CBCA 1873

Xerox Corporation

Apr 29, 2010Judge HyattDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Not published in the listingSettled

Key Facts

Appellant
Xerox Corporation
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Judge
Hyatt
Case number
CBCA 1873
Decided
Apr 29, 2010The decision states Apr 29, 2010 on its own face, which agrees with the listing.
Decision type
Not published in the listingThe Board's year tables for 2007 through 2014 carry no Type column, so no disposition was published for this decision. It is not missing data and nothing is inferred from the document.
Law firm for the appellant
Offit Kurman, P.A.
Outcome
Settled
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Read from the shouted disposition line the Board prints above this decision's own date, and quoted from its operative sentence above. No model is involved.

Topics

The topic rules ran over this decision's own words and none of them matched.

Topics are derived from each decision's own text by keyword rules, not a classification by the Board. A decision matching several topics carries all of them, so topic counts sum above the number of decisions.

Appearances

For the appellant
Donald J. Walsh
Offit Kurman, P.A.
Owings Mills, MD
For the respondent
Cheryl S. Mpande
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services
Washington, DC
Decision PDF (cbca.gov) Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act casesThe Board's year listing this row was read fromThe decision document is hosted by the Board itself, so it is an official copy, and the Board's own Contract Disputes Act case listing is the citable source. The topics, the disposition and the appearances above are read deterministically from the decision's own words; no model is involved.

Research This Decision

Create a free account to open this decision in the CBCA workspace: a grounded decision brief drafted from the Board's own words, the Insights dashboard over the whole corpus, and the filtered browser.

CBCA Decision Brief

A Workflows Hub brief on this decision, drafted from the captured text with every quote and authority checked against it.

Insights

Who prevails before the Board, by topic and by judge, with every denominator visible: merits rulings, not decisions.

Browse with Filters

The whole corpus by year, decision type, topic, judge and disposition, searchable across the decisions' own text.

Full Decision

Full text of the decision1 pages, 1,025 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Apr 29, 2010 on its own faceRespondent DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: April 29, 2010

CBCA 1873

XEROX CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent.

The case caption as the decision prints it. Every word is kept; the rule the Board draws around it is not text, so it is not repeated here.

Donald J. Walsh of Offit Kurman, P.A., Owings Mills, MD, counsel for Appellant.

Cheryl S. Mpande, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

HYATT, Board Judge.

Order

This appeal arises from contract number GS 25F 0062L, which was awarded to appellant, Xerox Corporation, by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to sell, lease, and maintain various duplicating machines and to provide supplies and services to DHHS. Xerox appealed the deemed denials of its claims for payment of invoices when due. The appeal was docketed by the Board on January 28, 2010. On April 27, 2010, the parties filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, stating that they have settled the claims which gave rise to this dispute. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

CATHERINE B. HYATT

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Xerox Corporation, CBCA 1873. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the Board wrote them. What the page shows and the text does not repeat is the pagination furniture: the page numbers and the rules the Board draws around its caption and under its signatures. The signatures are set back into the columns the Board prints them in, each judge under the name he or she signed, and the typed copy of that name the page carries beneath each signature is not repeated.

Related Decisions

Same Judge

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.