MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED:  May 19, 2009 
CBCA 1002 
CORNERS AND EDGES, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 
Respondent. 
John E. Larson of Corners and Edges, Inc., Hamilton, MT, appearing for 
Appellant. 
Daniel J. Barry and Mogbeyi E. Omatete, Office of General Counsel, Department 
of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges BORWICK, McCANN , and DRUMMOND . 
BORWICK, Board Judge. 
The Department of Health and Human Services, respondent or DHHS, moves to 
dismiss this appeal on the grounds of res judicata, maintaining that the Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) decision in ASBCA 55767 decided the same claim 
as the claim involved in this appeal. For the reasons below, we grant respondent’s motion 
and dismiss this appeal.  

    
  
           
    
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
    
  
    
 
 
2 CBCA 1002 
Background 
The ASBCA appeal 
The ASBCA appeal involved contract number 263-99-C-7278 (NO2-AO-972278) 
(the janitorial contract) for janitorial services at respondent’s Rocky Mountain Laboratory 
(RML).  Corners and Edges, Inc. , ASBCA 55767, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,019, at 168,291.  On 
October 1, 1998, respondent awarded the contract to appellant to provide at the RML, 
complete janitorial services, which included all necessary labor, supervision, and services. 
Id. at 168,292.  (Finding 1).
1   The contract term of one year was eventually extended by 
exercise of options through March 2004.  Id . (Finding 2).  Although the contract provided 
estimates of the square footage of floor space to be cleaned, it warned that RML was 
undergoing significant renovation.  Consequently, the amount of space to be cleaned 
could vary as facilities were removed from and returned to usage.  Id . (Finding 3).  The 
contract did not fix or guarantee the number of researchers or scientists that would be 
using the space to be serviced by appellant or their furnishings or professional equipment. 
Id. 
The contract required appellant to empty trash from trashcans at RML offices on a 
daily basis, collect all of the trash, and bring it to the incinerator.  Appellant was able to 
collect the trash and place it in the incinerator without bagging it.  Corners and Edges, 
Inc., 09-1 BCA at 168,293.  (Finding 5).  On January 6, 2000, the RML incinerator was 
taken out of service for repairs.  Id . (Finding 6).  Consequently, the contract project 
officer directed appellant to bag trash.  On February 2002, the successor project officer 
directed appellant to dust unobstructed horizontal surfaces in office areas.  Id . (Finding 
7).  A series of letters resulted in what appellant called a “changed conditions” claim of 
$13,244.56 arising from the project officer’s directives.  Id .  (Finding 9).  The changed 
conditions claim also arose from an alleged increase in the number of biologists and 
researchers and their staffs.  Id .  Over the next several years, appellant submitted 
additional claim letters revising amounts due for the alleged changed conditions.  Id. at 
168,294.  (Finding 11).  
Appellant submitted an amended certified claim on October 4, 2006, seeking 
$194,076, and requested a contracting officer’s decision.  Corners and Edges, Inc. , 09-1 
BCA ¶ 34,019, at 168,294 (Finding 11).  On January 4, 2007, appellant filed an appeal 
with the ASBCA from a “deemed denial” of that decision, which was docketed as 
ASBCA 55767.  Id . 
1 We reference the numbered findings in the ASBCA opinion.  

  
   
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
3 CBCA 1002 
The parties in the ASBCA appeal agreed to submit their dispute on the record 
pursuant to ASBCA Rule 11.  The board denied entitlement for that portion of the claim 
dealing with trash bagging and dusting, holding that the project officer’s directives as to 
those activities were unauthorized and not ratified by the contracting officer. 
Consequently, appellant could not recover for any alleged changes associated with those 
directives.  Corners and Edges, Inc. , 09-1 BCA at 168,294.  As to the changes claim 
based upon increase in staff, the board denied entitlement because appellant did not 
demonstrate job conditions encountered that differed materially from those identified in 
the contract.  The board held that the contract did not guarantee a particular staffing level 
at the RML; to the contrary, the contract required appellant to provide all necessary labor 
for complete janitorial services.  Id . 
As appellant did not submit seek reconsideration or appeal the ASBCA decision, 
the ASBCA decision has become final, the reconsideration and appeal periods having 
long passed.  
The CBCA appeal  
On November 8, 2007, while the ASBCA appeal was pending on a deemed denial 
of appellant’s October 4, 2006, claim on the janitorial contract, the contracting officer 
issued a decision on that claim.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1.  Appellant submitted a notice of 
appeal from that decision to this Board on December 21, 2007, and the appeal was 
docketed on January 4, 2008.  
The contracting officer’s decision was issued well after the creation of the Civilian 
Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA), effective January 6, 2007.  After that date, Contract 
Disputes Act (CDA) appeals from decisions of DHHS contracting officers go to this 
Board.  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 
847, 119 Stat. 3136. Appellant submitted a timely appeal to this Board from that 
decision.
2 
In short, appellant submitted its appeal based upon the deemed denial of the claim 
to the ASBCA two days before the statutory creation date of the CBCA, and it submitted 
its  CBCA appeal from the contracting officer’s decision on the same claim, involving the 
same contract, well after the creation date of the CBCA.  The National Defense 
2 Additionally, appellant filed an appeal from that decision at the ASBCA, where it 
was docketed as ASBCA 56277. The ASBCA dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 
Corners and Edges, Inc. , ASBCA 55767, 56277, 08-2 BCA ¶ 33,949.  

 
         
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
4 CBCA 1002 
Authorization Act provision creating the CBCA made no provision for transfer of then-
pending appeals of DHHS’s contract disputes from the ASBCA to the CBCA.  
The parties requested a suspension of proceedings in this appeal pending a 
decision from the ASBCA in ASBCA 55767. This Board stayed proceedings until April 
10, 2009, or the date the ASBCA issued its decision, whichever date was earlier.  The 
ASBCA issued its decision on November 24, 2008.  Respondent submitted a motion to 
dismiss on the basis of res judicata.  Appellant opposes the motion. 
Discussion 
When a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a case, it is final as to the 
claim or demand in controversy. This is true not only as to every matter which was 
offered and received, but also as to any other matter which might have been offered for 
that purpose.  Nevada v. United States , 463 U.S. 110, 129-30 (1983).  The doctrine of res 
judicata will bar a second suit raising claims based on the same set of transactional facts. 
Ammex, Inc . v. United States , 334 F.3d 1052, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  The doctrine of res 
judicata applies to the final judgment of an administrative tribunal, such as a board of 
contract appeals that resolved disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties 
have had an adequate opportunity to litigate.  United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co. , 
384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966). See also Philips/May Corp. v. United States , 524 F. 3d 1264, 
1272 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (res judicata applies to inspection claim suit filed in United States 
Court of Federal Claims after a CDA dispute had been decided by the ASBCA on the 
same set of operative facts; the contractor could not split claims between the two fora). 
For a party to prevail on a defense of res judicata, the party asserting the bar must 
prove that: (1) the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the first suit proceeded to a final 
judgment on the merits; and (3) the second claim is based on the same set of transactional 
facts as the first. Ammex , 334 F.3d at 1055.  Courts have defined “transaction” in terms of 
a “core of operative facts,” the “same operative facts,” or the “same nucleus of operative 
facts,” and “based on the same, or nearly the same, factual allegations.”  Id. at 1056. 
In this matter, all the elements of res judicata are met.  Since both appeals involve 
the DHHS and appellant, the parties are identical.  The ASBCA appeal is final, since no 
appeal was taken.  41 U.S.C. § 607(g) (2006).  Finally, the appeal before this Board arose 
from the same set of transactional facts in the claim of October 4, 2006, on the janitorial 
contract, that was before the ASBCA.  The claim now pending before this Board is 
identical to the claim considered by the ASBCA, and the decision of the ASBCA resolved 
all issues of entitlement against claimant and in favor of respondent.  Appellant has not 

    
 
 
 
    
 
_______________________________ 
5 CBCA 1002 
demonstrated that there is anything remaining to litigate in this forum that was not 
disposed of by the ASBCA proceeding.  
Appellant’s arguments resisting respondent’s motion are not persuasive.  Although 
appellant admits that the two appeals “shared issues in common, it argues that application 
of the res judicata doctrine is not appropriate because the ASBCA decided the appeal 
“without formal consideration of the Contracting Officer’s Final Decision” on the claims 
submitted by appellant.  Appellant’s Opposition at 3.  Consequently, appellant 
characterizes the ASBCA decision as resolving “a fictional dispute.”  Id.  This argument 
lacks merit.  The facts and the claims were identical in both appeals.  Furthermore, the 
contracting officer’s opinion was certainly available in that appeal if appellant desired to 
find it out.
3 
Decision 
Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED .  This matter is dismissed on the 
basis that it is res judicata. 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK 
Board Judge 
__________________________________ _______________________________ 
R. ANTHONY McCANN JEROME M. DRUMMOND 
Board Judge Board Judge 
3 Indeed, the CDA authorizes the filing of a CDA claim on a deemed denial basis, and 
appellant could have requested the ASBCA to stay its proceeding until the contracting officer 
issued a decision.  41 U.S.C. § 605(c)(5) (2006).  Alternatively, appellant had the option of 
filing a petition under 41 U.S.C. § 604 to obtain the contracting officer’s decision before 
proceeding with an appeal.  Additionally, appellant could have taken the deposition of the 
contracting officer in the ASBCA proceeding and requested a hearing in the ASBCA 
proceeding where it could have called the contracting officer as a witness.  

6 CBCA 1002