Appeal challenging contractor’s marginal CPARS ratings is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The contractor appealed its marginal ratings alleging they were inaccurate. While the appeal was pending, the agency withdrew the CPARS and planned to issue a new evaluation. The agency asked the board to dismiss the appeal as moot. The contractor opposed dismissal arguing that it might still object to agency’s reevaluation and should not have to go through the claims process again. The ASBCA found that withdrawal the CPARS terminated the dispute. The board lacked jurisdiction over a moot controversy.
The Air Force assigned DynCorp International, LLC two marginal CPARS ratings for its performance of a contract. DynCorp appealed to the ASBCA claiming the rating were inaccurate and asking the board to correct them. While the appeal was pending, the contracting officer withdrew the CPARS evaluation for review. In light of the withdrawal, the Air Force asked the board to dismiss the appeal as moot.
DynCorp, however, opposed dismissal. Instead, DynCorp argued that the board should retain jurisdiction and suspend the proceeding until the Air Force issued a new CPARS evaluation. DynCorp alleged that it would be prejudiced by having to go through the claims process again and file a new appeal in the event it still received marginal ratings.
When matters in controversy are no longer in dispute, an appeal before the ASBCA is moot and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In this case, given the Air Force’s withdrawal of the CPARS rating, the dispute was no longer live. ASBCA therefore lacked jurisdiction. The fact that DynCorp might disagree with the agency’s yet to be issued new evaluation was not enough for the board to retain jurisdiction.
DynCorp is represented by Gregory S. Jacobs and Erin L. Felix of Polsinelli PC. The government is represented by Jeffrey P. Hildebrant and Erika L. Whelan Retta of the Air Force.ASBCA - DynCorp International