ASBCA 61018

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) Agility Logistics Services Company KSC ) ASBCA Nos. 57415, 57416, 57417 ) 57418,57419,57420 ) 57421,57422,57423 ) 57424,57425,57426 ) 57895,57896,57897 ) 57898,57899, 57900 ) 57901,57902,57903 ) 57904, 57905, 57906 ) 57907 Under Contract No. DABVOl-04-D-0014 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Michael R. Charness, Esq. John P. Elwood, Esq. Jamie F. Tabb, Esq. Joshua S. Johnson, Esq. Elizabeth Krabill Mcintyre, Esq. Vinson & Elkins Washington, DC APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. Army Chief Trial Attorney Robert B. Neill, Esq. Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK ON THE PARTIES' MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND RULING UPON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT These appeals have been remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the limited purpose of determining the real party in interest and the effect of that finding upon the Board's 9 December 2014 decision dismissing the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The court of appeals retains jurisdiction over the appeal while the Board issues this determination. Agility Logistics Services Co. KSC v. Carter, No. 2015-1555, slip op. (Fed. Cir. March 10, 2016), remanding Agility Logistics Services Co. KSC, ASBCA No. 57415 et al., 15-1 BCA iJ 35,840. Because these appeals involve contracts with the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq (CPA), and the Board cannot exercise jurisdiction over disputes arising from them, the identity of the real party in interest is inconsequential to the Board's 9 December 2014 dismissal. Consequently, any real party in interest issues would be governed by the law of Iraq. Because the parties made no showing about the nature of that law, and the Board lacks expertise in it, the Board cannot determine who, if anyone, is the real party in interest to these claims in that nation. During the remand procedures, the parties also filed motions to compel responses to written discovery. The Board denies those motions. I. Background In summary, the appeals arise from contracting officer decisions issued under the above-referenced contract awarded to Public Warehousing Company, KSC (PWC) by the CPA (app. Rule 21 report (R21 ), ex. 10 at GA 26).* See generally Agility Logistics Services, 15-1 BCA if 35,840 at 175,262. PWC is a Kuwaiti company (R2 l, ex. 10 at GA 61; gov't remand hr. at 3, if 1). On 23 September 2010, the contracting officer issued government claims to a subsidiary of PWC called Agility Defense and Government Services KSC or Agility DGS Logistics Company KSC (Agility DGS) seeking $80,830,305.62 allegedly due under certain contract task orders (app. remand br. if 2; gov't remand br. iii! 5, 46) Agility Logistics Services, 15-1 BCA if 35,840 at 175,265. On 19 April 2011, another purported entity, Agility Logistics Services Company KSC (Agility LSC), ostensibly submitted a certified claim to the contracting officer for $47,196,205.98 in costs allegedly owed under the contract's task orders (R2 l, ex. 10 at GA 100). That claim was denied on 15 December 2011. Agility Logistics Services, 15-1 BCA if 35,840 at 175,265. According to that document, PWC changed its name to Agility LSC in November 2006 (R21, ex. 10 at GA 100). The Board consolidated appeals from all of the contracting officer decisions under the Agility LSC caption after the parties stipulated it was the proper appellant for all of the final decisions and agreed there were no jurisdictional problems with proceeding. The parties also stipulated that the contracting officer claims against Agility DGS were deemed to have been against Agility LSC, which had properly and timely appealed the decisions. (R21, ex.