Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of -- )

)

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 58175

)

Under Contract No. DAAA09-02-D-0007 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Jason N. Workmaster, Esq.

Alejandro L. Sarria, Esq.

Patrick J. Stanton, Esq.

Covington & Burling LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq.

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq.

Senior Trial Attorney

Defense Contract Management Agency

Carson, CA

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SCOTT

ON TIMELINESS OF APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

In its 13 May 2015 decision in the subject appeal, Kellogg Brown & Root

Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 58175, 15-1BCAii35,988, the Board denied appellant's

(sometimes KBR) motion for summary judgment that the government's claim was

barred by the Contract Disputes Act's six-year statute of limitations, 41 U.S.C.

§ 7103(a)(4)(A), and granted the government's cross-motion for summary judgment

that it was not time-barred. KBR moved for reconsideration by email on 26 June

2015. That day the Board issued an Order that the reconsideration motion appeared to

be untimely under Board Rule 20. The Order granted the parties until 27 July 2015 to

submit any evidence believed to affect the computation of the reconsideration motion

time period or any brief on the issue. KBR responded to the Order and has moved for

a Board determination that its reconsideration motion was timely filed. The Board did

not receive a response from the government.

For the reasons stated below, we deny KBR's motion for a ruling that its

reconsideration motion was timely and we dismiss its reconsideration motion as

untimely.

BACKGROUND

On 14 May 2015 the Board's Recorder sent a copy of the 13 May 2015 decision

in question to the parties' counsel of record by certified mail, receipt requested. The

certified mail receipt for the copy of the Board's decision sent to government counsel

was signed on 19 May 2015. The Board received the receipt on 26 May 2015. The

certified mail receipt for the copy of the Board's decision sent to KBR's counsel of

record, who represented KBR throughout the summary judgment motions period, was

signed on 23 May 2015. The Board received the receipt on 8 June 2015.

By Order dated 18 May 2015 the Board directed that, in view of the Board's

13 May 2015 decision, the parties were to file a proposed schedule for further

proceedings in this appeal. KBR' s counsel apparently did not receive this Order until

27 May 2015 (see below).

On 27 May 2015, one of the counsel then representing KBR, Margaret Brenner,

Esq., of Schirrmeister Diaz-Arrastia Brem LLP (Schirrmeister), located in Houston,

Texas, telephoned the presiding judge's paralegal assistant. Counsel indicated that

mail delivery had been slow due to flooding in Houston. She asked for a copy of the

Board's 13 May 2015 decision and the paralegal assistant sent a copy to her that day

by email.

Current counsel for KBR filed a notice of appearance with the Board on

17 June 2015, stating that they were replacing prior counsel. As indicated above, on

26 June 2015 current counsel filed "Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration" of the

Board's 13 May 2015 decision. The same day the Board issued an Order that the

Board's record showed that KBR had received the Board's decision on 23 May 2015

and that the reconsideration motion appeared to be untimely under Board Rule 20.

KBR filed a brief dated 8 July 2015 in support of its timeliness motion. The

brief appended as Exhibit A an 8 July 2015 declaration from Mark A. Font, Esq., a

Senior Counsel at Schirrmeister, who was one ofKBR's former counsel in this appeal.

Mr. Font averred that, on 14 May 2015, he checked the Board's website to determine

whether a decision on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment had been

posted and that no decision had yet been posted (Font decl. if 3). He further averred:

4. The United States Postal Service ("USPS") has a

facility located ... about a mile and a half from the

Schirrmeister office. Despite this proximity, USPS

delivery to Schirrmeister was chronically slow and late in

the day .... Schirrmeister hired a delivery service to expedite

mail delivery. The delivery service Schirrmeister employs

is Bee-Line Delivery Service ("Bee-Line").

2

5. Monday through Friday, Bee-Line typically

picks up Schirrmeister' s mail from USPS around 7 :00 am.

At the post office, Bee-Line receives a USPS-provided bin

with Schirrmeister' s mail already contained in it. If there

is any certified or return receipt mail, there will be a rubber

banded stack of green cards (receipts), which the USPS has

already removed from the corresponding envelope or

package, in the bin. Bee-Line signs the receipts and leaves

them at the post office. Bee-Line relies on the USPS to

have included in the bin the mail that corresponds to the

receipts. Bee-Line then delivers the same bin to

Schirrmeister's office door prior to 8:00 am. On

Saturdays, Bee-Line typically picks up the mail from

USPS between 10 :00 and 11 :00 am and then delivers the

bin to Schirrmeister's front door, just as occurs during the

week. Once Schirrmeister receives the bin, the firm's legal

assistant reviews and date stamps the mail to record the

date of receipt.

6. On Saturday May 23, 2015, Bee-Line employee

Guillermo Fernandez ("Fernandez") conducted a regular

pick-up from the USPS. At this pick-up, Fernandez signed

the green card which the ASBCA indicates was attached to

an envelope containing the ASBCA's May 13, 2015,

opinion (the "May 13 Opinion"). Fernandez then delivered

and left the bin at Schirrmeister' s office. Based upon

Schirrmeister' s consistent practice of date stamping mail to

record receipt, I am confident that the bin left at

Schirrmeister's office on May 23, 2015, did not include the

envelope containing the May 13 Opinion.

7. The next day Schirrmeister received mail was

Wednesday, May 27, 2015. May 24, 2015, was a Sunday,

and there was no mail delivery. Monday, May 25, 2015,

was Memorial Day, and again no mail was delivered.

Then, on the evening of May 25 and continuing into

May 26, Houston experience[ d] torrential rainfall, resulting

in mass flooding that shut down much of the city,

including Schirrmeister's offices. Accordingly the firm

did not receive mail on Tuesday May 26, 2015.

3

8. On May 27, 2015, the mail received in the

May 23, 2015 USPS bin and the mail received in the

May 27, 2015 USPS bin was distributed. Included in this

mail was the Board's May 18, 2015 Order. This was the

first notice that the firm had that the Board had issued the

May 13 Opinion. I immediately checked the ASBCA

website, and the opinion was still not published or

available on the ASBCA website. A review of the firm's

mail also found no indication that the May 13 Opinion had

been delivered to Schirrmeister. My colleague,

Ms. Margaret Brenner, then called the Board to inquire as

to the status of the May 13 Opinion and, later that day, was

provided an electronic copy by Grace Feola.

9. Based upon Schirrmeister' s consistent practice

of date stamping mail to record receipt, I am confident that

it was not until June 2, 2015, that Schirrmeister received a

USPS bin containing the hard copy of the May 13 Opinion.

This copy was date stamped by the firm's legal assistant on

that day.

We find Mr. Font's declaration to be credible despite that it suffers to some

extent from hearsay. KBR did not submit an affidavit or declaration from the

Bee-Line employee, Mr. Fernandez, who signed the certified receipt on 23 May 2015

(Font decl. ~ 6), or from its former counsel's legal assistant, who is said to review and

date stamp counsel's mail to record the date of receipt (id.~ 5); or from whoever

reviewed counsel's mail, apparently on 27 May 2015, to ascertain whether the Board's

13 May 2015 decision had been delivered to the firm (id. ~ 8); or from anyone at the

local USPS station.

KBR speculates that:

8. The delay in delivering to Schirrmeister's offices

the copy of the May 13 Opinion that the Board had sent via

certified mail was caused by the failure of the USPS to

place the envelope containing the May 13 Opinion in a bin

for delivery to Schirrmeister prior to June 2, 2015. The

USPS' s delay in performing this task also is evidenced by

the fact that the Board did not receive back the signed

certified mail receipt for the envelope containing the

May 13 Opinion until June 8, 2015.

(App. mot. at 2-3)

4

DISCUSSION

Board Rule 20 (formerly Board Rule 29, revised 21 July 2014) provides that a

motion for reconsideration "must be filed within 30 days from the date of the receipt

of a copy of the decision of the Board by the party filing the motion" and that

extensions of the period of time to file a motion "will not be granted," although

extensions to file a memorandum in support of a "timely-filed motion" may be

granted. Based upon the 23 May 2015 receipt date shown on the certified receipt

signed by an employee of the delivery service retained by appellant's then counsel of

record, any motion for reconsideration by appellant of the Board's 13 May 2015

decision was due to be filed by 22 June 2015. However, appellant did not file its

motion for reconsideration until 26 June 2015, four days later.

Appellant contends that the Board should find that KBR, through its former

counsel, did not receive the Board's 13 May 2015 decision on 23 May 2015, despite

the receipt signed by the delivery service's representative on that date. Rather, the

Board should find that KBR first received the decision on 27 May 2015, when its

counsel asked the Board's paralegal assistant for a copy. If that were the receipt date,

any reconsideration motion would be due by 26 June 2015 and KBR' s reconsideration

motion, filed that day, would be timely. Appellant did not cite to any law in support of

its timeliness motion.

In fact, the established law does not support appellant. The 30-day time limit is

strictly construed. Bruce E. Zoeller, ASBCA No. 56578, 14-1 BCA ii 35,480 (emailed

reconsideration motion 32 minutes late was untimely; appellant did not take advantage

of full filing period available and failed to file its motion on time through no fault of

the Board); AEC Corporation, Inc., ASBCA No. 42920, 03-1 BCA ii 32,139 (motion

filed a day late despite appellant's counsel's timely delivery to courier and courier's

alleged inability to gain access to Board building on due date was untimely);

Ship Analytics International, Inc., ASBCA No. 50914, 01-1 BCA ii 31,394 (Navy

received Board's decision when agency office authorized to receive mail on behalf of

agency received decision in ordinary course of business, not when it was later received

by counsel; government's reconsideration motion filed a day late was untimely); and

Bio-Temp Scientific, Inc., ASBCA No. 41388, 95-2 BCA ii 27,808 at 138,651

(appellant's reconsideration motion filed a day late was "plainly untimely," even if

decision did not come to counsel's attention until after it was delivered to location

designated by him for receipt of mail, because he was temporarily residing at his

parents' residence and using it as a business address; "it is 'receipt,' as opposed to

'notice,' that counts.").

Appellant's counsel's law firm elected to use a service to pick up its mail from

the nearby local USPS branch and deliver the mail to its office. Appellant

5

acknowledges that an employee of the service signed the USPS certified receipt that

the Board's decision was received on 23 May 2015. Appellant appears to contend that

the employee relied entirely upon USPS to place the document to which the receipt

pertained in the mail bin he was to deliver to the law firm, and that he did not check to

verify that the document for which he signed a receipt was actually in the bin. Such a

procedure frustrates the entire purpose of the certified receipt process, upon which the

Board typically relies. The signed receipt is the best evidence of receipt. See Ship

Analytics, 01-1BCAiJ31,394 at 155,101. Appellant bears responsibility for the flaws

in its system that ensued.

Indeed, despite the facts that, on 27 May 2015, appellant's counsel learned that

the Board had issued a decision 14 days earlier and counsel received a copy by email,

and on 2 June 2015, counsel apparently received a copy from its delivery service,

including the Board's cover letter showing that the decision had been sent by certified

mail on 14 May 2015, there is no evidence that counsel made any inquiry of USPS or

its delivery service as to when the certified receipt had been signed or the location of

the decision to which the receipt had been appended. Instead, appellant assumed a risk

and waited to file its motion until 26 June 2015, which was too late.

DECISION

We deny appellant's timeliness motion and dismiss its motion for

reconsideration as untimely.

Dated: 18 August 2015

1\dministrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur I concur

~~~i~~z:-----··-·· RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals of Contract Appeals

6

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of

the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58175, Appeal

of Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the

Board's Charter.

Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals

7