MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES GRANTED; 
APPEAL DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: June 20, 2017 
CBCA 5444
ENGILITY CORPORATION,
Appellant,
v.
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
Mark J. Stechschulte, Vice President, Assistant General Counsel and Assistant
Secretary of Engility Corporation, Chantilly, VA, counsel for Appellant.
R. René Dupuy, Office of General Counsel, Agency for International Development,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
RUSSELL, Board Judge.
ORDER
The Board is in receipt of the parties’ motions for substitution of parties and to
dismiss with prejudice.  This appeal was originally filed by International Resources Group,
Ltd. (IRG), against the United States Agency for International Development following the
agency’s denial of IRG’s claim under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109
(2012).  The parties state the following in support of their motion for substitution:  
[T]he contract under which this Appeal arises . . . was novated to Engility
Corporation (“Engility”).  The United States Agency for International
Development (“USAID”), Engility, and International Resources Group, Ltd.


CBCA 5444 2
(“IRG”) were all parties to the novation.  The novation was prior to but
pursuant to a sale of all of the shares of IRG by Engility.  Based on this
novation, Engility moves this Board to substitute Engility for IRG in this
appeal.
The Board’s Rules do not directly address the parties’ requested relief of substitution
of parties.  However, these rules allow us to “take[] into consideration” provisions under the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “which address matters not specifically covered [by the
Board’s Rules].”  48 CFR 6101.1(c), (d) (2016).  Rule 25(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that, “[i]f an interest is transferred, the action may be continued by or
against the original party unless the court, on motion, orders the transferee to be substituted
in the action or joined with the original party.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c).  The Rule does not
require a tribunal or party to take any action after an interest has been transferred.  Luxliner
P.L. Export, Co. v. RDI/Luxliner, Inc., 13 F.3d 69, 71-72 (3d Cir. 1993).  However, if a party
wishes to do so, it may move for substitution of the transferee in interest.  Fed. R. Civ. P.
25(c).  “Because . . . substitution under Rule 25(c) does not ordinarily alter the substantive
rights of parties but is merely a procedural device designed to facilitate the conduct of a case,
a Rule 25(c) decision is generally within the [tribunal’s] discretion.”  Luxliner, 13 F.3d at 71-
72.  “To determine whether an entity is a transferee of interest so as to trigger this discretion,
however, a [tribunal’s] mission is one of applying law to facts.”  Id. at 72.  In considering a
motion for substitution, the tribunal focuses on whether the motion would “facilitate the
conduct of the litigation.”  Id. 
Here, Engility, due to its actions as relates to IRG, is clearly a “transferee of interest.” 
Thus, allowing Engility to be substituted for IRG in this appeal is appropriate under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 25(c).  Further, both parties agree that Engility is now the real party in interest, and
as the parties have resolved the claim serving as the basis of this appeal, the substitution
would certainly facilitate bringing this appeal to a close.  Accordingly, for the forgoing
reasons, the motion to substitute Engility for IRG is GRANTED.  
As for the parties’ motion to dismiss, the Board commends the parties on reaching a
settlement and, consistent with the parties’ motion, we DISMISS this appeal WITH
PREJUDICE.
  
__________________________
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Board Judge