CBCA 5064
Board: CBCA
Appellant: Pacific Coast Community Services, Inc.
Date: 2016-01-14
Outcome: dismissed
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: January 14, 2016
CBCA 5064
PACIFIC COAST COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondent.
Daniel C. McAuliffe of Witcomb Law, P.C., Denver, CO, counsel for Appellant.
Denise A. McLane, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security,
Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HYATT, and SHERIDAN.
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
Appellant, Pacific Coast Community Services, Inc. (PCCS), filed an appeal with the
Civilian Board of Contact Appeals asking the Board to award it $71,592.96 for additional
services that it alleges were provided under Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
contract HSHQW9-13-C-0001. In response to a show cause order issued by the Board on
November 19, 2015, DHS has moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, while PCCS
asserts that the appeal should not be dismissed. We grant DHSâ motion to dismiss.
CBCA 5064 2
Findings of Fact
On September 5, 2012, appellant entered into contract HSHQW9-13-C-0001 to provide
administrative support services to DHSâ Federal Protective Service (FPS) âin accordance
with the attached Performance Work Statement [PWS].â The PWS set forth a schedule of
services by contract line item numbers (CLINs), quantities, items, unit prices, and amounts.
The contract was for a base year, to run from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2013
(fiscal year (FY) 2013), and for as many as four option years (FYs 2014 through 2016).
On May 7, 2015, Christopher T. Flynn, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
PCCS, presented to the contracting officer a âwhite paperâ setting forth PCCSâ position
about two disputes which appeared to be developing. PCCS asserted that the contract only
required its contract employees to work a total of 1888 productive hours per month. FPS had
earlier taken the position that a higher number of hours was required. Also, there was a
disagreement as to the receptionist provided by PCCS âbeing available at all times,â and
PCCS explained its position on that issue.
On July 31, 2015, PCCS submitted to the contracting officer what it characterized as
its âNOTICE OF CONTRACT DISPUTE AND NOTICE OF WRITTEN DEMAND . . . for
the payment of money in a sum certain in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation
[FAR] Subpart 52.233-1, âDisputes.ââ The letter stated:
The total amount of the claim is [sic] ranges from $5000 to $25,000 per
contract year or to $200,000 if the disputed contract is terminated by the
Government. This claim is based on the current best available estimate as
described in the attached Basis of PCCS Claim for Adjustment and may be
revised. The Pro-forma Impact on Price per Contract Interpretation is attached
for illustrative purposes as the CO [contracting officer] has stated Example 3
is the preference of the Government. PCCS is requesting a final decision on
its claim, or written notice of when a decision will be made, within 60-days.
PCCS attached âEnclosure 1: Basis of PCCS Claim for Adjustmentâ to its July 31,
2015, submission. Enclosure 1 set forth the applicable contract period by year, beginning
with the base year, and then proceeded to list the âclaimsâ PCCS associated with each period.
For option year one, in enclosure one, appellant states its claims as:
Claim 1: Health & Welfare increase of $0.10 was applied to 9440 hours (5
positions at 1888 hrs each) in lieu of 10400 hours of PCCS employee paid
hours. FOY [for option year] 1 $96 cumulative contract not computed.
CBCA 5064 3
Claim 2: Extraordinary legal costs pertaining to Governmentâs direction to take
adverse action of PCCS employee while employee with a disability was on
disability leave. $3500
For option year two, in enclosure one, appellant states its claims as:
Claim 1: Health & Welfare increase of $0.21 was applied to 9440 hours (5
positions at 1888 hrs each) in lieu of 10400 hours of PCCS employee paid
hours. FOY 1 $297.64 cumulative contract not computed.
Claim 2: Contract Year Amount was computed based on 1888 hours not 1896
hours as prescribed on Enclosure 4 Worksheet Employees Tab and then
utilized in computation on the Pricing Worksheet tab.