CBCA 1935

Habitat Concepts, Inc.

Apr 12, 2010Judge GilmoreDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Not published in the listingWithdrawn

Key Facts

Appellant
Habitat Concepts, Inc.
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Judge
Gilmore
Case number
CBCA 1935
Decided
Apr 12, 2010The decision states Apr 12, 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
Theodore P. Watson & Associates, LLC
Outcome
Withdrawn
Respondent advised that it does not object to the motion. _______________________________ 2 Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
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
Peter B. Ford
Theodore P. Watson & Associates, LLC
Denver, CO
For the respondent
Daniel B. Rosenbluth
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture
Golden, CO
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 decision2 pages, 969 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Apr 12, 2010 on its own faceRespondent DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

DISMISSED: April 12, 2010

CBCA 1935

HABITAT CONCEPTS, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondent.

Peter B. Ford of Theodore P. Watson & Associates, LLC, Denver, CO, counsel for

Appellant.

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.

Daniel B. Rosenbluth, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, Golden, CO, counsel for Respondent.

GILMORE, Board Judge.

Order

On March 19, 2010, appellant filed an appeal because the contracting officer failed to issue a final decision. Appellant requested that the dispute be resolved utilizing alternative dispute resolution procedures, specifically a binding advisory opinion. However, on April 7, 2010, appellant filed a motion to withdraw its notice of appeal, stating that the parties have entered into negotiations in an effort to resolve the dispute surrounding appellant’s claim. Respondent advised that it does not object to the motion.

_______________________________

2 CBCA 1935

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

BERYL S. GILMORE

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Habitat Concepts, Inc., CBCA 1935. 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

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.