Agency Rescinded Challenged CPARS. Why Didn’t the Rescission Moot the Contractor’s Appeal?

The contractor filed a claim challenging its CPARS rating. The government withdrew the challenged ratings. The government argued this mooted the appeal. The board disagreed. In withdrawing the ratings, the government said it still “stood by the factual substance” of the ratings. The reservation of the “factual substance” left an extant legal issue.

Appeal of Crowley Government Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 63531

• Rescission of CPARS – The contractor filed a claim challenging CPARS ratings. The agency issued a final decision, rescinding the CPARS. Nevertheless, the final decision stated the agency “stood by the factual substance of the CPARS ratings.” The contractor appealed the final decision.
• Appeal Wasn’t Moot – The government moved to dismiss the appeal. The government argued that rescission of the ratings had mooted the appeal. But the board found the appeal was not moot. While the government had withdrawn the final decision, it had reserved the “factual substance” of the CPARS ratings. That reservation was the subject of the appeal. There was still an issue as to whether the reservation was consistent with the FAR or prejudicial to the contractor.

The appellant is represented by James Y. Boland and Caleb E. McCallum of Venable LLP. The government is represented by Craig D. Jensen, James L. Johnson, Donald J. Thornley, and Patrick M. Mayette of the Navy.

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/ASBCA-Crowley-Government-Services-Inc.-6.7.23-NonDispDecision.pdf” title=”ASBCA -Crowley Government Services, Inc. 6.7.23 NonDispDecision”]