BLR Group of America, Inc. v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 9

BLR Group alleges Air Force prepared and disseminated an unfair CPAR after terminating the contract for convenience on Sept. 26, 2006.
CPAR included unfavorable ratings and narrative; plaintiff commented on Jan. 12, 2007 regarding bias and requested reevaluation.
Reviewing Official approved the CPAR and disseminated it on Feb. 7, 2007, after meetings discussions.
Plaintiff filed Aug. 1, 2007, seeking court-directed revision of the CPAR and/or PPIRS version; court had limited jurisdiction over the first claim.
In 2010, the court concluded the January 12, 2007 response could not be a CDA claim and denied reconsideration; subsequent arguments about a January 23, 2007 email were rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can the JAN 12, 2007 response be a CDA claim?	BLR contends it falls within CDA claim definition.	Kreke’s role as Assessing Official meant it was a performance evaluation, not a CDA claim.	Not a CDA claim; no contracting officer decision.
Does the Jan. 23, 2007 email constitute a CDA claim?	Counsel’s email seeks CDA relief outside FAR procedures.	Message was part of FAR evaluation context and not a CDA claim.	Not a CDA claim; insufficient notice of a CDA claim.

Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (analyze whether a contractor submission constitutes a CDA claim by considering intent and context)
Transam. Ins. Corp. v. United States, 973 F.2d 1572 (Fed.Cir. 1992) (intent governs whether a submission is a CDA claim)
Contract Cleaning Maint, Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 586 (Fed.Cir. 1987) (no formal magic words are required; a clear, unequivocal notice suffices)
James M. Ellett Constr. Co. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (final decision requirement can be implied from contractor submissions)
Horner v. Andrzjewski, 811 F.2d 571 (Fed.Cir. 1987) (enumeration of exceptions informs interpretation of statutory provisions)