was a prevailing 
party and that the government's position was not substantially justified, with the 
expectation of submitting an EAJA application to recover expenses related to the litigation 
of this appeal. We are aware of no legal basis for us to make this determination at this 
point and appellant has cited none. Moreover, it is well-established law that, in the 
absence of a judgment in a party's favor, it is not a prevailing party under EAJA. Tech 
Projects, LLC, ASBCA No. 58789, 16-1 BCA ,i 36,443 at 177,616-17 (citing Brickwood 
Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 288 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 
Accordingly, we decline to provide appellant the relief it is requesting. 
2 The final decision vacated an earlier COFD dated November 21, 2017, and included 
payment of Shiloh's claim under this appeal as well as payment of other claims 
not before the Board. 
2 

CONCLUSION 
The appeal is dismissed as moot. Appellant's request that the Board find that it 
was a prevailing party and that the government's position was not substantially justified 
is denied. 
Dated: July 23, 2018 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
/ 
~ J.iTifID 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. 61134, Appeal of Shiloh 
Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals