TIYA Support Services
ASBCA No. 62648, 62649, 62650, 62850
| A.S.B.C.A. | Jul 22, 2021Background
- TIYA Support Services sought $1,594,412.44 in award fees for work from 2015–2018; the government issued a March 8, 2021 contracting officer final decision demanding repayment of $5,571,282 identified by DCAA audits.
- TIYA appealed the denial of its REAs (ASBCA Nos. 62648, 62649, 62650) and separately appealed the government’s repayment COFD (ASBCA No. 62850); the Board later consolidated and stayed the matters.
- DCAA audits (multiple years) found accounting-system noncompliances and questioned direct-cost classifications (G&A vs. direct) and subcontractor invoicing related to award-fee pass-throughs.
- The U.S. Attorney’s Office (Middle District of Georgia) opened a civil/criminal fraud investigation under the False Claims Act into the same G&A classification and award-fee sharing issues; DOJ requested a stay to avoid prejudice to the investigation.
- The Board applied its stay/suspension framework (Board Rule 18 and Board precedent), analyzed four stay factors (overlap of facts/witnesses, risk to investigation, prejudice to contractor, and requested duration), and granted a six‑month stay through September 7, 2021; the February 1, 2022 hearing was cancelled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the facts, issues, and witnesses in the ASBCA appeals and the DOJ fraud investigation substantially overlap | TIYA: REAs concern entitlement to award fees; investigation focuses on different mischarging theories, so overlap is minimal | Gov: The award‑fee entitlement turns on the same questioned costs, audits, witnesses and documents that DOJ is investigating | Held: Substantial overlap exists; issues/witnesses are "wholly overlapping" and favor a stay |
| Whether proceeding with the ASBCA appeals would compromise the DOJ investigation | TIYA: Little left to investigate; DCAA audit competence questioned; discovery in ASBCA would be routine fact‑finding | Gov: Civil discovery at ASBCA would reveal evidence and allow broader access to materials that could compromise FCA tools and the criminal investigation | Held: Proceeding would risk compromising the investigation and prejudice the government; weighs for a stay |
| Whether a stay would unfairly prejudice TIYA (harm to non‑moving party) | TIYA: Stay frustrates CDA rights to expeditious resolution and delays payment it seeks | Gov: Amounts at issue are small relative to the multi‑hundred‑million dollar contract; judicial efficiency and resource conservation favor staying | Held: Balance of harms favors government; stay won't unduly prejudice TIYA given circumstances |
| Whether the requested six‑month stay is reasonable | TIYA: Six months is per se unreasonable and unsupported | Gov/DOJ: Six months is a reasonable, targeted period and DOJ detailed a plan and timeline | Held: Six months is reasonable here (consistent with prior Board practice); stay granted through Sept. 7, 2021 |
Key Cases Cited
- No authorities with official reporter (Bluebook) citations were relied upon in this opinion; the Board primarily cited prior ASBCA/BCA decisions and its own stay precedent reported in BCA ¶ reporters.