Court Opinion

ID: 9906938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 17:00:20.276398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:57.909881
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
 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

              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
              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                 To justify a Very Good rating,
                      contractual requirements and      identify a significant event and
                      exceeds some to the               state how it was a benefit to the
                      Government’s benefit. The         Government. There should have
                      Contractual performance of        been no significant weaknesses
                      the element or sub-element        identified.
                      being evaluated was
                      accomplished with some
                      minor problems for which
                      corrective actions taken by the
                      contractor were effective.
 (c) Satisfactory     Performance meets                 To justify a Satisfactory rating,
                      contractual requirements. The     there should have been only
                      contractual performance of the    minor problems, or major
                      element or sub-element            problems the contractor recovered
                      contains some minor problems      from without impact to the
                      for which corrective actions      contract/order. There should have
                      taken by the contractor appear    been NO significant weaknesses
                      or were satisfactory.             identified. . . .
                                            2
 (d) Marginal           Performance does not meet         To justify Marginal performance,
                        some contractual                  identify a significant event in each
                        requirements. The contractual     category that the contractor had
                        performance of the element or     trouble overcoming and state how
                        sub-element being evaluated       it impacted the Government. A
                        reflects a serious problem for    Marginal rating should be
                        which the contractor has not      supported by referencing the
                        yet identified corrective         management tool that notified the
                        actions. The contractor’s         contractor of the contractual
                        proposed actions appear only      deficiency (e.g., management,
                        marginally effective or were      quality, safety, or environmental
                        not fully implemented.            deficiency report or letter).
 (e) Unsatisfactory     Performance does not meet         To justify an Unsatisfactory
                        most contractual requirements     rating, identify multiple
                        and recovery is not likely in a   significant events in each category
                        timely manner. The                that the contractor had trouble
                        contractual performance of the    overcoming and state how it
                        element or sub-element            impacted the Government. A
                        contains a serious problem(s)     singular problem, however, could
                        for which the contractor’s        be of such serious magnitude that
                        corrective actions appear or      it alone constitutes an
                        were ineffective.                 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,
                                             3
                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          Performance does not meet most contractual requirements
                than 61)       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)
                                             4
       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

                                               5
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.
                                             6
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

                                            7
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

                                           8
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

                                             9
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

                                            10
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,

                                           11
 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                                            I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD                                 J. REID PROUTY
Administrative Judge                                Administrative Judge
Acting Chairman                                     Vice Chairman
Armed Services Board                                Armed Services Board
of Contract Appeals                                 of Contract Appeals

                                             12
        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

                                          13