Opinion ID: 2773558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Parenting Contract

Text: On or about August 20, 2009, JRS entered into a contract with the BOP to provide parenting classes (“Parenting Contract”). Pursuant to the contract, JRS was to provide classes in order to “support positive relationships between inmates and their children during and after their incarceration.” J.A. 92. As the Court of Federal Claims explained, “[t]he substantive provisions of the Parenting Contract largely mirror those in the Ceramics contract. The similarities between the two contracts include the inclusion of FAR 52.216-21, Requirements (Oct. 1995) JACQUELINE R. SIMS V. UNITED STATES 7 Alternate I (Apr. 1984) and FAR 52.212-4(c).” Sims, at 6. The effective date of this contract was October 1, 2009, it included a base year plus four one-year option periods, and was valued at $81,432. Like the Ceramics Contract, the process entailed JRS receiving a task order; JRS hiring subcontractors to provide the actual instruction; and JRS invoicing the Government after the services had been rendered. Through its subcontractors, JRS performed the “services for the first year of the contract and the first four months of the first option period,” and has been paid for these services. Sims, at 6. No services were rendered during the last eight months of the first option period, and the Government opted not to exercise the second option period. The BOP produced a PPE for the base year and the first option period, and both were submitted to JRS for review. JRS submitted a rebuttal and on February 24, 2011, JRS received an amended PPE, receiving an overall rating of “good” for the base year evaluation. JRS did not raise the unenforceability of the contract as an excuse for its non-performance in its rebuttal. JRS submitted a “Contracts Disputes Act Claim” relating to the base year and option year PPE on the Parenting Contract on March 27, 2012. Similar to the Ceramics Contract, JRS argued the generation of PPEs amounted to a unilateral change in the terms of the contract, and for the first time argued the Parenting Contract was legally unenforceable for the same reasons expressed in the Ceramics Contract claim. The Court of Federal Claims noted “the Parenting Contract and the Ceramics Contract claims followed virtually identical paths.” Sims, at 7. On the same date the contracting officer denied JRS’s Ceramics Contract claim, May 24, 2012, the Parenting Contract claim was also denied for the same reasons. As with the Ceramics Contract, JRS submitted an amended claim with addi- 8 JACQUELINE R. SIMS v. UNITED STATES tional legal theories on August 15, 2012, and “[t]he Parenting Complaint mirrors the Ceramics Complaint save that it does not include the affirmative bad faith claim raised with respect to the Ceramics Complaint.” Id. Both complaints allege four counts: (1) the BOP exceeded its authority to prepare performance evaluations as delineated in FAR Subpart 42.15; (2) the BOP’s preparation of the PPEs amounts to a unilateral change in the terms of the contracts, in violation of the Contracts’ express incorporation of FAR § 52.212-4(c); (3) the BOP’s evaluations were arbitrary and capricious because JRS received negative evaluations for failing to perform under contracts which were unenforceable; and (4) the BOP, by preparing the PPEs as if JRS was obligated to perform when JRS claims it was not, breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Ceramics Complaint states a fifth count alleging affirmative bad faith on the BOP’s part when the BOP delivered the Ceramics PPE directly to the Federal Correctional Institution in Miami. As with the Ceramics Contract claim, the revised Parenting Contract claim was denied on October 12, 2012. The contracting officer determined the arguments raised in the revised claim were substantially the same as those raised in the original Parenting Contract claim. JRS appeals and this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (2012).