DISMISSED:  December 3, 2007 
CBCA 641 
PACIFIC LEGACY, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 
Respondent. 
Robert J. Jackson, Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Legacy, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA, 
appearing for appellant. 
Maria Giatrakis, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, 
San Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges PARKER, STERN, and GOODMAN. 
PARKER, Board Judge. 
The Department of Agriculture moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction an appeal 
filed by Pacific Legacy, Inc. in connection with a contract to perform a cultural resource 
survey in the Plumas National Forest in Northern California.  For the reasons discussed 
below, we grant the Department’s motion and dismiss the appeal. 
Findings of Fact 
The following facts are undisputed.  Pacific Legacy was awarded the survey contract 
in October 2006.  During performance, a dispute arose as to whether existing conditions 
permitted Pacific Legacy to safely access some of the Government land to be surveyed. 
Pacific Legacy maintained that it could not safely continue to perform the contract; 

 
 
          
        
  
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
2 CBCA 641 
Agriculture disagreed and urged Pacific Legacy to continue performance.  Ultimately, the 
agency issued a cure notice to Pacific Legacy stating that Pacific Legacy’s failure to make 
progress was endangering performance of the contract and the agency was considering 
terminating the contract.  Pacific Legacy was given ten days to cure the condition outlined 
in the letter.  Appeal File, Exhibit 13. 
The parties were able to resolve their differences, the contract was completed on time, 
and appellant was paid in full for its work.  In signing the contract release for acceptance of 
final payment, however, Pacific Legacy wrote the following reservation: 
Pacific Legacy requests a written rescission of a Cure Notice issued by 
Charlotte Carter, Contracting Officer for the Plumas National Forest, on 
October 30, 2006. Pacific Legacy reserves the right to pursue this request 
under the implementing regulations for the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 
and we reserve the right to any remedies that arise from an appeal process or 
resulting from Government decisions rendered under the Equal Access to 
Justice Act. 
Appeal File, Exhibit 22.  Agriculture wrote back: 
Your Contract Release expressed one reservation.  You requested that I 
rescind the Cure Notice dated October 30, 2006.  The Cure Notice is part of 
the permanent Contract File, and cannot be removed from the file any more 
than any other documents.  Your request is therefore denied. 
Id.  Pacific Legacy appealed this decision, and the Government has moved to dismiss the 
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 
Discussion 
The Department of Agriculture has asked the Board to dismiss the appeal for lack of 
jurisdiction because Pacific Legacy does not have a valid claim under the Contract Disputes 
Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 605(a) (2000).  We agree that the appeal must be dismissed. 
Pacific Legacy requested, in both its claim reservation language and in its request for 
relief before the Board, that the Department of Agriculture rescind the cure notice: 
As restitution, the Appellant asks that the Government correct the Contract 
Record by rescinding its Cure Notice in writing and refuting all adverse, 
prejudicial, and untrue statements about Appellant’s performance. 

      
  
 
     
    
  
  
            
 
 
 
_________________________ 
3 CBCA 641 
Complaint at 3. 
Boards of contract appeals have held that they are authorized to grant monetary and, 
in some cases, declaratory relief, but not to issue a writ of mandamus, order specific 
performance, or grant injunctive relief.  Western Aviation Maintenance, Inc. v. General 
Services Administration, GSBCA 14165, 98-2 BCA ¶ 29,816; Rig Masters, Inc. , 
ASBCA 52891, 01-2 BCA ¶ 31,468; Maria Manges, ASBCA 25350, 81-2 BCA ¶ 15,398. 
For purposes of the instant appeal, this means that the Board cannot order the Department 
of Agriculture to rescind a document or take a document out of a contract file. 
Perhaps more importantly, we cannot hear the appeal because there is no live dispute 
here.  A cure notice was issued as part of the routine administration of the contract, and the 
issues were resolved such that performance was completed on time and payment was made 
in full.  Whatever claim Pacific Legacy may have had during performance of the contract 
is now moot.  See Tennant Co., GSBCA 8795, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,358 (1990) (“[t]he case is 
moot because whatever may be the correct interpretation of the . . . clause in the contract, 
that interpretation can have no bearing on the actions of the parties under that contract”). 
Although we understand that Pacific Legacy believed then, and still believes, that the 
Department of Agriculture’s position was not justified, litigating the matter after the contract 
has been fully performed and all monetary issues resolved would have no effect on the 
contract or the parties’ actions thereunder. 
Decision 
The appeal is DISMISSED. 
ROBERT W. PARKER 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
___________________ ______________________ 
JAMES L. STERN ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge Board Judge