Court Opinion

ID: 9927034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 23:00:40.261016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:40.683741
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
    Appeal of -                                )
                                               )
    Aviation Training Consulting, LLC          )    ASBCA No. 63634
                                               )
    Under Contract No. FA8621-16-C-6339        )

    APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                   John M. Mattox II, Esq.
                                                     Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq.
                                                     Matthew P. Moriarty, Esq.
                                                     Ian P. Patterson, Esq.
                                                     Timothy Laughlin, Esq.
                                                      Schoonover & Moriarty LLC
                                                      Olathe, KS

    APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                  Caryl A. Potter III, Esq.
                                                      Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney
                                                     Aaron J. Weaver, Esq.
                                                     Geoffrey Townsend, Esq.
                                                      Trial Attorneys

     OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON GOVERNMENT’S
              MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

       According to its complaint, appellant “operates, maintains, supports, and
upgrades the Air Force’s training systems (or trainers) for B-52 bombers,” pursuant to
its contract with the government. 1 Among the relief that appellant seeks in this appeal
is an equitable adjustment in the amount of $512,319.16, pursuant to Section 3610 of
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Pub. L. No. 116-
136, 134 Stat. 281, to compensate appellant for its alleged “increased costs to keep its
workforce in ready state during the COVID-19 pandemic.” 2 The contracting officer
denied appellant’s request for that relief. 3 The government moves to dismiss
appellant’s Section 3610 request “for failure to state a claim within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Board to decide and grant,” asserting that “[t]he Board does not
have subject matter jurisdiction [] to make an award to [appellant] under Section 3610
of the CARES Act.” 4 We treat that request strictly as a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.

1
  Compl. at 1.
2
  Compl. at 1, 31 ¶¶ a, b.
3
  Notice of Appeal, ex. A.
4
  Mot. at 1.
        In general, the Board possesses jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a
contracting officer’s final decision upon a “claim” that has been submitted according
to the procedures delineated in the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-
7109. See ECC Int’l Constructors, LLC v. Sec’y of Army, 79 F.4th 1364, 1377 (Fed.
Cir. 2023). Those requirements include that the claim be one “relating to a contract”
with the government. See 41 U.S.C. §§ 7102(a), 7103(a)(1). The phrase “relating to a
contract” is to be read broadly. ABB Enter. Software, Inc., f/k/a Ventyx, ASBCA
No. 60314, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,425 at 177,573. To be related to a contract, a claim must
have some relationship to the terms or performance of the government contract. Id.

      Section 3610 of the CARES Act provides (emphasis added):

             Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and subject to
             the availability of appropriations, funds made available to
             an agency by this Act or any other Act may be used by
             such agency to modify the terms and conditions of a
             contract, or other agreement, without consideration, to
             reimburse at the minimum applicable contract billing rates
             not to exceed an average of 40 hours per week any paid
             leave, including sick leave, a contractor provides to keep
             its employees or subcontractors in a ready state, including
             to protect the life and safety of Government and contractor
             personnel, but in no event beyond September 30, 2020.
             Such authority shall apply only to a contractor whose
             employees or subcontractors cannot perform work on a site
             that has been approved by the Federal Government,
             including a federally-owned or leased facility or site, due
             to facility closures or other restrictions, and who cannot
             telework because their job duties cannot be performed
             remotely during the public health emergency declared on
             January 31, 2020 for COVID–19 . . . .

       Section 3610 provides to an agency the discretion to modify the terms and
conditions of a government contract to reimburse the contractor for paid leave, related
to the COVID–19 public health emergency, that the contractor provided to certain
employees or subcontractors. Consequently, a claim presented to a contracting officer
by a government contractor for Section 3610 relief is a claim “relating to a contract”
within the meaning of the CDA. Therefore, the Board possesses jurisdiction pursuant
to the CDA to entertain an appeal from a decision by a contracting officer denying a
Section 3610 claim. Cf. Todd Constr., L.P. v. United States, 656 F.3d 1306, 1308
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding Board jurisdiction; negative contract performance evaluation
“related to” contract within the meaning of the CDA).

                                           2
        The government analogizes Section 3601 to Public Law 85-804, which also
 provides agencies broad discretionary authority to modify contracts with the
 government, but whose legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended to
 exclude Public Law 85-804 from the operation of the CDA, see Todd Constr.,
 656 F.3d at 1313 (discussing Paragon Energy Corp. v. United States, 645 F.2d 966
 (Ct. Cl. 1981), aff’d, 230 Ct. Cl. 884 (1982)), thus depriving the Board of jurisdiction
 to entertain appeals from government decisions upon requests for relief pursuant to
 Public Law 85-804. See Am. Gen. Trading & Contracting, WLL, ASBCA No. 56758,
 12-1 BCA ¶ 34,905 at 171,638-39. Here, we are shown no legislative history
 indicating that Congress similarly intended to exclude Section 3610 of the CARES Act
 from the operation of the CDA. Consequently, we find jurisdiction to entertain
 appellant’s appeal from the contracting officer’s denial of appellant’s request for
 Section 3610 relief, specifically appellant’s contention that the government’s
 “withholding of Section 3610 funds from [appellant] was deliberate and motivated by
 arbitrary and abusive considerations.” 5 Accordingly, the government’s motion to
 dismiss appellant’s request for relief pursuant to Section 3610 of the CARES Act for
 lack of jurisdiction is denied.

           Dated: January 11, 2024

                                                  TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL
                                                  Administrative Judge
                                                  Armed Services Board
                                                  of Contract Appeals

I concur                                          I concur

OWEN C. WILSON                                    MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL
Administrative Judge                              Administrative Judge
Acting Chairman                                   Acting Vice Chairman
Armed Services Board                              Armed Services Board
of Contract Appeals                               of Contract Appeals

 5
     Compl. at 31 ¶ 234.
                                            3
       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. 63634, Appeal of Aviation
Training Consulting, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

      Dated: January 11, 2024

                                               PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS
                                               Recorder, Armed Services
                                               Board of Contract Appeals

                                           4