DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  June 22, 2010 
CBCA 1894 
BPI MANAGEMENT INC., 
A p p e l l a n t , 
v.
   DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 
Respondent. 
Patricia Whitney, President of BPI Management, Inc., Teaneck, NJ, appearing for 
Appellant.  
William R. Taylor, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges GILMORE , BORWICK, and WALTERS. 
GILMORE, Board Judge. 
Appellant, BPI Management Inc. (BPI), is seeking to appeal the decision of Bethel 
Non-Profit Housing Corp. (Bethel) to terminate BPI’s property management contract at the 
direction of the Director, Newark, New Jersey Multifamily Program Center, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  BPI stated in its notice of appeal that Bethel 
terminated its contract on March 1, 2010. 

        
     
   
 
     
   
    
 
   
    
  
 
    
    
 
 
 
 
 
  
       
    
2 CBCA 1894 
After the appeal was docketed, HUD, on April 9, 2010, filed a motion to dismiss for 
lack of jurisdiction, on the grounds that (1) neither the Bethel/HUD contract nor the 
Bethel/BPI contract is a contract that falls within the ambit of the Contract Disputes Act of 
1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 (2006) (CDA), and (2) BPI does not  have standing to bring a 
direct appeal under the CDA because it is not in privity of contract with HUD. 
The Board authorized appellant to file a response to respondent’s motion by May 4, 
2010.  The Board did not receive a response to the motion by May 4, 2010.  The Board then 
called appellant’s president twice, on May 4 and May 13, and left messages for appellant to 
correspond with the Board.  Appellant did not do so. The Board then issued an order on May 
19, 2010, directing appellant to show cause by June 4, 2010, why the appeal should not be 
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  Again, appellant did not respond.  We note that 
respondent, in its motion, advised the Board that it had conferred with appellant and that 
appellant opposes this motion.  For purposes of ruling on the motion, we accept the facts as 
they are stated by HUD since they have not been disputed by appellant. 
Background 
In January 1973, a HUD-insured loan was made to Bethel for construction of a 
housing project in Asbury Park, New Jersey.  In conjunction with this loan, Bethel and HUD 
entered into a regulatory agreement which, among other things, requires the property owner 
to maintain the mortgaged property in “good repair and condition.” Under the regulatory 
agreement, Bethel can elect to either self-manage the property or hire a management 
company to do so. If a management company is hired, the regulatory agreement authorizes 
HUD to ask the property owner to terminate the management agreement if that company fails 
to comply with HUD requirements.  Any management contract entered into between the 
property owner and a management company must be accompanied by a management 
certification signed by both parties that authorizes HUD to request the property owner to 
terminate the management contract for failure to comply with HUD’s property  maintenance 
requirements. 
HUD also entered into housing assistance payments (HAP) contracts with Bethel to 
subsidize the rental payments of eligible families experiencing financial hardship.  The HAP 
contracts also require Bethel to maintain the premises free from financial and physical 
deterioration. 
On December 31, 2004, Bethel entered into a contract with BPI to manage the Asbury 
Park property it owns. This is the contract that Bethel terminated on March 1, 2010, at the 
direction of HUD, for failure to keep the property in the condition required by the regulatory 

 
    
 
   
       
 
 
     
     
    
          
 
     
   
  
 
   
  
    
3 CBCA 1894 
agreement, the Bethel/BPI management agreement, and the HAP agreements.  BPI is seeking 
to appeal Bethel’s termination of this contract before the Board under the CDA. 
Discussion 
The issue is whether appellant’s contract with the owner of a HUD-assisted 
multifamily housing project falls within the mandates of the CDA, and hence the jurisdiction 
of the Board.  Based on the record before us, we agree with respondent that the Board does 
not have jurisdiction under the CDA to adjudicate appellant’s claim of wrongful termination 
by Bethel of its management contract. 
The CDA confers jurisdiction on the boards of contract appeals to adjudicate claims 
arising from express or implied contracts entered into by executive agencies for the 
procurement of services and property, other than real property; the procurement of 
construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of real property; or the disposal of personal 
property.  41 U.S.C. § 602(a).  The facts show that appellant did not enter into a contract with 
HUD or any other government agency which would confer jurisdiction on this Board. 
Appellant entered into a management contract with Bethel to manage a housing project 
Bethel constructed with HUD’s assistance. The fact that Bethel and BPI agreed in their 
management agreement that HUD had the authority to direct Bethel to terminate the 
management contract for failure to comply with certain HUD requirements does not establish 
privity of contract between BPI and HUD. 
HUD is not a party to the Bethel/BPI contract. That contract is strictly between the 
property owner and BPI. Therefore, appellant, having no contractual relationship with HUD, 
cannot bring a direct appeal under the CDA.  Additionally, a final decision of a government 
contracting officer is required under the CDA to confer jurisdiction on the Board. 
41 U.S.C. § 607(d).  Appellant has not identified a document in the record as representing 
a final decision of a contracting officer. 
Once respondent has presented sufficient facts which bring into question the 
jurisdiction of the Board to hear the dispute, it is incumbent upon appellant to come forward 
with evidence establishing jurisdiction.  Appellant bears the burden of establishing subject 
matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. McNutt v. General Motors 
Acceptance Corp ., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange 
Service , 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  Here, the facts presented by respondent 
establish that there is no contractual relationship between appellant and HUD and, thus, no 
Board jurisdiction. Appellant has failed to come forward with evidence refuting that 
presented by respondent. 

  
 
4 CBCA 1894 
Decision       
Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION .
 
______________________________ 
BERYL S. GILMORE 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
____________________________ ______________________________ 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK RICHARD C. WALTERS 
Board Judge Board Judge