ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

URS Federal Support Services, Inc. 

Under Contract No. F A8108-09-D-0006 

Task Order No. 0055 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60364 

Thomas 0. Mason, Esq. 

Francis E. Purcell, Jr., Esq. 

Erin M. Estevez, Esq. 

Cooley LLP 

Washington, DC 

Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 

Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 

Maj George M. Ebert, USAF 

Christopher M. McNulty, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'CONNELL ON THE 

GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

This appeal arises from a final decision demanding payment from appellant of 

about $1.2 million, which the contracting officer has now withdrawn. The government 

has moved to dismiss without prejudice. Appellant agrees that the appeal should be 

dismissed but contends that it should be with prejudice. We dismiss the appeal as moot. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 

On 17 May 2013, the Air Force awarded appellant a task order that called for it 

to provide aircraft maintenance support services at a base-year price of $7,105,724.27 

(R4, tab 14; compl. & answer~~ 19-20). 

On 6 November 2015, a contracting officer issued a final decision demanding 

repayment of $1,211,286.47 due to insufficient manning under the firm-fixed-price 

contract line item numbers for the task order (R4, tab 139). Appellant filed this appeal 

on 11December2015; the government filed an answer on 25 March 2016. On 7 June 

2016, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment. 

On 29 July 2016, the government filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice. 

Attached to the motion is a memorandum from the contracting officer to appellant 

issued the previous day stating that the contracting officer's final decision was 

"rescinded without prejudice." The contracting officer further stated that "if it is 
determined in the best interest of the Government, the Contracting Officer reserves the 

right to assert a revised claim based upon a different legal theory on this matter." 

DECISION 

The only issue before us at the moment is the precise form of dismissal for this 

appeal. Thus, we do not address whether the government can reassert this claim under 

a different legal theory. 

When a contracting officer rescinds a government claim and the final 

decision asserting that claim, the voluntary action moots the appeal, leaving the 

Board without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal any further. Combat Support 

Associates, ASBCA Nos. 58945, 58946, 16-1 BCA ~ 36,288; L-3 Communications 

Integrated Systems, L.P., ASBCA Nos. 60431, 60432, 16-1 BCA ~ 36,362. 

This appeal is in one respect different from Combat Support Associates and L-3 

because the contracting officer in this appeal has reserved the right to issue another 

final decision seeking repayment on a different legal theory. By contrast, in Combat 

Support Associates the contracting officer stated that she had no intention of issuing 

another final decision disallowing the costs that had been at issue. Combat Support, 

16-1 BCA ~ 36,288 at 176,972. In L-3, the contracting officers did not state 

whether the government intended to reassert the claims that had been withdrawn. L-3, 

16-1 BCA ~ 36,362 at 177,252. 

Despite this difference from our recent precedent, we conclude that the mere 

possibility that the contracting officer could reassert the claim based on some 

unidentified legal theory does not change our determination that the appeal must be 

dismissed as moot. In our view, the overriding consideration is that the final decision 

providing the jurisdictional basis for this appeal no longer exists and the government 

cannot enforce its repayment demand. Put another way, there is simply no live 

controversy for the Board to adjudicate. 

As appellant observes, in the past we have sometimes dismissed appeals with 

prejudice when the contracting officer withdrew his or her final decision. KAMP 

Systems, Inc., ASBCA No. 54253, 09-2 BCA ~ 34,196. However, we subsequently 

clarified that such dismissals are without prejudice as to the merits, Combat Support, 

16-1 BCA ~ 36,288 at 176,973 (citing, inter alia, Lasmer Industries, Inc., 

ASBCA No. 56411, 10-2 BCA ~ 34,491 ), and, as cited above, in recent years we have 

dismissed such appeals as moot. 

2 
CONCLUSION 

This appeal is dismissed as moot. 

Dated: 5 December 2016 

I concur 

7 , L 

/ , .~ . -~-~. ··--- '/,. i;!YI ./ ./ ~ ,// / . / . ' , 

/~ / G-C~,y;,/T/;i;,.£/{4-. 

MARK N. STEMPLER I J ~ 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

MICHAEL N. O'CONNELL ~ 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

RICHARD 

~ SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60364, Appeal of URS 

Federal Support Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

3 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals