CBCA 8467

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: November 28, 2025 CBCA 8467 TEXAS INDUSTRIAL SECURITY, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Erik Hansen, President of Texas Industrial Security, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, appearing for Appellant. Anne C. McDermott, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LESTER, VERGILIO, and KULLBERG. Opinion for the Board by Board Judge LESTER. Board Judge VERGILIO dissents. LESTER, Board Judge. Appellant, Texas Industrial Security, Inc. (TIS), challenges the cancellation of its Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contract. Respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), has filed a motion asking the Board to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction both because the Board cannot grant the requested relief that TIS seeks—reinstatement of its contract—and because TIS is challenging a contract action rather than a government claim. In the alternative, GSA asks us to dismiss the appeal for failure to state a claim because it acted within its rights under the MAS contract’s cancellation provision, which allows either CBCA 8467 2 party to cancel the contract for any reason with thirty days’ written notice. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss TIS’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Background “Under MAS, [GSA] establishes long-term Government-wide contracts with commercial firms to provide government buyers with access to a wide variety of commercial supplies, services, and solutions.” Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 2.1 Since 2006, TIS has provided services to the Federal Government through a series of MAS contracts under “Schedule 085 for Law Enforcement, Security, Facility Management Systems, Fire, Rescue, Special Purpose Clothing, Marine Craft and Emergency/Disaster Response” of the MAS program. See Exhibits 1, 2. TIS’s most recent MAS contract contains the standard “Cancellation (May 2019)” clause from General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) 552.238-79 (48 CFR 552.238-79 (2019)), which is GSA’s supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), allowing either party to cancel the MAS contract with thirty days’ written notice: Either party may cancel this contract in whole or in part by providing written notice. The cancellation will take effect 30 calendar days after the other party receives the notice of cancellation. If the Contractor elects to cancel this contract, the Government will not reimburse the minimum guarantee. Exhibit 29 at 21; see Exhibit 30 at 652, 714 (most recent MAS contract extension). GSA tells us that, in 2017, the GSA contracting officer began informing TIS, through emails to the TIS sales manager who was designated as TIS’s “current authorized negotiator” (Exhibit 8 at 1), of its noncompliance with several contract clauses that require TIS accurately to report sales, to maintain accurate price lists, and to post to GSA Advantage (an on-line shopping and ordering system for government entities). See Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss at 2-3 (citing Exhibits 7, 9-19, 21-22, 25-27). GSA reports that TIS (through its current authorized negotiator) received confirmation of noncompliance by email and through contractor assessments in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2025, which, according to GSA, provided TIS with ample opportunity to reach contract compliance. Id. at 3. GSA does not believe that TIS ever remedied its deficiencies. Id. In response, TIS represents that, although it does not disagree that it may have had some accounting record-keeping 1 All exhibits referenced in this decision are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. CBCA 8467 3 difficulties in the past, it has corrected or is currently working to correct those issues. TIS reports that it was during a GSA audit in February 2025 that it first learned that GSA had identified some deficiencies in its performance, “including not having an updated price list and terms and conditions posted.” Notice of Appeal at 1; see Exhibit 26 at 177. It asserts that, in response, it hired a consultant to help it ensure future compliance with regulatory and contract requirements. See Exhibit 26 at 9.