CBCA 2839

Xerox Corporation

Sep 11, 2014Judge VergilioDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Not published in the listingDismissed on other grounds

Key Facts

Appellant
Xerox Corporation
Respondent agency
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Judge
Vergilio
Case number
CBCA 2839
Decided
Sep 11, 2014The decision states Sep 11, 2014 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
Dismissed on other grounds
The Board DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this appeal.
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

Payment and interest

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
Wilbert Jones
Office of Procurement Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security
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 decision2 pages, 1,462 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Sep 11, 2014 on its own faceRespondent DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

Authorities cited

1 authority read from this decision's own text, grouped by the body of law each comes from. Select one to read it at its publisher.

Contract Disputes Act1

Read from the decision's own words with no model involved. Statutes, regulations, the acts these forums argue by name, and cases at the board, this office or the Comptroller General are recognized; any other citation form is left out rather than guessed at, so this is a floor on what the decision cites.

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: September 11, 2014

CBCA 2839

XEROX CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

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.

Wilbert Jones, Office of Procurement Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

VERGILIO, Board Judge.

Order

On May 14, 2012, the Board received from Xerox Corporation (contractor) a notice of appeal concerning deemed denials of claims totaling $141,282.64 relating to twelve unpaid invoices. The contractor claims entitlement to payment for delivery and performance pursuant to purchase orders with the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (the agency) issued under various contracts. Having received neither payment nor a decision by the contracting officer on its claims, the contractor pursues relief at this Board pursuant to statute. 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012).

During an initial telephone conference (before the submission of the appeal file, complaint, or answer), the parties agreed to stay formal proceedings as they engaged in a reconciliation process reviewing the invoices and explored resolution. On September 10, 2014, the Board received a request for a dismissal with prejudice; the parties have reconciled all invoices and payment has been made.

The Board DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this appeal.

______________________________

JOSEPH A. VERGILIO

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Xerox Corporation, CBCA 2839. 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

Same Topic

Same Year

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.