DENIED: August 19, 2015
CBCA 4470-C(3772)
CROCKETT FACILITIES SERVICES, INC.,
Applicant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Eden Brown Gaines of Brown Gaines, LLC, White Plains, MD, counsel for Applicant.
Elyssa Tanenbaum, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges STERN, HYATT, and KULLBERG.
STERN, Board Judge.
We have before us the timely application of Crockett Facilities Services, Inc.
(Crockett or applicant) for an award of attorney fees and costs in the amount of $2972.25,
under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. § 504 (2012).  Based on a joint
stipulation of the parties, we earlier granted an appeal for the payment of certain invoices that
the General Services Administration (GSA or respondent) had not previously paid.  Crockett

CBCA 4470-C-(3772)                                                                                                          2
Facilities Services, Inc. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 3772, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,845
(2014).
Background
Crockett and GSA entered into a contract on September 12, 2007, for operations and
maintenance services at the National Courts Complex in Washington, D.C.  Crockett
performed the services from October 1, 2007, to May 31, 2013.  GSA paid Crockett a
monthly fee for these services.1  On December 31, 2013, applicant submitted a claim in the
amount of $87,215.40 for the payment of numerous unpaid invoices to an individual at GSA
who was not the contracting officer.  Crockett also sought interest and attorney’s fees. 
Applicant received no response from GSA.  On March 20, 2014, the Board docketed the
underlying appeal by Crockett as a deemed denial of its claim.  41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(5).
Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, GSA determined that it had already paid almost
$74,000 of the amount sought and that $13,374.86 of the claim was the only amount not yet
paid by GSA.  Though GSA believed that the work represented by these unpaid invoices had
been ordered by unauthorized GSA employees, in May 2014 it offered to pay all of the
unpaid invoices on the basis that it had received the benefits of the unauthorized work.
However, the parties were unable to resolve the matter as Crockett demanded the
payment of attorney fees in the amount of $1457.08, in addition to the payment of the
invoices.  Crockett also sought the payment of interest on its claim.  GSA refused to pay
attorney fees, but offered $13,800 to resolve the matter, an amount that included interest on
the unpaid invoices.  Thereafter, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on all issues. 
In December 2014, pursuant to a joint stipulation, the parties  agreed to the payment by GSA
of all unpaid invoices ($13,374.86), plus interest, with Crockett reserving its right to seek
fees under the EAJA.  The Board granted the appeal on this basis.
Discussion 
GSA argues that Crockett has not proven that it qualifies for an EAJA award as it has
not submitted information that it met the basic threshold criteria regarding net worth and
employee size required by the statute.  Applicant filed no response to this argument.  GSA
also maintains that its position in payment of the invoices was substantially justified.
1 The background facts are included in the underlying record and in respondent’s
submission to the Board, which is supported by affidavits of two GSA employees involved
in this matter.  These facts have not been disputed by applicant.

CBCA 4470-C-(3772)                                                                                                          3
Crockett argues that it was the prevailing party in the underlying litigation and that
GSA’s position before and subsequent to the litigation was not substantially justified.
In order to be eligible for an award of attorney fees, an applicant must be the
prevailing party in the underlying litigation and must meet net worth and employee size
requirements.  5 U.S.C. § 504(b)(1)(6).2  A party is a prevailing party under the EAJA if it
succeeds on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit it sought
in bringing the lawsuit.  Michael C. Lam v. General Services Administration,
CBCA 1472-C(1213), 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,227.  The applicant also bears the burden of
demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that it meets the net worth and
employment size requirements.  Data Enterprises of the Northwest v. General Services
Administration, GSBCA 16536-C(15607), 05-1 BCA ¶ 32,968.  Once these threshold
requirements are met, an applicant is entitled to an award of attorney fees and other expenses
unless the Board finds that the position of the Government was substantially justified or that
special circumstances make an award unjust.  5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1).  The Government’s
position is substantially justified if it is justified in substance or in the main, or justified to
a degree that would satisfy a reasonable person.  Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565
(1988).  The burden of proof in establishing substantial justification falls upon the
Government.  Id.  at 575-76.  In making this determination, “trial courts are instructed to look
at the entirety of the government’s conduct and make a judgment call whether the
government’s overall position had a reasonable basis in both law and fact.”  Chiu v. United
States, 948 F.2d 711, 715 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
GSA paid the previously unpaid invoices and has not contended that Crockett was not
the prevailing party in the underlying action.  We find that Crockett was the prevailing party
since it succeeded in receiving payment on part of its claim.
Crockett has submitted an exhibit generated from the Government’s System Award
Management database indicating that it is an economically disadvantaged women-owned
small business.  Nothing in this exhibit or in its fee application provides information
regarding the number of people it employs or its net worth.  Crockett has, therefore, failed
to carry its burden that it has met the statutory criteria.  While this alone disqualifies applicant
from an EAJA award, we will also discuss the remaining statutory requirement regarding
substantial justification. 
2 For a corporation, the applicant may not have a net worth in excess of
$7,000,000 or more than 500 employees at the time the appeal is filed.

CBCA 4470-C-(3772)                                                                                                          4
Here, Crockett submitted a claim to GSA on December 31, 2013.  There was an initial
delay by GSA in reviewing this matter because the claim was submitted to the incorrect GSA
person.  Once the correct person became aware of the claim, by the filing of the appeal, there
was additional delay in attempting to resolve the claim because the work represented by the
unpaid invoices had not been ordered by authorized GSA employees.  It was then discovered
by GSA that Crockett’s claim was largely based on invoices that GSA had already paid.  It
took GSA time to sort out the incorrect amount claimed by Crockett and to reach a decision
regarding payment for unauthorized  work.  Given these circumstances, we do not find the
period of review needed by GSA to be excessive.  It promptly offered to resolve the claim
after completing this assessment.  Thereafter, it offered payment of the invoices with interest. 
GSA’s overall position had a reasonable basis and was substantially justified.
Applicant has failed to meet the threshold tests of eligibility for EAJA fees.  In
addition, GSA’s actions in resolving the matter of the unpaid invoices were substantially
justified.  Crockett is not entitled to fees under the EAJA.
Decision
The application is DENIED.
_________________________________
 JAMES L. STERN
Board Judge
We concur:
______________________________ _________________________________
CATHERINE B. HYATT H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge Board Judge