ASBCA 61431

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Petition of -- ) ) Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC ) ASBCA No. 61431-983 ) Under Contract No. N69450-12-D-7582 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE PETITIONER: Kathryn T. Muldoon Griffin, Esq. John S. Pachter, Esq. Jennifer A. Mahar, Esq. Smith Pachter Mc Whorter PLC Tysons Comer, VA APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Ronald J. Borro, Esq. Navy Chief Trial Attorney Russel A. Shultis, Esq. Assistant Director Todd J. Wagnon, Esq. Trial Attorney ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE l(a)(5) DIRECTING CONTRACTING OFFICER TO ISSUE DECISION Pursuant to Board Rule l(a)(5), Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (Fluor) petitions the Board to direct the contracting officer (CO) to render a decision on its 30 September 2016 claim for $50,584,810 plus interest, and modification of specific Navy evaluations included in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) by 8 January 2018. STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE PETITION 1. On 13 December 2011, the Navy (government) awarded Contract No. N69450-12-D-7582 to Fluor for regional base operations support in Jacksonville, FL. The contract requires Fluor to provide base operations support services at four Navy installations in the Jacksonville area. (Pet. at 1) 2. On 30 June 2015, Fluor submitted a consolidated request for equitable adjustment (consolidated REA) seeking an adjustment to the price of the contract and modification of Navy evaluations included in the CPARS (pet. at 2). The 96 page consolidated REA included a detailed narrative of the facts giving rise to the REA and was accompanied by 70 attachments and 2 appendices (pet. at 3). The consolidated REA addressed matters that had all been raised in a series of separate REAs that Fluor submitted in 2013 and 2014, which the Navy either rejected with little or no comment, or failed to address at all (pet. at 2). 3. Seven months later, the Navy, on 3 February 2016, denied Fluor's consolidated REA, stating that additional information provided in the REA submission had not warranted the government to reverse its original denials of the earlier REAs. Fluor then submitted its consolidated claim on 30 September 2016. (Pet. at 3-4) 4. After acknowledging the consolidated claim, the Navy stated it would require a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit and that a decision would be issued on or before 28 April 2017 (pet. at 4 ). Beginning in November 2016 through 15 May 2017, Fluor organized and participated in multiple in-person meetings and telephone conferences requested by DCAA regarding the claim, and provided written responses to DCAA's written requests (pet. at 5). 5. By letter dated 14 April 2017, the Navy notified Fluor that it was awaiting completion of the DCAA audit, estimated to be finished by 31 July 2017, and "other reviews to process the claim." It further stated it anticipated a contracting officer's final decision (COFD) would be issued by 1December2017. (Pet. at 5) 6. DCAA did not contact Fluor between 15 May and 21 September 2017 (pet. at 5). 7. By 21 September 2017 email, DCAA repeated requests to which Fluor had already responded in writing on 20 January and 15 March 2017 (pet. at 5). 8. Fluor responded to DCAA' s request on 25 September 2017, repeating its previous responses, which explained it did not maintain certain records in the manner DCAA requested and expressed Fluor's willingness to answer specific questions regarding the data used to price the claim and provide DCAA an additional walkthrough of the data (pet. at 5). 9. Without responding to Fluor' s 25 September 2017 reply, DCAA issued a "Formal Request for Access to Records" on 23 October 2017, asserting it had "not received access to contractor records" (pet. at 5). 10. Fluor repeated, in a letter to DCAA dated 31 October 2017, its earlier offers to respond to any DCAA concerns, as Fluor had provided all of the information available and was willing to meet with DCAA representatives. DCAA never responded. (Pet. at 5) 11. By letter dated 8 November 2017, the Navy again notified Fluor that it was awaiting the audit "and other independent analyses to complete [its] evaluation" of the 2 consolidated claim.