CBCA 4952

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: September 22, 2015 CBCA 4952 KRISTIN ALLRED, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Kristin Allred, pro se, Elgin, TX. Tobias D. Hunziker, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Austin, TX, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges WALTERS, ZISCHKAU, and LESTER. LESTER, Board Judge. Respondent, the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that appellant, Kristin Allred, has not alleged any privity of contract with the Federal Government. Ms. Allred, in response, does not dispute that she has no contract with the DVA, but asks us to recaption this appeal to name Adams Communication and Engineering Technology (ACET), a government contractor that previously employed her, as the respondent in place of the DVA. Because we do not possess jurisdiction to entertain contract appeals from individuals who lack privity of contract with the Government or to entertain personnel disputes between private parties, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss. CBCA 4952 2 Background On August 28, 2015, Ms. Allred filed what she represented was an appeal of a “final decision” by a DVA employee on an issue arising under contract no. VA118-1006-0011 for National Service Desk help desk services under the Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology program. ACET is the prime contractor under that contract. Ms. Allred alleges that, until recently, she was employed by ACET. She further alleges that, on July 17, 2015, two representatives of ACET informed her in a telephone conversation that ACET was terminating her employment. She asserts that the stated reason for the termination “was that the client – Veteran’s Administration – no longer wanted [her] on the job.” Accompanying her notice of appeal, filed August 28, 2015, is a letter dated July 17, 2015, from ACET’s Director of Human Resources to Ms. Allred, stating that Ms. Allred’s “employment with ACET is terminated effective today due to client request.” Ms. Allred asks that the Board award her lost wages from the date of termination until a future date upon which she finds new employment. In response, the DVA has filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Allred’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Ms. Allred, as the former employee of a government contractor, lacks privity of contract with the DVA and, therefore, cannot seek relief before the Board.1 Discussion “The Board’s jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act” (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012), “is limited to hearing and deciding appeals by contractors of decisions issued by contracting officers on claims” by or against particular agencies of the Federal Government “under contracts for the procurement of property (other than real property in being); services; construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of real property; or disposal of personal property.” AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 389, et al., 07-1 BCA ¶ 33,505, at 166,039. Accordingly, to invoke the Board’s jurisdiction in a contract appeal under the CDA, the appellant must allege facts sufficient to show that, among other things, it is a “contractor” as that term is defined in the CDA. See 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (only a “contractor” may file an appeal of a contracting 1 In the alternative, the DVA seeks dismissal because there is no evidence that Ms. Allred submitted a claim pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101- 7109 (2012), or that a DVA contracting officer ever issued a final decision on it, necessary prerequisites to a CDA appeal. In light of our disposition of the privity issue, we need not address this alternative argument. CBCA 4952 3 officer’s decision with a board of contract appeals); Coastal Corp. v. United States, 713 F.2d 728, 730 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (the CDA “deals with contractors”) (quoting United States v. John C. Grimberg, Inc., 702 F.2d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., DOT CAB 1299, 84-2 BCA ¶ 17,309, at 86,266 (“under the Contract Disputes Act this Board only has jurisdiction over ‘contractors’”).