CBCA 4735
Board: CBCA
Appellant: Bob L. Walker
Date: 2015-12-03
Outcome: dismissed
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: December 3, 2015
CBCA 4735
BOB L. WALKER,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Respondent.
Bob L. Walker, pro se, Hamilton, MT.
Jennifer T. Newbold, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture,
Missoula, MT, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges HYATT, WALTERS, and SULLIVAN.
SULLIVAN, Board Judge.
Appellant, Bob L. Walker, appeals the termination of a supplemental project
agreement (SPA) to Timber Sale contract #01-03-02-023891, which he entered into with
respondent, the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service). The Forest
Service moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Mr. Walkerâs
appeal is untimely. For the reasons set forth below, we grant the Forest Serviceâs motion.
CBCA 4735 2
Findings of Fact
Award, Performance, and Termination of the Contract
On February 1, 2006, the Forest Service awarded to Mr. Walker a contract to cut
timber in the Darby Ranger District of Montanaâs Bitterroot National Forest.1 Following
award, the parties disagreed regarding the requirements for acceptable winter logging
conditions. The record contains several requests by Mr. Walker for contract adjustments and
time extensions because of poor weather conditions. While the Forest Service apparently
granted several of Mr. Walkerâs requests, in January 2013, the Forest Service denied Mr.
Walkerâs requests for a further extension of the time to perform and to delete work from the
sale contract.
The Forest Service terminated the timber sale contract as uncompleted on February
8, 2013, but granted Mr. Walker additional time, until July 31, 2013, to complete erosion
control work required under the contract. The Forest Service re-advertised the remaining
timber under the sale on September 19, 2013, but there were no bidders. On
December 6, 2013, Mr. Walker was notified that the timber sale âterminated with unresolved
Purchaser obligations.â
Contracting Officerâs Final Decision Assessing Damages and Reprocurement Costs
In a contracting officerâs final decision dated February 20, 2014, the Forest Service
assessed damages arising from the termination for default of Mr. Walkerâs contract. The
final decision set forth the calculation of the Forest Serviceâs damages arising from the
termination of Mr. Walkerâs contract:
1. Contract Value $3,350.08
2. Other Damages
a. Cost of resale or reoffering $ 24.90
b. Interest to midpoint of the contract resale period $ 76.62
3. Total Potential Damages (Sum of 1 and 2) $3,451.60
4. Appraised and Resale Value at Termination - $1,259.89
5. Total Damages $2,191.71
The contracting officer notified Mr. Walker that the amount would be deducted from his
performance bond on the contract.
1
The agency filed its motion to dismiss before the appeal file was submitted.
The facts are taken from the partiesâ submissions.
CBCA 4735 3
At the end of the decision, the contracting officer advised Mr. Walker of his appeal
rights and deadlines for filing any appeal:
This is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. This decision may be
appealed to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA). . . . If you decide
to make such an appeal, you must mail or otherwise furnish written notice
thereof to the [Board] within 90 days from the date you receive this decision.
. . . In lieu of appealing to the [Board], you may bring an action directly in the
Court of Federal Claims within 12 months of the date you receive this
decision.
With his notice of appeal, Mr. Walker provided a United States Postal Service (USPS)
certified mail receipt, for a letter postmarked February 20, 2014, sent to Mr. Walkerâs
address. Mr. Walker also provided a USPS tracking printout that the certified letter was
delivered to Mr. Walkerâs address in Hamilton, Montana, on February 21, 2014.
Appellantâs Response to Contracting Officerâs Final Decision
In a letter to the contracting officer dated May 9, 2014, Mr. Walker challenged the
termination of the contract, arguing that it was improper due to the persistent issues related
to winter logging requirements.