ASBCA 61404
Board: ASBCA
Agency: Air Force
Appellant: Godwin Corporation
Date: 2018-06-12
Outcome: dismissed
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
Appeal of-- )
)
Godwin Corporation ) ASBCA No. 61410
)
Under Contract No. F A301 O-l 5-C-0024 )
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: A. Jeff Ifrah, Esq.
Ifrah Law
Washington, DC
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.
Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney
Christopher S. Cole, Esq.
Col C. Taylor Smith, USAF
Trial Attorneys
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
The government moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting
that appellant failed to file its appeal within 90 days of receipt of a notice of partial
termination of its contract. We grant the government's motion.
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION
1. The Department of the Air Force (government) awarded this contract to
Godwin Corporation (appellant) on 24 September 2015, to supply a mental health
technician, a clinical child psychologist, and a child psychiatrist to perform services at
Keesler Medical Center, Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi (R4, tab 1).
2. The contract incorporated by reference FAR 52.212-4, CONTRACT TERMS
AND CONDITIONS - COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAY 2015), which stated in relevant part
that "[f]ailure of the parties to this contract to reach agreement on any request for
equitable adjustment, claim, appeal or action arising under or relating to this contract
shall be a dispute to be resolved in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.233-1,
Disputes" (R4, tab 1 at 22). FAR 52.233-l(t), DISPUTES (MAY 2014), stated that
"[t]he Contracting Officer's decision shall be final unless the Contractor appeals or
files a suit as provided in 41 U.S.C. chapter 71."
3. By letter dated 19 September 2016, the contracting officer (CO) issued a
contracting officer's final decision (COFD) to appellant partially terminating the
contract for cause due to appellant's failure to fill the child psychiatrist position. The
final decision stated that appellant had the right to appeal under the contract's disputes
clause. (Compl. 142; R4, tab 29) Appellant does not deny that it received the
decision by 22 September 2016 (app. opp'n at 9).
4. The government issued Modification No. P00003 (the modification) on
22 September 20'16. The modification terminated the contract line item numbers
relating to the child psychiatrist position and referenced the COFD. (R4, tab 4) The
government sent a copy of the modification to appellant via email on 22 September
2016 (R4, tab 30 at 1).
5. In a series of emails dated between 13 February 2017 and 7 March 2017,
counsel for appellant contacted the government in an attempt to obtain relief from the
partial termination for default (R4, tab 47). Appellant alleges that during a 9 March
2017 teleconference, the CO represented that he would review any additional evidence
submitted by counsel for appellant (compl. 1 4 7). On 20 and 21 March 2017, counsel
for appellant submitted additional evidence to the CO (R4, tabs 48-54).
6. On 8 November 2017, the contract assessing official finalized his evaluation
of appellant using the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System
(CPARS).* He gave appellant marginal ratings for quality, schedule, and cost control,
and a satisfactory rating for regulatory compliance. (R4, tab 79 at 4-6)
7. On 8 November 2017, the contract reviewing official concurred with the
assessing official's evaluation (R4, tab 79 at 6-7).
8. On 16 November 2017, appellant filed a notice of appeal with this Board,
appealing ''the decision ofthe contracting officer dated November 8, 2017 ... denying
its claim for a conversion to a termination for convenience" (R4, tab 79 at 2).
DECISION
Although appellant's notice of appeal states that it is appealing the denial of its
claim for a conversion to a termination for convenience, this appeal actually concerns
the government's decision to partially terminate the contract for cause.
In moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the government argues that
appellant's 16 November 2017 appeal was not timely because appellant failed to file it
within 90 days of the 19 September 2016 COFD, which partially terminated the
contract for cause (gov't mot. at 1).