ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SWEET 

ON THE PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In this appeal, appellant ServeFed, Inc. (ServeFed) challenges a United States 

Army (government) performance evaluation that assigned ServeFed an Unsatisfactory

Quality rating and an Unsatisfactory Schedule rating. ServeFed moves for summary 

judgment, and the government cross-moves for summary judgment. Because there are 

genuine issues of material fact regarding whether that evaluation violated the 

applicable regulations and was fair and accurate, we deny the motions. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION

I. Contract

1. On March 19, 2019, the government and ServeFed executed contract W81K00-

19-P-0137 (Contract) for healthcare staffing services at Fort Hood (now 

Fort Cavazos), Texas (R4, tab 1 at 1-45, 80).

2. Acceptable measures are defined under the Contract as including: 

Fill rate-95%; employee turnover rate-less than 25% per 

year, substantiated patient complaints-max 2 per year, per 

provider; no provider initiated cancellation of treatments 

except as medically required by patient, or provider illness 

or emergency leave (and approved by government 

supervisor or designee). . . . Other performance evaluation 

Appeal of - )

)

ServeFed, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63290

)

Under Contract No. W81K00-19-P-0137 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Edward J. Tolchin, Esq.

 Offit Kuman, PA

 Bethesda, MD

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Andrew J. Smith, Esq.

 Acting Army Chief Trial Attorney

LTC Michael R. Tregle, Jr., JA

 Trial Attorney
2 

factors will be monitored that are not qualified by 

numerical measures which include: contractor providing 

personnel exceeding the minimum qualification standards; 

timely patient follow-up when necessary; patient customer 

service comments; provider and contractor relationship 

with hospital staff/government contracting personnel; 

compliance with all hospital policies and procedures.

(R4, tab 1 at 80-81 (emphasis added)) 

II. The Federal Acquisition Regulation

3. At the time of contract award and performance, the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) provided that agencies should complete a Contractor Performance 

Assessment Reporting System evaluation (evaluation). 48 C.F.R. § 42.1503. The 

evaluation criteria included: (1) technical (quality of product or service); (2) cost 

control for contracts other than firm-fixed-price contracts; (3) schedule and timeliness; 

(4) management or business relations; (5) small business subcontracting; and (6) other 

factors, as applicable. Id. § 42.1503(b)(2).

4. The Federal Acquisition Regulation defined the relevant ratings for each 

criteria as follows:

Rating Definition Note

(b) Very Good Performance meets 

contractual requirements and 

exceeds some to the 

Government’s benefit. The 

Contractual performance of 

the element or sub-element 

being evaluated was 

accomplished with some 

minor problems for which 

corrective actions taken by the 

contractor were effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, 

identify a significant event and 

state how it was a benefit to the 

Government. There should have 

been no significant weaknesses 

identified.

(c) Satisfactory Performance meets 

contractual requirements. The 

contractual performance of the 

element or sub-element 

contains some minor problems 

for which corrective actions 

taken by the contractor appear 

or were satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, 

there should have been only 

minor problems, or major 

problems the contractor recovered 

from without impact to the 

contract/order. There should have 

been NO significant weaknesses 

identified. . . .
3 

(d) Marginal Performance does not meet 

some contractual 

requirements. The contractual 

performance of the element or 

sub-element being evaluated 

reflects a serious problem for 

which the contractor has not 

yet identified corrective 

actions. The contractor’s 

proposed actions appear only 

marginally effective or were 

not fully implemented.

To justify Marginal performance, 

identify a significant event in each 

category that the contractor had 

trouble overcoming and state how 

it impacted the Government. A 

Marginal rating should be 

supported by referencing the 

management tool that notified the 

contractor of the contractual

deficiency (e.g., management, 

quality, safety, or environmental 

deficiency report or letter).

(e) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet 

most contractual requirements 

and recovery is not likely in a 

timely manner. The 

contractual performance of the 

element or sub-element 

contains a serious problem(s) 

for which the contractor’s 

corrective actions appear or 

were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory 

rating, identify multiple 

significant events in each category 

that the contractor had trouble 

overcoming and state how it 

impacted the Government. A 

singular problem, however, could 

be of such serious magnitude that 

it alone constitutes an 

unsatisfactory rating. An 

Unsatisfactory rating should be 

supported by referencing the 

management tools used to notify 

the contractor of the contractual 

deficiencies (e.g., management, 

quality, safety, or environmental 

deficiency reports, or letters).

48 C.F.R. § 42.1503, Table 42-1 (emphasis added). 

III. The Evaluations 

5. A Contractor Performance Report Sheet (Report Sheet) used by the 

government to evaluate ServeFed’s performance of the contract stated that:

Schedule Performance is defined as the reliability and 

timeliness of the contractor assessed against the 

completion of contract and task order dates established for 

delivery of services and administrative requirements. 

[Contracting officer’s representatives] will consider fill 

rates, completion of privileging/credentialing packages, 
4

and any other activities required for schedule performance. 

The fill rate percentage is calculated by dividing the total 

hours worked by the total hours ordered.

(App. supp. R4, tab 20 at 1) The Report Sheet also stated that:

Quality of services will be scored by assessing the 

contractor’s conformance to the contract requirements, 

performance work statement, and standards of quality . . . , 

and turnover rate. An indicator of quality is the turnover 

rate of [healthcare providers] performing under the 

contract. When stated in the contract/task order, the 

[contracting officer’s representative] will consider turnover 

rate. Turnover rate is defined as the number of times the 

Contractor must replace individual full-time contract 

[healthcare providers]. . . . Minimum acceptable turnover 

rates will be identified.

(Id.) Finally, the Report Sheet contained the following table for the relevant ratings:

Rating Range Description

Very Good (81-90) Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds 

some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual 

performance of the element being assessed was 

accomplished with some minor problems for which 

corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory (71-80) Performance meets the contractual requirements. The 

contractual performance of the element being assessed 

contains some minor problems for which corrective actions 

taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal (61-70) Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. 

The contractual performance of the element being assessed 

reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not 

yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed 

actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully 

implemented.

Unsatisfactory (Less 

than 61)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements 

and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The 

contractual performance of the element contains serious 

problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective action 

appear or were ineffective.

(Id. at 3)
5

6. The contracting officer’s deposition testimony is unclear about her 

understanding of the meaning of the percentages in the Report Sheet table’s range 

column. At one point, the contracting officer suggested that she understood that 

the percentages in the Report Sheet’s range column equaled the fill and turnover 

rates by giving the following answer to the following question:

Q: Okay. But then you just took the 53 [percent turnover 

rate] and you plugged it into less than 61. Correct? Is that 

what happened?

A: Yes.

(Johnson depo. at 30) However, the contracting officer proceeded to suggest

that she did not understand what the percentages in the Report Sheet’s range 

column meant by giving the following answer to the following question:

Q: So what would I have gotten [if the turnover rate was 

17 percent]? . . . [S]till unsatisfactory?

A: That shouldn’t have been unsatisfactory, no.

Q: So how do you do it? . . . [O]r you just don’t know. If 

you don’t know that’s a—

A: Yeah, the first is you definitely looking at that. But 

yeah, definitely if [the turnover rate] was 17 [percent the 

contractor] wouldn’t have gotten unsatisfactory.

Q: But you just don’t know how that’s calculated 

though—

A: Right.

(Id. at 31-32)

7. In earlier evaluations than the one challenged here—namely for the period 

between April 1, 2019 and September 30, 2019 (2019 Evaluation)—the government

assigned a Satisfactory Quality rating and a Satisfactory Schedule rating, noting a fill 

rate of 50% (R4, tab 10 at 1).

8. In another earlier evaluation than the one challenged here—namely for the

period between October 1, 2019 and September 30, 2020 (2020 Evaluation)— the 
6

government assigned a Satisfactory Quality rating and a Marginal Schedule rating. 

Due to information received from the contracting officer’s representative and the fact 

that the clinic had been closed for approximately two to three months as a result of the 

COVID-19 pandemic, the government changed the 2020 Schedule rating to 

Satisfactory. (GASUMF ¶ 8; ARGASUMF ¶ 8) *

 The amended 2020 Evaluation 

stated that the “[v]endor’s fill rate was 57%. Although the vendor fill-rate is 

unsatisfactory per the [Report Sheet], all other administrative requirements were 

adhered to 100% of the time.” (R4, tab 26 at 2) The 2020 Evaluation also noted that 

there were 6 turnovers (id.).

9. The statement that the clinic was closed for several months due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic raises a genuine issue of material fact as to how much of the fill 

rate and turnover rate deficiencies in the 2019 and 2020 Evaluations were attributable 

to ServeFed, and about the government’s reasons for those earlier evaluations (R4, tab 

10 at 1, tab 26 at 2; GASUMF ¶ 8; ARGASUMF ¶ 8).

10. On November 30, 2021, the government issued an evaluation for the period 

between October 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021—which is the evaluation ServeFed 

challenges in this appeal (Challenged Evaluation). The Challenged Evaluation 

assigned ServeFed an Unsatisfactory Schedule Rating because:

Vendors fill rate was 47.18%. The vendor was 

unsuccessful in [filling] 8 of 17 positions during this 

performance period. The [government’s] mission changed 

and therefore, terminated for convenience 5 positions. The 

3 remaining vacancies still remained unfilled. Complete 

privileging packets were submitted timely and accurately 

with communication with the vendor. Invoices were 

received and certified for payment in a timely manner each 

month.

KS comments, letter of concern was sent on May 11, 2021 

to the contractor in reference to the vacant positions on the 

contract. Cure Notice was sent to the contractor on 

September 17, 2021 for continued vacant positions on the 

contract.

(R4, tab 47 at 2-3) The Challenged Evaluation also assigned ServeFed an 

Unsatisfactory Quality rating because “[t]he vendor has complied with contract 

requirements, the performance work statement and standards of quality with the work 

* GASUMF refers to the government’s additional statement of undisputed material 

facts. ARGASUMF refers to ServeFed’s response to the GASUMF.
7 

staff but the turnover rate during this period of performance is 53% (9 departures)” 

(id.). The Challenged Evaluation further assigned ServeFed a Satisfactory Other 

Areas (Business Relations) rating because “[t]he business relationship between the 

contractor and their employee[s] was absolutely satisfactory. There were no issues or 

concerns brought to my attention or to the attention of the contracting officer. 

Company complied with Contractor Manpower Reporting requirements.” (Id.) The 

Challenged Evaluation did not assign a cost rating or a small business subcontracting 

rating because this was a firm-fixed-price contract, and there was no small business 

subcontracting plan (id. at 1-2). The Challenged Evaluation concluded by 

recommending against future awards (id. at 3). Neither party has presented any 

evidence regarding whether any failure to support the Unsatisfactory ratings with 

reference to the management tools used to notify ServeFed of the contractual 

deficiencies—or any failure to indicate the impact on the government—prejudiced 

ServeFed.

IV. Procedural History

11. On December 6, 2021, ServeFed submitted a claim (R4, tab 48). In that 

claim, ServeFed attached emails that raise a genuine issue of material fact as to 

whether at least some of the fill rate deficiencies and turnover rate deficiencies were 

attributable to the government (id. at 2-4, 9-10, 12-13, 20). 

12. On March 3, 2022, the contracting officer (CO) issued a final decision, 

changing the Schedule rating from Unsatisfactory to Marginal due to the government 

causing some delays in the security background check process. However, the 

contracting officer declined to change the Schedule rating to Satisfactory. The 

contracting officer’s final decision also declined to change the Unsatisfactory Quality

rating. (R4, tab 50 at 4)

13. To date, the contracting officer has not changed the Schedule rating 

(Johnson depo. at 44-45).

DECISION

Neither ServeFed nor the government is entitled to summary judgment. 

I. Summary Judgment Standard

We will grant summary judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). All significant doubt over factual 

issues must be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. Mingus 

Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987). In deciding 
8 

summary judgment motions, we do not resolve controversies, weigh evidence, or make 

credibility determinations. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). 

Moreover, we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. Id. “A 

genuine issue of material fact arises when the nonmovant presents sufficient evidence 

upon which a reasonable fact-finder, drawing the requisite inferences and applying the 

applicable evidentiary standard, could decide the issue in favor of the nonmovant.” 

C. Sanchez & Son, Inc. v. United States, 6 F.3d 1539, 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

II. ServeFed is not Entitled to Summary Judgment

ServeFed is not entitled to summary judgment on its appeal regarding the 

Challenged Evaluation. In issuing an evaluation, a contracting officer must follow 

applicable regulations and provide an appellant with a fair and accurate evaluation. 

ServeFed, Inc., ASBCA No. 63290, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,282 at 185,877 (citing PROTEC 

GmbH, ASBCA No. 61161 et al., 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,064 at 180,420). “Generally, in 

order for a contractor to have standing to raise a procedural challenge, the contractor 

must show prejudice.” PROTEC GmbH, ASBCA No. 61161 et al., 19-1 BCA 

¶ 37,362 at 181,684 (citing Todd Constr,. L.P. v. United States, 656 F.3d 1306, 1315-

16 (Fed. Cir. 2011); GSC Constr., Inc., ASBCA No. 58747, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,714 

at 174,868). As discussed in greater detail below, there are genuine issues of material 

fact as to whether the government followed applicable regulations and the Challenged 

Evaluation was fair and accurate.

A. There is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact as to Whether the Government

Followed Applicable Regulations

There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the government followed 

applicable regulations. ServeFed argues that the government did not follow the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation because its evaluation factors did not include: 

(1) technical (quality of product or service); (2) cost control for contracts other than 

firm-fixed-price contracts; (3) schedule and timeliness; (4) management or business 

relations; and (5) small business subcontracting. (App. mot. at 11-12; SOF ¶ 3) 

However, the Report Sheet and the Challenged Evaluation show that the government

evaluated the quality of the healthcare staffing services, the schedule and timeliness, 

and the business relations. (SOF ¶¶ 5, 10) While the government did not evaluate cost 

controls or small business subcontracting, that was because—as the Challenged Rating 

indicated—this was a firm-fixed-price Contract and there was no small business 

subcontracting. (SOF ¶ 10) 

Indeed, ServeFed’s real complaint appears to be not so much about the 

government’s evaluation criteria as it is about the fact that the government relied upon 

a singular problem within the Schedule criteria and a singular problem within the 

Quality criteria—namely the purportedly deficient fill and turnover rates 
9 

respectively—to assign Unsatisfactory ratings. However, the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation permitted the government to base an Unsatisfactory rating upon a singular

problem, stating that “[a] singular problem, however, could be of such serious 

magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.” (SOF ¶ 4); Odyssey Int’l, 

Inc., ASBCA No. 62085 et al., 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,861 at 183,852 (holding that an 

unsatisfactory rating based upon a singular problem complied with the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation). 

ServeFed also argues that the government did not follow the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation because it did not support the Unsatisfactory ratings with 

reference to the management tools used to notify ServeFed of the contractual 

deficiencies, or indicate the impact on the government (app. mot. at 13). The Federal 

Acquisition Regulation merely indicated that an evaluation “should” support an

Unsatisfactory rating with reference to the management tools used to notify the 

contractor of the contractual deficiencies, (SOF ¶ 4), which renders the phrase

permissive instead of mandatory. Khuri v. United States, 154 Ct. Cl. 58, 64 (1961). In 

any event, the government supported the Unsatisfactory Schedule rating with reference 

to the management tools used to notify ServeFed of the contractual deficiencies by 

stating that a “[l]etter of concern was sent on May 11, 2021 to the contractor in 

reference to the vacant positions on the contract. Cure Notice was sent to the 

contractor on September 17, 2021 for continued vacant positions on the contract.” 

(SOF ¶ 10) Whether those management tools to notify ServeFed of the Contract 

deficiencies addressed the purported turnover rate deficiencies that underpinned the 

Unsatisfactory Quality rating too—and whether that was sufficient to support the 

Unsatisfactory Quality rating with reference to the management tool used to notify 

ServeFed of the contractual deficiencies—raise genuine issues of material fact. 

Further, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether any failure to support 

the Unsatisfactory ratings with reference to the management tools used to notify 

ServeFed of the contractual deficiencies—or any failure to indicate the impact on the 

government —prejudiced ServeFed. (SOF ¶ 10) 

Thus, ServeFed has not established as a matter of law that the government

failed to follow applicable regulations.

B. There is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact as to Whether the Challenged 

Evaluation was Fair and Accurate

There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Challenged 

Evaluation was fair and accurate. ServeFed argues that the government improperly 

evaluated only the fill rate for the Schedule rating and the turnover rate for the Quality

rating, while the Contract and the Report Sheet required the government to evaluate 

other criteria too. (App. mot. at 8-10; SOF ¶¶ 2, 5) However, the government did not 

only evaluate the fill rate for the Schedule rating; it evaluated other criteria by stating 
10

that “[c]omplete privileging packets were submitted timely and accurately with 

communication with the vendor. Invoices were received and certified for payment in a 

timely manner each month” (SOF ¶ 10). Similarly, the government did not only 

evaluate the turnover rate for the Quality rating; it evaluated other criteria by stating 

that “[t]he vendor has complied with contract requirements, the performance work 

statement and standards of quality with the work staff . . . .” (id.).

Again, ServeFed’s real complaint appears to be not so much about the 

government’s evaluation criteria as it is about the fact that the government relied upon 

a singular problem within the Quality criteria and a singular problem within the 

Schedule criteria to assign Unsatisfactory ratings (app. mot. at 11). However, as 

discussed above, the Federal Acquisition Regulation permitted the government to base 

an Unsatisfactory rating upon a singular problem (SOF ¶ 5).

ServeFed also appears to argue that the 2019 and 2020 Evaluations established

that the Challenged Evaluation was arbitrary because ServeFed received Satisfactory

Quality ratings and Satisfactory Schedule ratings on the 2019 and 2020 Evaluations, 

despite purportedly similar fill and turnover rates (app. mot. at 10; app. reply at 19-20). 

As an initial matter, the initial 2020 Evaluation assigned a Marginal Schedule rating, 

and the final 2020 Evaluation expressly stated that the fill rate was unsatisfactory

(SOF ¶ 8). In any event, the fact that ServeFed had different fill and/or turnover rates 

during those prior periods raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the 

different ratings for those prior periods establish that the Challenged Evaluation’s 

ratings were unfair and inaccurate (SOF ¶¶ 7-8). Moreover, there are genuine issues 

of material fact as to how much of the fill rate and turnover rate deficiencies in the 

2019 and 2020 Evaluations were attributable to ServeFed, or the result of other causes, 

such as the COVID-19 pandemic (SOF ¶ 9).

ServeFed next argues that the admission in the contracting officer’s final 

decision that some of the fill rate deficiency was the government’s fault renders the 

Challenged Evaluation’s reliance upon the fill rate deficiency unfair and inaccurate

(app. mot. at 13-14). However, there are genuine issues of material fact as to how 

much of the fill rate deficiency the government caused, and whether the fill rate 

deficiency attributable to ServeFed met the Contract’s requirements.

ServeFed also argues that the government has not changed its Schedule rating

to a Marginal rating yet, despite the contracting officer’s final decision’s conclusion 

that the Schedule rating should be so changed (app. mot. at 14). However, “[b]ecause

we are ‘required to assume that the Government [will] carry out the corrective action 

in good faith’ . . . Chapman Law Firm [Co. v. Greenleaf Const. Co, Inc.], 490 F.3d 

[934,] 940 [Fed. Cir. 2007] (citations omitted), we assume that the government will” 

take the corrective action it indicated it would take in the contracting officer’s final 
11

decision. HTA Aviation, LLC, ASBCA No. 57891 et al., 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,556 

at 174,240.

ServeFed finally appears to argue that the Challenged Rating was unfair and 

inaccurate because the contracting officer purportedly testified during her deposition

that the percentage in the Report Sheet table’s range equaled the fill and turnover rates 

(app. mot. at 6-7, 14). However, the contracting officer’s deposition testimony is 

unclear about her understanding of the meaning of the percentages in the Report Sheet 

table’s range column (SOF ¶ 6). In any event, regardless of the contracting officer’s 

subjective understanding of the meaning of the percentages in the Report Sheet table’s 

range column, the Contract required a fill rate of 95 percent or more, and a turnover 

rate of less than 25 percent (SOF ¶ 2). However, according to the Challenged 

Evaluation, the fill rate was 47.18 percent and the turnover rate was 53 percent (SOF 

¶ 10). Thus, the Challenged Evaluation raises a genuine issue of material fact as to 

whether ServeFed met the Contract’s requirements, and thus whether a Marginal rating

or an Unsatisfactory rating was unfair or inaccurate. Further, there are genuine issues 

of material fact as to whether any deficient fill and turnover rates were of such a 

serious magnitude that they alone constituted unsatisfactory ratings, and thus whether 

an Unsatisfactory rating in particular was unfair or inaccurate. 

Therefore, ServeFed has failed to show that the Challenged Evaluation was 

unfair and inaccurate as a matter of law.

III. The Government is not Entitled to Summary Judgment

Nor is the government entitled to summary judgment. As with its motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim, the government again challenges whether particular 

turnover and fill rate deficiencies were the fault of ServeFed or the government. 

(Gov’t mot. 8, 14) As we held in denying the motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim “whether particular turnover and fill rate deficiencies were the fault of ServeFed 

or the government raises factual issues . . . .” ServeFed, Inc., 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,282 

at 185,878. Moreover, there are genuine issues of fact regarding who was at fault for 

particular turnover and fill rate deficiencies. (SOF ¶ 11) Thus, the government is not 

entitled to summary judgment.

The government also argues that any such issues of fact are not material 

because the Contract is indifferent with respect to the cause of the deficiencies (gov’t 

reply at 3). However, notwithstanding the contract’s apparent silence on the manner, 

the Evaluation’s ratings are required to be “fair,” and penalizing a contractor for 

occurrences for which it bears no fault or responsibility (depending upon the facts, of 

course) may well be unfair. Here, there are material facts in dispute about how much 

responsibility the two parties respectively bear for ServeFed’s filling deficiencies, 

which precludes us from determining whether the Evaluation was fair or not. Indeed, 
12

the government appears to recognize that it is unfair to give ServeFed a negative rating 

for deficiencies beyond its control by arguing that it gave Satisfactory ratings in earlier 

evaluations because the COVID-19 pandemic justified turnover and fill rate 

deficiencies. (App. reply at 13) Therefore, the government is not entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, we deny ServeFed’s motion for summary 

judgment, and the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 

Dated: November 13, 2023

JAMES R. SWEET

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

J. REID PROUTY

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
13

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. 63290, Appeal of ServeFed, 

Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: November 13, 2023

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals