Court Opinion

ID: 9900181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:01:45.904934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:01.326165
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
 Appeal of -                                   )
                                               )
 Crowley Government Services, Inc.             )    ASBCA No. 63531
                                               )
 Under Contract No. N62387-15-C-2505           )

 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                     James Y. Boland, Esq.
                                                    Caleb E. McCallum, Esq.
                                                     Venable LLP
                                                     Tysons Corner, VA

 APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                    Craig D. Jensen, Esq.
                                                     Navy Chief Trial Attorney
                                                    James L. Johnsen, Esq.
                                                    Donald J. Thornley, Esq.
                                                    Patrick M. Mayette, Esq.
                                                     Trial Attorneys

         OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON THE
                 GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

      On February 13, 2023, appellant, Crowley Government Services, Inc. (Crowley
or CGS), appealed from a contracting officer’s January 30, 2023 final decision in
which the contracting officer at least purported to rescind a Contractor Performance
Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) made by Military Sealift Command (MSC) in
connection with Contract No. N62387-15-C-2505, in response to Crowley’s
November 14, 2022 claim to the contracting officer challenging the CPARS.
Crowley’s claim states:

               This [Contract Disputes Act] (CDA) claim seeks relief
               from the government’s inaccurate and unfair past
               performance evaluations of Crowley under the contract, as
               reflected by three past performance evaluations in the
               Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System
               (“CPARS”) posted recently by MSC . . . . For the reasons
               explained in further detail in this claim, the assigned
               ratings of Marginal (and in some cases of Satisfactory) and
               the accompanying adverse narratives are factually
               inaccurate, inconsistent with the requirements at Federal
               Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Subpart 42.15, and
               unfair. In addition, contrary to applicable law and
              regulation, Crowley never received an opportunity to
              review and respond to these evaluations before MSC
              finalized and posted them. Only recently did MSC permit
              Crowley to submit responses, meaning that officials
              evaluating Crowley’s proposals for further government
              business have been relying on unfair and inaccurate
              information regarding Crowley’s performance. In fact,
              Crowley has performed all aspects of the contract as
              required and in compliance with all contract terms.

(R4, tab 2 at 1) (emphasis added). And the contracting officer’s final decision states:

              Although MSC’s leadership stands by the factual substance
              of its CPARS ratings, in recognition of MSC’s
              longstanding business relationship with CGS and the
              possible procedural irregularities during the issuance of
              these three CPARS entries, I will direct the following
              relief: MSC will rescind the finalized performance
              evaluations in CPARS for the 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and
              2018-2019 reporting periods. This relief is the most
              equitable resolution to the claim given the difficulty of
              resolving factual disputes from performance periods
              extending back over 7 years, the diminishing relevance of
              these performance periods to CGS’s likelihood of success
              in future government contracts, and the availability of
              other sources of information available to future procuring
              agencies to assess CGS’s performance on this contract, i.e.
              past performance questionnaires.

(R4, tab 1 at 1-2) (emphasis added). Crowley’s February 13, 2023 notice of appeal
indicates that the appeal challenges the terms of the rescission – specifically the
contracting officer’s reservation regarding the “factual substance” of the CPARS
ratings – stating (emphasis added):

              On November 14, 2022, Crowley submitted a claim
              pursuant to the CDA seeking a contracting officer’s final
              decision providing relief from unlawful, factually
              unsupported, and procedurally improper CPARS
              assessments issued under Contract No. N62387-15-C-
              2505. On January 30, 2023, the contracting officer issued
              a final decision denying the full relief sought by Crowley,
              stating that “MSC’s leadership stands by the factual

                                           2
                substance of its CPARS ratings” and that Crowley has a
                right of appeal.

          The government moves to dismiss the appeal, saying that “the contracting
  officer’s relief mooted” the claim (gov’t mot. at 1), and cites DynCorp International,
  LLC, ASBCA No. 62,227, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,682 at 182,944, for the point that “when it
  develops during litigation that the relief sought has been granted, or the matters in
  controversy are no longer at issue, the case is moot and should be dismissed for lack of
  jurisdiction.” However, there is no “litigation development” at issue in this appeal;
  that is, nothing has happened during the litigation of this appeal that has arguably
  mooted the appeal. Rather, an element of the contacting officer’s decision – that is,
  what is at least arguably a reservation of the “factual substance” of the CPARS ratings
  despite the rescission of “the finalized performance evaluations in CPARS for the
  2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 reporting periods” – is the subject of the
  litigation (R4 tab 1 at 1).

          A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties lack
  a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Humane Society of the United States v.
  Clinton, 236 F.3d 1320, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). At least at this early stage of the
  litigation, we identify in this appeal the following live issues: (1) whether, given the
  reservation in the rescission decision of the “factual substance” of the CPARS ratings,
  that “factual substance” somehow survives the contracting officer’s rescission
  decision, to the prejudice of Crowley; and (2) whether, if so, the “factual substance” of
  the CPARS ratings is fair, accurate, and consistent with Federal Acquisition
  Regulation (FAR) Subpart 42.15. Consequently, we deny the motion to dismiss for
  lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice.

         Dated: June 7, 2023

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

(Signatures continued)

                                             3
 I concur                                         I concur

 RICHARD SHACKLEFORD                              OWEN C. WILSON
 Administrative Judge                             Administrative Judge
 Acting Chairman                                  Vice Chairman
 Armed Services Board                             Armed Services Board
 of Contract Appeals                              of Contract Appeals

      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. 63531, Appeal of Crowley
Government Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

      Dated: June 7, 2023

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

                                           4