Colonna's Shipyard, Inc.
ASBCA No. 59987, 60104, 60105
A.S.B.C.A.Oct 6, 2016Background
- Colonna was awarded and completed a firm-fixed-price Navy contract (dry-docking/repair). Navy issued multiple CPARs (24 Jul 2014, 12 Mar 2015, 15 Apr 2015, and minor edits 1 Sep 2015) that Colonna contends contain numerous factual errors and procedural defects.
- Colonna repeatedly protested and submitted claims to the contracting officer (26 Mar 2015 and 13 May 2015) requesting withdrawal/correction of the CPARs and filed appeals to the ASBCA (ASBCA Nos. 59987, 60104, 60105).
- The Navy moved to dismiss or strike parts of Colonna’s consolidated first amended complaint: challenging Board jurisdiction over constitutional and constructive-debarment claims, and asserting the Board cannot grant injunctive or specific-performance relief.
- Colonna moved for partial summary judgment seeking (1) a ruling that the Board has jurisdiction and (2) an order that the Navy must issue a factually correct, non-misleading CPAR.
- The Navy opposed summary judgment with a declaration (Aaron Stallings) disputing Colonna’s factual assertions and asserting the Navy afforded Colonna opportunities to comment and that some CPAR edits were software-limited.
- The Board: (a) retained jurisdiction over CPAR-related contract claims (counts 2–4) but struck/denied requests seeking injunctive/specific-performance relief (counts 2–5 in part; count 5 dismissed), (b) dismissed count 1 (constitutional and constructive-debarment claims) for lack of Board jurisdiction, and (c) denied Colonna’s partial summary judgment due to disputed material facts and lack of evidentiary support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ASBCA has CDA jurisdiction to review Colonna's CPAR challenge | Colonna: CPAR challenge relates to contract performance and falls within CDA jurisdiction (cites FAR/contract procedures) | Navy: Board lacks power to grant requested injunctive/specific-performance relief; jurisdiction limited | Held: Board has CDA jurisdiction over CPAR-related contract claims (counts 2–4) under Todd Construction |
| Whether the Board may order specific performance or grant injunctive relief (vacatur or reissuance of CPAR) | Colonna: Seeks correction of inaccurate CPARs (claims framed as contract-based) but disavows requesting injunction | Navy: Such injunctive/specific-performance relief is beyond Board's remedial authority | Held: Request for injunctive/specific-performance relief stricken/in part dismissed; Board removed language seeking that the CO "be ordered to" reissue CPARs; count 5 (broad striking of all CPAR info) dismissed |
| Whether constitutional due-process and constructive-debarment claims are reviewable by the Board (count 1) | Colonna: Argues procedural deficiencies in CPAR implicate due process protections and debarment concerns; cites district-court due-process precedents | Navy: Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate standalone constitutional or constructive-debarment claims | Held: Count 1 dismissed for lack of Board jurisdiction (constitutional and constructive-debarment claims not cognizable here) |
| Whether Colonna's EAJA fee claim (count 6) was ripe | Colonna: Sought EAJA fees in complaint | Navy: EAJA claim premature before administrative disposition | Held: Board previously dismissed EAJA request as premature (order 22 Feb 2016); Navy's motion on EAJA rendered moot |
| Whether partial summary judgment should be entered that Navy must issue a factually correct, non-misleading CPAR | Colonna: Argues procedural errors and factual inaccuracies; asks for declaratory relief that Navy must undertake corrective efforts | Navy: Disputes material facts and presents declaration showing opportunity to comment, accurate cost/dates, and software limits; evidentiary disputes exist | Held: Denied — genuine disputes of material fact and Colonna failed to support its motion with record evidence; jurisdictional SJ issue moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Todd Construction, L.P. v. United States, 656 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (performance-evaluation disputes can fall within CDA jurisdiction if related to contract performance)
- Applied Cos. v. United States, 144 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (CDA jurisdiction exists when claim "relates to" government contract performance)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard—courts assume complaint facts true for motion-to-dismiss context)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary-judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (definition of "material" fact and standard for genuine dispute in summary judgment)