DynCorp International, LLC ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
    Appeal of --                                )
    )
    DynCorp International, LLC                  )      ASBCA No. 62227
    )
    Under Contract No. FA8617-17-C-6210         )
    APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                     Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq.
    Erin L. Felix, Esq.
    Polsinelli PC
    Washington, DC
    APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                    Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.
    Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney
    Erika L. Whelan Retta, Esq.
    Trial Attorney
    OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK GRANTING THE
    GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING APPELLANT’S
    MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS
    This appeal has challenged a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting
    System (CPARS) evaluation. Appellant, DynCorp International, LLC (DynCorp), has
    sought a judgment ordering the correction of two marginal CPARS ratings issued as
    part of an evaluation by the United States Air Force Materiel Command (government)
    for the contract referenced above. DynCorp claimed the ratings were inaccurate and
    unfair. The government seeks dismissal of the appeal as moot. It explains that the
    contracting officer has recently withdrawn the entire CPARS evaluation for review and
    to make any appropriate changes, taking into account DynCorp’s contentions. Thus,
    the government says it has already satisfied DynCorp’s demands and there is nothing
    more for the Board to do.
    DynCorp responds to the government’s request with its own motion. It does
    not deny that the government has withdrawn the evaluation or that the appeal is moot.
    Indeed, it says it supports the steps the government intends to take. But, instead of
    dismissing the appeal DynCorp thinks the Board should retain jurisdiction and suspend
    the proceeding until the government issues a revised evaluation. It complains about
    the prejudice it might suffer should the government ultimately issue a second set of
    marginal ratings. DynCorp says that it would have to maneuver through the contract
    claim process again and file a new appeal with its associated pleading procedures. All
    the while the new, ostensibly objectionable marginal ratings would influence agency
    past performance reviews of DynCorp.
    Generally, a claim must be dismissed as moot when the issues presented are no
    longer live. Rothe Dev. Corp. v. Dep’t of Defense, 
    413 F.3d 1327
    , 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
    So, when it develops during litigation that the relief sought has been granted, or the
    matters in controversy are no longer at issue, the case is moot and should be dismissed
    for lack of jurisdiction. See Chapman Law Firm Co. v. Greenleaf Constr. Co., 
    490 F.3d 934
    , 939 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Holstein v. City of Chicago, 
    29 F.3d 1145
    , 1147 (7th Cir.
    1994), cited in Rothe Dev. 
    Corp., 413 F.3d at 1331
    . This dispute is no longer live given
    that the government has withdrawn the CPARS evaluation and is reconsidering it in light
    of DynCorp’s assertions. * DynCorp does not suggest that it seeks any other relief from
    the Board. DynCorp’s request that we retain the appeal in a suspended status anyway
    because it might disagree with a yet to be issued new evaluation reflects a concern
    premised upon mere speculation. It is not grounded in a live dispute between the parties
    that is properly before the Board. Because we lack jurisdiction over this moot appeal, we
    are required to dismiss it. See Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 
    893 F.2d 324
    , 327
    (Fed. Cir. 1989).
    Appellant’s motion to suspend proceedings is denied. The government’s
    motion to dismiss is granted.
    Dated: August 28, 2020
    MARK A. MELNICK
    Administrative Judge
    Armed Services Board
    of Contract Appeals
    (Signatures continued)
    *   DynCorp does not argue that the “voluntary cessation” exception to the mootness
    doctrine applies here. We see no reason to conclude it should, given the
    presumption that the government will carry out its actions in good faith.
    See 
    Chapman, 490 F.3d at 940
    .
    2
    I concur                                        I concur
    RICHARD SHACKLEFORD                             J. REID PROUTY
    Administrative Judge                            Administrative Judge
    Acting Chairman                                 Vice Chairman
    Armed Services Board                            Armed Services Board
    of Contract Appeals                             of Contract Appeals
    I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the
    Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62227, Appeal of
    DynCorp International, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.
    Dated: August 28, 2020
    PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS
    Recorder, Armed Services
    Board of Contract Appeals
    3