Opinion ID: 779646
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cow Contract Extension

Text: 63 CDC argues that the Court of Federal Claims erred in concluding that the Forest Service acted within the limits of its discretion in declining to grant CDC's request for a second extension of the Cow Contract and thus did not breach that contract. CDC argues that an abuse of discretion is shown by the fact that CDC fulfilled all the criteria for an extension of the Cow Contract, that its request for a second extension was never passed on to headquarters, and that there was nothing in the contract that limited contractors to a single one-year extension. We disagree with CDC's conclusion that the Forest Service abused its discretion in not granting a second term extension. 64 Although Forest Service regulations set out threshold criteria for granting term extensions, the regulations discourage the granting of extensions, stating [e]xtensions of a contract term should be the exception rather than the rule. A timber purchaser is expected to complete contractual obligations during the specified contract term. Forest Service Manual § 2433.12a (June 27, 1984). Moreover, the Manual clearly states that [e]xcept in unusual circumstances, only one extension shall be granted. Id. Given that guidance, it was well within the officer's discretion to decide that CDC's request was simply not meritorious and refuse to pass it along, even if CDC technically met the threshold requirements for an extension. Thus, the Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that the Forest Service acted within its discretion in declining the second extension and that CDC is liable for breach of the Cow contract.