Opinion ID: 2773558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ceramics Contract

Text: JRS signed Contract No. DJBP010100000006 (“Ce- ramics Contract”) with the United States, acting through the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), on September 24, 2009, with an effective date of October 1, 2009. The value of the contract award was $63,180 for a base year and included four option years. Under the terms of the contract, JRS was to provide ceramics instruction to the inmates at Federal Prison Camp (“FPC”), Alderson, West Virginia. JRS hired a subcontractor who provided the ceramics instruction. Typically, JRS would receive a task order and would then provide a payment invoice to the Government. JRS was required to provide three sessions a week, each session lasting three hours, totaling 468 hour sessions per year. Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. ch. 1 (“FAR”) § 52.216-21, titled “Requirements (Oct. 1995) Alternate I (Apr. 1984),” was incorporated into the contract and defines the requirements terms of the contract. J.A. 29. JRS’s subcontractor provided services in October and November 2009 and January 2010, and was paid in full JACQUELINE R. SIMS V. UNITED STATES 3 for those services. JRS did not provide any services to the Government “during December 2009, or for the period from February 1, 2010 to September 30, 2010.” Sims, at 4. The Government exercised the first option period, extending the contract to September 2011. On September 9, 2010, BOP prepared a Past Perfor- mance Evaluation (“PPE”) pursuant to FAR § 42.15. JRS was rated on four criteria: quality of service (“unsatisfactory”); timeliness of performance (“poor”); business relations (“fair”); and customer satisfaction (“fair”).” Id. BOP noted JRS had failed to provide a ceramics instructor for the inmates during part of the performance period. JRS responded and argued that when actual services were provided, they were of “good quality.” J.A. 87. The company also provided an explanation why the subcontractor failed to provide services. Based on this response, the evaluation was changed from overall “unsatisfactory” to “fair.” JRS asked for review of the evaluation. Citing FAR § 42.1503(b), BOP’s chief of acquisition issued a memorandum in which JRS was evaluated on the four criteria listed above. Under “Timeliness of Performance,” JRS received a rating of “Poor” because it failed to provide services under the contract. The officer wrote: A review of the rating period reveals that four task orders were issued beginning in October 2009 through September 30, 2010; however, service was not rendered from February 1, 2010 to September 30, 2010. JRS initially notified BOP that lack of service was due to personal illness of the contract instructor. Although, JRS did inform the BOP of their instructor’s illness, such circumstances do not relieve the contractor of [its] obligation to provide service under the terms of the contract. Ad- ditionally, we note that service was not rendered as of June 2010 because JRS did not have an em- ployee cleared to enter the institution to perform service. Failure to provide service during the last 4 JACQUELINE R. SIMS v. UNITED STATES eight months of the rating period effectively compromised achievement of the contract require- ments resulting in a revised rating of Poor for Timeliness of Performance for the full rating period. J.A. 83. Relating to business relations, JRS received a rating of “Fair.” J.A. 84. According to the contracting officer: JRS was notified more than once during the rat- ing period that the contract instructor was not performing service. . . . Responses to contractual issues were generally effective at the beginning of the rating period; however, the effectiveness and responsiveness to issues of non-performance steadily declined in the last eight months of the rating period rendering an overall rating for Business Relations for the full rating period of Fair. J.A. 84. JRS received a rating of “Good” for “Quality of Service” and a rating of “Fair” for “Customer Satisfaction.” J.A. 83–84. The last sentence of the memorandum read “[t]hese evaluations may be used to support future award decisions, and shall be therefore marked ‘Source Selection Information.”’ 1 J.A. 84. On November 12, 2010, BOP notified JRS that the company had “failed to provide . . . ceramics instruction services since June 29, 2010” and JRS had thirty days to 1 “Source Selection Information” means certain information “prepared for use by an agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to enter into an agency procurement contract, if that information has not been previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly.” FAR § 2.101. JACQUELINE R. SIMS V. UNITED STATES 5 provide a replacement instructor. Appellee’s Supp. App. (“Supp. App.”) 57. JRS failed to find a replacement. On December 27, 2010, BOP accordingly notified JRS it was “considering terminating th[e] contract for cause.” Id. at 58. The contract was terminated on January 24, 2011, and after JRS appealed the termination, it was converted into a termination for convenience. In February 2012, JRS bid on a contract to provide radiology technologist services at the Federal Correctional Institution in Miami, Florida. Based in part on JRS’s PPE, a contracting officer for BOP, determined that JRS was non-responsible and JRS was not awarded the contract. JRS was notified of the decision and that the “matter [had been referred] to the [Small Business Association] for a [Certificate of Competency (“COC”)] determination.” Supp. App. 66. JRS then requested that the agency “reverse your determination of nonresponsibility, withdraw the COC referral, and proceed to award my firm the contract.” Id. JRS did not mention the Ceramics Contract evaluation or any argument about the unenforceability of the Ceramics Contract. JRS did not take any other action relating to the non-responsibility finding. On March 27, 2012, JRS submitted a “Contracts Dis- putes Act Claim,” requesting relief from the December 16, 2010, PPE. JRS requested an equitable adjustment in the amount of $1500 for what it alleged was a breach by the Government of the contract terms. Specifically, JRS argued PPEs were not authorized for the contract and that by issuing a PPE, BOP “unilaterally chang[ed]” the terms of the contract without first obtaining JRS’s written consent. Id. at 68. JRS also raised the issue of unenforceability for the first time, arguing “[t]he fact that the contract at issue was not legally enforceable is key with regards to the Contractor Performance Report, because it means that my company was under no legal obligation to 6 JACQUELINE R. SIMS v. UNITED STATES furnish Ceramics Instructor services ordered by the Government.” Supp. App. 71. On May 24, 2012, JRS’s claim was denied and the contracting officer explained: “[a]lthough per FAR [§] 42.1502(b), Federal agencies are only required to prepare evaluations of contractor performance for a contract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, Contracting Officers are not prohibited from utilizing this resource for contracts not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold.” Supp. App. 72. The contracting officer also stated she would “not reopen a performance evaluation review more than a year later to address concerns that JRS was capable of raising in the designated time frames for review,” and thus there was insufficient reason to change the evaluation. Id at 73. On August 15, 2012, JRS presented additional documentation and a revised claim, which expanded the scope of JRS’s legal arguments to include: violation of FAR § 42.1502; unilateral modification of the contract; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unenforceability; and bad faith. On October 12, 2012, the contracting officer rejected JRS’s revised claim, finding “the allegations made stem from the same set of operative facts as, and are substantially the same as, the original claim [JRS] filed on March 27, 2012.” Id. at 97.