ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. DAAA09-02-D-0007 ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 57530, 58161 
Douglas L. Patin, Esq. 
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 
Washington, DC 
Kerry M. McMahon, Esq. 
Porter Hedges, LLP 
Houston, TX 
Craig D. Margolis, Esq. 
Amy L. Riella, Esq. 
Vinson & Elkins LLP 
Washington, DC 
E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 
DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 
Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq. 
Senior Trial Attorney 
Defense Contract Management Agency 
Carson, CA 
John A. Kolar, Esq. 
Russell B. Kinner, Esq. 
Senior Trial Counsel 
Department of Justice 
Washington, DC 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK ON THE GOVERNMENT'S 
MOTION TO SUSPEND OR DISMISS THESE APPEALS 
On 19 February 2016, the Board reinstated these appeals to its docket after they 
had been previously dismissed without prejudice for three years under former Board 
Rule 30 (now Rule 18). See Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., ASBCA 
Nos. 57530, 58161, 13 BCA if 35,243. The appeals involve the government's 
disallowance of KBR subcontract settlement costs. KBR submitted certified claims 
respecting these costs in 2010. The Board had dismissed the appeals without prejudice 

because of a pending suit filed by the United States against KBR in the United States 
District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The suit alleges that KBR's Requests 
for Equitable Adjustment and other costs that were the subject of its claims were 
knowingly inflated and false and violated the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 
§ 3729, and the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7103(c)(2). United States 
v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., No. 4: 12-cv-04110 (C.D. Ill. filed Nov. 20, 
2012). The government now again seeks dismissal without prejudice or a stay because 
its FCA case has not progressed passed the discovery stage. After this new motion 
was fully briefed the Board heard oral argument. The motion is denied. 
When ruling upon the government's original motion to dismiss without 
prejudice, the Board considered four factors summarized as: (1) whether the facts, 
issues, and witnesses in the two proceedings were similar; (2) whether the parallel 
matter would be compromised by proceeding here; (3) whether the non-moving party 
would be harmed by more delay; and ( 4) whether the duration of the suspension 
sought was reasonable. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, 13 BCA ~ 35,243 at 173,021. 
The Board also stressed that it possessed inherent authority "to manage [its] docket 
and to stay, suspend or dismiss appeals without prejudice in appropriate 
circumstances, applying [its] judgment to weigh the competing interests of the parties 
and assess any prejudice." Id. at 173,022. Originally, the Board found that these 
factors dictated dismissal without prejudice, subject to reinstatement within three 
years. They do not favor repeating that process. 
Starting with the fourth factor, continuing to delay the appeals for the FCA 
action with no indication as to when the suit will be resolved is essentially an 
indefinite stay. Such an act would be an abuse of discretion absent a pressing need. 
See Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936). Concerning the third factor, 
KBR has satisfied the Board that another dismissal 
could prejudice it, given the length 
of time that has already transpired since it submitted its certified claims. When 
initially dismissing the appeal without prejudice, the Board contemplated 
reinstatement within three years, which it concluded "allow[ ed] a reasonable period of 
time for the resolution of the FCA action and all related matters." Kellogg Brown & 
Root Services, 13 BCA ~ 35,243 at 173,022. More than that amount of time has 
passed and the government cannot state when the FCA matter will be resolved. There 
is a substantial risk that evidence will become stale or unavailable should more 
significant delay of this appeal occur. As far as the second factor is concerned, when 
asked at oral argument whether proceeding here would compromise the government's 
FCA case, the government stated it would not as long as the government could obtain 
complete discovery and a full record (tr. 1/29). Finally, although there are similarity 
of facts, witnesses, and some issues in the two proceedings, that factor alone is 
insufficient to dismiss the appeal again. The government has already been granted one 
three-year dismissal to avoid duplicative proceedings. 
2 

This Board has been conferred with jurisdiction to decide this appeal regarding 
appellant's entitlement to contract costs. Given that the government admits it will not 
be prejudiced by proceeding upon a complete record, it is the Board's judgment that a 
dismissal without prejudice is not appropriate. Nor is a stay deemed necessary at this 
time. Accordingly, the government's motion is denied. 
Dated: 25 July 2016 
I concur 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
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 Nos. 57530, 58161, Appeals of 
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREYD. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals