MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: August 5, 2014
CBCA 3288-R
JRS MANAGEMENT,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Respondent.
Jacqueline R. Sims, Owner of JRS Management, Lawrenceville, GA, appearing for
Appellant.
William D. Robinson and Nihar H. Vora, Office of General Counsel, Federal Bureau
of Prisons, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges STERN, VERGILIO, and McCANN.
VERGILIO, Board Judge.
JRS Management (contractor) filed an appeal contesting the denial of its claim to
receive $18,431.75 from the Department of Justice (agency) regarding their contract and task
order under which the contractor was to provide culinary arts instructor services at a
correctional institution.  The contractor alleged various instances of breach of contract by the
agency, as well as agency breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and,
regarding the non-exercise of an option to extend the contract, bad faith, and an arbitrary and
capricious abuse of discretion.  Referencing Board Rule 12(c), 48 CFR 6101.12 (2013), the
agency filed a motion to dismiss.  Treating the motion as one for summary relief, the Board
denied the claim.  JRS Management, Inc. v. Department of Justice, CBCA 3288, 14-1 BCA
¶ 35,617.  The contractor seeks reconsideration of that decision.  The contractor contends that
it (1) lacked notice that the Board would treat the motion as one for summary relief and (2)
was not given the opportunity to respond to such a converted motion.


CBCA 3288-R 2
As the underlying opinion reveals, after receipt of the agency’s motion to dismiss, the
contractor submitted an amended complaint and additional evidence, as well as a response
in opposition to the motion.  The amended complaint and additional evidence went beyond
the initial pleadings addressed in the agency’s motion to dismiss.  The issues raised by the
contractor were controlled by the contractual language.  Consistent with the agency’s motion,
undisputed material facts supported the position of the agency and demonstrated that the
contractor could not prevail on its theories of relief.  The Board found that discovery would
not alter the result.  This enabled the Board to reach the merits and deny the counts of the
claim put forward by the contractor.
While the contractor asserts error by the Board, the contractor has identified no error. 
The contract interpretations alleged by the contractor in its complaint and amended complaint
are not facts; the Board was not required to presume that the contractor’s interpretations were
correct.  Factually, the contractual language was not disputed.  The plain language of the
contract permitted resolution under a motion to dismiss or under a motion for summary relief. 
Any related factual issues raised by the contractor which could impact the resolution were
speculative at best, and under the summary relief standard were viewed favorably toward the
contractor, the non-moving party.  While the contractor was precluded from pursuing
discovery, the contractor has not demonstrated that discovery was appropriate or needed, or
could have altered the result.  The Board found that the contractor could not prevail even if
it was able to prove the facts it alleged.  Thus, the contractor has not identified error by the
Board or demonstrated how any alleged error was other than harmless error.
Decision
The Board DENIES the contractor’s request for reconsideration.
______________________________
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
Board Judge
We concur:
______________________________ ______________________________
JAMES L. STERN R. ANTHONY McCANN
Board Judge Board Judge