MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED:  April 4, 2022
CBCA 5272-R
UNITED FACILITY SERVICES CORPORATION
 dba EASTCO BUILDING SERVICES,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
William Weisberg of Law Offices of William Weisberg PLLC, McLean, VA, counsel
for Appellant.
Brett A. Pisciotta and Kristi Singleton, Office of General Counsel, General Services
Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges LESTER, SHERIDAN, and ZISCHKAU.
LESTER, Board Judge.
Appellant, United Facilities Services Corporation doing business as Eastco Building
Services (Eastco), requests that we reconsider our decision dated February 16, 2022,
dismissing this appeal for failure to prosecute.  As the basis for its request, Eastco once again
cites difficulties arising from the COVID-19 pandemic for its failure to respond to
interrogatories that respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), served on
May 6, 2021.  Eastco, however, again provides no specific details about the reasons for its
inability to respond, either fully or partially, to interrogatories that were served eleven
months ago and does not mention its failure to respond to the Board’s prior show cause

CBCA 5272-R 2
order.  Merely citing the word “COVID,” without more, does not provide a basis for
excusing a failure to respond to discovery or to the Board’s orders.  In our decision
dismissing this appeal, we criticized Eastco’s failure to provide any details about its efforts
to respond to the interrogatories or to explain the reasons that COVID-19 rendered its
employees unable to respond either in whole or in part.  Because Eastco continues to provide
no such information in its request for reconsideration, Eastco’s request is denied.
Discussion
The Board is sensitive to the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had and
continues to have on litigants and attorneys, and it has granted extensive accommodations
to parties when justified.  Those accommodations are evident in this case from the
chronology of events identified in the decision that Eastco is asking us to reconsider.
In its request for reconsideration, Eastco’s counsel again tells us that COVID-19 has
created “significant challenges” for Eastco, Appellant’s Request for Reconsideration
(Mar. 18, 2022) at 2, but, like in its response to GSA’s motion to dismiss, Eastco provides
no details about how the pandemic precluded Eastco from responding to interrogatories. 
Eastco’s counsel represents that Eastco “is a critical, front-line business” with “a workforce
that was among the hardest hit by COVID” and that staffing and supply chain issues
“literally consumed all of the small management staff’s time and attention,” id., but provides
no declarations from Eastco employees or more detailed explanations in support.  In our prior
show cause order, dated December 1, 2021 (to which Eastco never responded), we directed
Eastco to detail its efforts to attempt to develop responses to the interrogatories, and, even
now, Eastco provides no explanation.
“[S]imply say[ing] the word ‘COVID-19’ [is not], in and of itself, . . . justification to
excuse delays and dereliction without providing any support.”  Martinez v. Costco Wholesale
Corp., 336 F.R.D. 183, 188 (S.D. Cal. 2020).  “While the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
could conceivably present extraordinary circumstances,” a party cannot excuse its delays in
meeting its litigation obligations “simply by making a passing reference to the pandemic or
the resulting lockdown.”  Hines v. United States, No. 17-CR-364-2, 2021 WL 2456679, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2021) (citation omitted); see Curran v. Bernhardt, No. 5:20-CV-
05009-JLV, 2022 WL 93671, at *6 (D.S.D. Jan. 10, 2022) (“While the court understands the
challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is no excuse to delay any sort of [discovery]
response for nine months.”); Adriaenssens v. Jimenez, No. A-3744-20, 2022 WL 533314, at
*3 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Feb. 23, 2022) (“While challenging for the world and counsel, the pandemic
and remote work was not, standing alone, an ongoing extraordinary circumstance sufficient
to avoid statutory requirements” where “plaintiffs did not explain how circumstances from
pandemic challenges created delay in the individual case.”).

CBCA 5272-R 3
If an appellant cannot meet discovery deadlines established by the Board’s rules and
orders, it has to request additional time and establish good cause for the request.  Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(b).  As the delays in this litigation became more and more extensive, and certainly as
part of its request that we reconsider our dismissal of this appeal, the burden was on Eastco
to provide detailed explanations establishing good cause in support of its need for more time
and of its request to reinstate the appeal.  See, e.g., United States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451,
456-57 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding post hoc explanation by party that it missed deadline
established by court order “due to the press of other business and personal business” to be
too vague to justify reinstatement of case); Middle Market Financial Corp. v. Marino
d’Orazio, Spiegel, Pergament, Brown, & Basso, No. 96-CIV-8138, 1997 WL 442133, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 1997) (“[A] vague, generalized statement simply does not establish good
cause for an extension.”).  Eastco did not satisfy that obligation.
Some case law indicates that, if an appellant moves quickly to cure a deficiency that
formed the basis of a dismissal for failure to prosecute, a tribunal could be more willing to
give the appellant another chance and reinstate the appeal.  See Buck v. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 960 F.2d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 1992).  Here, though, Eastco still has not provided
responses to GSA’s interrogatories and has not identified any date by which it thinks it might
respond.  Eastco asks us to reinstate the appeal but with an open-ended period of time within
which it might respond to the unanswered interrogatories, if ever.  Eastco’s failure to detail
the reasons that it has not responded, to show that it is taking action to remedy that failure,
and to set forth a realistic plan for responding to the unanswered interrogatories gives us no
basis for reinstating the appeal.
Important to our decision to dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute was that the
only realistic alternative sanction – to deem all matters addressed in the unanswered
interrogatories as decided adversely to Eastco – would mean that Eastco could not prevail
on the merits of this appeal.  As we recognized in our prior decision, were we to preclude
Eastco from presenting evidence responsive or related to GSA’s unanswered interrogatories,
it would effectively preclude Eastco from proving that it was damaged by GSA’s alleged
breach, and “[t]he result would effectively be the same as a dismissal.”  United Facility
Services Corp. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 5272, slip op. at 8-9 (Feb. 16,
2022); see Puritan Associates v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 976, 978 (1977) (“Even if . . . the
assessment of damages is reserved for the quantum phase of the case, the plaintiff as part of
its proof of entitlement, must show it was damaged to some extent, by defendant’s
derelictions . . . .”).  That fact weighs strongly against Eastco’s current request to reinstate
this appeal.  See Nieves v. Thorne, 790 F. App’x 355, 358 (3d Cir. 2019) (“[T]he assessment
of the [lack of] meritoriousness of [the plaintiff’s] claims weighed heavily in favor of
dismissal [for failure to prosecute].”).

CBCA 5272-R 4
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, Eastco’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.
    Harold D. Lester, Jr.      
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.
Board Judge
We concur:
     Patricia J. Sheridan       Jonathan D. Zischkau    
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge Board Judge