PX Media | Shutterstock

Claim that the government acted in bad faith by failing to exercise options under the claimant’s contract is denied. The claimant alleged that the government declined  to exercise her contract’s options in retaliation for her exposure of government misconduct. It was not clear she had actually exposed misconduct. And, in any event, it was clear to the board the government had really declined to exercise the options because the claimant had a terrible relationship with her supervisors and co-workers, she refused to perform work assigned to her, and she had paranoid delusions about a government conspiracy against her.

Catherine Kurkjian worked as part time contractor for the Army’s Natick Laboratories. She was a technical writer who made technical food specifications suitable for government procurement documents. Kurkjian’s contract with the Army had a one year base period and three one-year options.

For most of the base year of her contract, Kurkjian’s performance was unremarkable. But at the end of base year, Kurkjian’s behavior became erratic. Her relationship with her supervisors and co-workers soured. She became paranoid, telling co-workers that she was being persecuted and that there was a conspiracy against her. She overreacted to straightforward directives to perform work. She intimated that Natick Labs may have been involved in the deaths of two employees.

As a result of Kurkjian’s behavior, the Army decided not to exercise the options on her contract. In fact, the agency told her stop performance, noting that the contract was already substantially complete. The Army offered to pay Kurkjian the remaining funds—about $1700—due on the contract.

Years after she had stopped working for the Army, Kurkjian submitted a 137 page claim that alleged the government had a “deliberate and malicious plan for her.” As the ASBCA noted, almost every page of the claim alleged government bad faith actions, including tampering with her email, making threats against her, and having plans to get her out of her job. Kurkjian sought to recover for the three un-exercised option years as well as punitive damages. The Army denied the claim, and Kurkjian appealed to the ASBCA.

Kurkjian argued on appeal that the Army’s decision to consider her contract complete and take her government-issued laptop was tantamount to a termination of her contract. The board rejected this argument, finding that she had completed 95 percent of the work under the contract, and the government had paid her the remaining $1700 balance for the 5 percent of the work she didn’t perform. The board found that the government had fulfilled all its material obligations to Kurkjian under the base year of the contract.

Kurkjian also claimed that the government acted in bad faith when it declined to exercise the options under her contract. She claimed that the failure to exercise was in retaliation against her for being a whistleblower. Despite Kurkjian’s allegations, the board saw no evidence or a retaliatory intent. Indeed, there was no real evidence that Kurkjian had even exposed government wrongdoing. Rather, the government declined to exercise the options due Kurkjian’s increasingly difficult and erratic behavior.

Catherine Kurkjian is represented by Timothy M. Burke of the Law Office of Timothy M. Burke. The government is represented by Scott N. Flesch and Dana J. Chase of the U.S. Army.